How much power did medieval preists have

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I want info of how much power medieval preists had.

-- Clayton Flippance (flippance@bmts.com), December 26, 2000

Answers

Dear Sir,
Catholic priests always had only such power as the Holy Ghost can bestow upon them. Holy Orders is a sacrament. Priests give the faithful access to other sacraments, such as reconciliation (Penance), Baptism, the Eucharist, etc.

Power from the office, in the form of worldly advantage, is not imparted by Holy Orders. Whether medieval priests exercised worldly power or not, they did not receive it from the Catholic Church. Those medieval clerics who came into worldly power did it through political or social means which are at variance and contrary to the Evangelical Counsels and/or Holy Orders.

The ordinary difficulties of all Christians, including priests, attack us through the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. Sin is a consequence of following these three avenues in illicit pursuits.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 26, 2000.


OTOH, the priest was likely to be one of the *few* educated, literate people in any small town, so they would be good sources for advice, reading of letters, etc. That would be a sort of "power" too, I suppose.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 26, 2000.


Jesus Christ! How much TV have you watched about the Catholic Priests? You are mostly pagan. Research your history. My question is, why do you continue to carry around those statues, when God said to lay down our idols? Oh Hell no, you Catholics continue to mount those Saints from this and that, Take a second look. On bended knee.

-- Bended Knee (from@sinner.com), December 26, 2000.

Bended knee or not,
Your spirit is proud, you don't bend to a Church you know was founded by the Son of God.

What does it matter; a plaster statue and a simple faith? God does not require a certificate from your Sunday school.

You are witnessing a Church that withstood the Caesars, deadly plagues and ungodly armies. It stands for Jesus Christ entering a 3rd millennium. Open your eyes! See the power of the Holy Spirit working always in the holy Catholic Church, as was promised her by the Lord. Look at her again, and cast off your bigotry; save yourself-- on bended knee!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 30, 2000.


The only true church is the Church made up of the body of all true believers; not a physical four walled church as put forth by Rome. Peter never claimed to be the leader of a church , was married and furthermore was reprimanded by Paul for reverting to the Law (Galatians).

-- Desmond Smith (dsmith@voyager.com), December 31, 2000.


Dear Mr. Smith,
Do not fool yourself that you have any intuition of the truth. The Church is in existence by the grace of its founder Jesus Christ. You may not concede that truth, but it's the truth nevertheless. Why do you raise these insignificant objections? ''Four walls'' is hardly what the Holy Catholic Church is or ever has been. The Lord God of Hosts dwelt among His people in a tent for 40 years; I hope you don't object.

An Apostle is ''sent'' by the Master, as Peter was. He left his wife behind to follow the Lord. That doesn't take away from his mission one iota. He did not have to leave Desmond any notice of the appointment, nor anyone else. The fact Paul upbraided him in a council is irrelevant to the fact Our Lord founded the Church upon him. The Pope is His Vicar on earth, and the Holy Spirit indwells the Church. There is no ''body of true believers.'' The Body of Christ in this world as well as in the Church Triumphant (in glory) is made up of the faithful; all being members by Baptism. You are a member if you are duly baptised; however, you have abandoned the mother Church. Just reading the Bible is not being a member of the True Church. The Devil can quote Scripture.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 31, 2000.


Dear Mr.Bended Knee,

Please look up the definition of Pagan, Idolatry and Saint. Then read the Holy Bible, to discover how much your statement offends the Lord Our God. I recommend also, that you have a quick read through some important segments of the Catechism - it has an index for your quick reference. Finally, I suggest you stop watching television for a while. Maybe you will realise that Satan is real, and one of his favorite modes of communication these days is the television. Take away TV and tell me what you would do with your spare time (hint Bible, catechism for a start).

Oh, also, you may want to carry around some Holy Water, to ward off the devil, he has you in his grasp. Please start to pray.

Here is what Father John Corapi says concerning the "Father of all lies" in today's world:

The Devil "is most powerful and untiringly active working through those who imagine themselves to be above the church's teaching authority [this is you Mr. Bended Knee]. Humility leads to obedience, which leads to life. Pride leads to disobedience, which leads to death. This is the lesson of the book of Genesis. It is the lesson of the cross.

Go to the Cross my Brother, it alone can save you!!

Peace Be With You!!

Tyler

-- Tyler Daniel (trinityone@sympatico.ca), January 05, 2001.


Dear Mr Chavez,

Thank your reply to my posting. My statement was too brief and upon rereading seems possibly antagonistic which has obviously led you to some incorrect assumptions for which I am mostly to blame. To clarify matters somewhat, I do not concede for one moment that our Lord founded the church upon Peter but rather upon what Peter had said. As you know this contoversial statement by Catholics is open to different Christian interpretation just as my interpretation is different to yours. I base my assumption on other scriptures as well as the fact that Peter never subsequently claimed to be the leader of the 'Church'or any church for that matter.

What is of more importance however is that one has been 'born again' as in John 3:3 and has received the Holy Spirit. Religious dogma and different interpretations of scripture are at the end of the day irrelevant to this basic truth.

