But what about Pope...

[2ndGen]

For all those who love to point out a certain Pope’s faults, just a little education for you.

Not all Popes were properly placed in power. There are “anti-Popes”.

And before thou goeth off into another rant as to how this one sinned and that one did that, forget ye not the homosexual pedophilic lifestyle of your greatly revered (well, at least you trusted him/her to tell you “what” The Word of God was more than you trusted Christianity) King James (aka by his followers as “Queen James”).

Remember, all The Apostles failed Jesus except John (who in the tradition of Jesus’ perfection was graced because he had to take care of Mary upon Jesus leaving the earth).

Every single church has had fallen leaders.

But by all means, if you want to begin to compare notes and stats, it’ll be to your case’s detriment. By far, The Catholic Church itself has never been proven to teach false doctrine and not one of it’s leaders have ever claimed to be infallible human beings (unlike others I could, but won’t mention).

So, before you bring it…read this:

newadvent.org/cathen/01582a.htm

Otherwise, stop it with the “but what about this Pope or that Pope” in regards to things that