The fact that you and millions of other Catholics place membership in the Roman Catholic church as a prerequisite to salvation, is something that many Christians find at odds with their interpretation of the Bible. The devil works in many ways and surely one of his most used tactics is the one of division; i.e. the division amongst us Christians. I believe that religious dogma is the work of satan. I would not for one moment assume that Catholics aren't saved because of their (what appears to non Catholics) idolatry among other things. What is of vital importance surely is that we repent of our sins to God,(not another human being), confess the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in our hearts that He died on the cross for us and that God raised Him from the dead, Romans 10:9. By doing this we are born again. Not (as I and millions of others see it) participation in a church or religion of any creed or any acts of goodness, kindness etc. 'For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.' Eph. 2:8.

I hope you do not find this antagonistic in any way, but if you do then I hope that the Lord Jesus Christ will help you to understand what I am trying to get across (somewhat ineptly, perhaps).

-- Desmond Smith (dsmith@voyager.com), January 06, 2001.


Desmond, what does it matter if your words were antagonistic, or if you were brief? You stated three things which were simply in error.

1) The only true Church, etc.,-- is in error. 2) Peter never claimed to be leader of a church. Error #2. 3) Peter was reprimanded by Paul for reverting to the Law. True enough, but your erroneous conclusions about this case are pointless.

1) The only True Church is the one Church founded by Christ. In historical fact, only one was-- the Catholic Church of the Roman era, in which all authority came down from the holy Apostles. Peter was in no uncertain terms the only apostle appointed as Shepherd by Christ; that is, ''leader'' of the Church. (John 21, 15-17.) Afterward Peter became the bishop of Rome. Rome is to the present the See of Saint Peter, where the successors of Peter are bishops,--AKA''Popes.''

2) ''Peter never claimed,'' --? That means what? Did Judas claim to be a traitor? I don't think so-- But he was. All the early Fathers of the Church acknowledged freely the primacy of the bishop of Rome. That is clear testimony; and it is well-documented. Peter's authority has never been disputed; in the west at least. Saint Paul never disputed it either.

The council at which he ''withstood Peter to his face'' was not in any way an impeachment of Peter. There was a matter under discussion, and St. Paul won the argument, that is all. Paul never claimed to be the head apostle.

Just to be brief myself; your claim that the Church wasn't founded by Christ on Peter the person himself, but on *what he said--* is a specious argument used by some Protestants to MISCONSTRUE the clear words of the Son of God / Jesus Christ-- '' I say to thee (He meant Simon, not any other thing!), thou art Peter (ROCK), and upon this ROCK I shall build my Church.'' Matt. 16, 18-19.

It is astonishing to note that in order to repudiate any claims of a Papal succession (that's all that is at stake, really) Protestants would distort one of Jesus' most unequivocal statements! This is verging on sacrilegious! How can a ''Christian'' do that to his Lord and Saviour??? And you say you believe the Word of God?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 06, 2001.


Eugene,

If peter and his successors are "the church" and have the "keys" and have "power to bind and loose", PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT MATTHEW 18:18 MEANS AND WHO IS IT SPOKEN TO?

It seems odd that Jesus would make this same exact statement to Peter then shortly afterward say the same thing to ALL OF THE DISCIPLES.

Rock is the truth! It's funny how the popes are even supposedly above earthly kings. Seems like your missing the whole idea........the KINGDOM is in heaven not of this earth. Seems like I remember reading the WORD that called a certain person KING of KINGS and LORD of LORDS. There is only one who has power to establish kings and kingdoms and take them down also.

-- israel (notofthis@world.com), January 06, 2001.



Matthew 18:18 is in no way contradictory to the primacy of Peter. Even today, there is collegiality in the Church, as when Councils and synods meet. They share the power of Peter and the other apostles, to bind and loose. But Christ was clearly giving Peter primacy in Matt 16:18 / ''Rock'' is not reference to the truth. Jesus was not using metaphor or simile in the matter of Simon Peter. He changed the apostle's name to ROCK, Cephas-- a rock. Then stated His Church would be built there. Where Peter is --is the Church of Jesus. It is not in dispute because no one can dispute Jesus' word.

In John 21:15-17, once more Jesus singles out Peter to be the one who ''feeds'' His lambs. A clear appointment as Pastor, or leader of His flock. Three times; as if to convert Peter from his tragic three-fold denial --on the night in which the cock crowed. It is a fact, Popes are not in a rank of kingship or better. The wishes of Our Lord were clear-- He who would be first, must be the servant of all. No Pope is exalted on earth by the Catholic Church. The person of the Pope, as a human being, is revered and respected. Not worshipped or set above kings. For that matter, kings are not any more worthy of our love than other men. --Unless the earn that love. Popes also earn the love of their followers; and they rule only insofar as they speak for Christ in matters of faith and morals.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 07, 2001.


Dear Mr Chavez,

I see that this is going nowhere. The simple fact is that I do not believe Jesus Christ mean't Peter was the 'rock'. Cephas means 'little stone' or 'rock'. Jesus makes reference to a rock as in the man who builds his house upon a rock i.e. the 'truth' 'The fact that Peter never clained to be the leader of 'the church' is very important in my opinon and your analogy with Judas doesn't make sense. Judas did indeed confess what he had done, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood" Matt. 27:4. The whole argument of Peter being the 'rock' has raged for centuries. I'm sorry I bought it up in the first place as we are poles apart on this.

There are many Catholic beliefs (along with many other churches) that I find admirable such as the deity of Jesus Christ and some that I don't agree with such as Mary worship (or as you call it honoring Mary). I particularly like the Catholic stand on abortion which has been more vocal than many other church organizations.

The point that I was originally trying to get across was that the only true church is the one made up by the 'body of Christ' of which I hope that you dear sir belong.

-- desmond smith (dsmith@voyager.com), January 11, 2001.


Dear Desmond,
I am happy to confess I too, am in Christ's Mystical Body, the Church. You would like to consider yourself a member as well; and who am I to deny it? Only Jesus Himself is judge of that.

In the case of your flat rejection of the Church's interpretations of Matt, 16 and (I guess) John 21, 15-- wherein the primacy of Peter is meant, you have my sympathy. Because you are rejecting the truth as written in the Word of God. It isn'y MY word, it's His.

The things you call Catholic ''beliefs'' are not that at all. They are, in the case of Christ's Divinity, Revealed Truth. Not to be admired, but accepted. The ''worship'' of Mary is just anti-Catholic propaganda. No one would be more scandalized if Catholics ''worshipped'' or adored Mary than Mary herself. If I worshipped Mary, I would be guilty of idolatry. Does that make it clearer to you?
Good by, Desmond, may God bless and keep you.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 12, 2001.


Eugene, I do not reject John 16 etc. at all, I just reject your interpretation of it. You however are right when you refer to 'trinity beliefs' as they are not beliefs as such but facts.

Take care and perhaps we will meet one day at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

-- desmond smith (dsmith@voyager.com), January 12, 2001.


Desmond,

If President Clinton never said, "I am the President of the U.S.", would you think he wasn't? If somebody on the street came up to you and CLAIMED to be President, would you believe him? I just don't understand your argument about Peter.

Please see Eugene's answer on Mat18:18. Also, you didn't quite read far enough.

Mat 18 "If your brother sins against you, [2] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' [3] 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be [4] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be [5] loosed in heaven. 19 "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

What do you think that Jesus meant by "the church"? An informal gathering of anyone who calls themselves Christians and *believes whatever they think is correct*? Obviously not, as I'm sure you're aware in John 6 the first apostasy occurred, with some of Jesus' followers leaving as they couldn't accept his teachings -- they are not now Christians, and not members of the Church because they didn't believe what was being taught them.

Therefore, there really is a correct path, and an incorrect one. You DON'T get to pick and choose what you want to believe, to be a Christian, you must believe what Christ calls you to believe.

Originally, there was only one church. That church still continues today (the Catholic church). That should be evident from reading the works of the early church fathers, and tracing the Popes throughout the years. Why would you claim to be a Christian, but still desire to be in the company of Pagans, separated from Christ's church?

"israel", you said,

It's funny how the popes are even supposedly above earthly kings.

Where did you get THAT from? Can you give me a link for laughs? One thing you ARE correct on is that the true Kingdom is not of this Earth.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 12, 2001.



Jmj
Hi, Desmond.
Thanks for the nice things you said about Catholics. I'm glad that we share many beliefs with you. I'm confident that we will soon share many more, since we are praying for Christian unity.

I'm sorry to see that you have been the victim of some anti-Catholic propaganda -- having heard (and believed) the old canards about "petros=pebble" and "rock=faith-or-Simon's-profession-thereof." These are things that used to be tossed around against Catholics in the old days, but are now generally discounted by Protestant scholars. They are perpetuated by few other people besides professional anti-Catholic hack writers and comic-book artists (a la Jack Chick).

To whet your appetite, so that you would investigate a neat Internet page on this subject, I will quote two paragraphs:
"Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament. [Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 507; D.A. Carson, "Matthew," in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.] Petra does mean 'rock', usually a 'large rock.' That is exactly what petros means. The Greek word for 'pebble' or 'small stone' is lithos, not petros, used numerous times in the Bible (Mt. 4:6, 7:9, 21:42, by my quick count, 32 times in the New Testament)."
"David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield wrote, 'It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. Attempts to interpret the rock as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, Jesus, etc.) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of which is highly unlikely' (David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 261)."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 13, 2001.


Yea I am a history major at West Texas A&M. I am a senior and I had a class on Medieval History last semester. The best place that I can tell you to go is to the Medieval Sourcebook. The web page is http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html This has lots of information and might take you a while. But it will help you.

-- Jeremy Ryan Butler (butlerball_chunk@yahoo.com), March 01, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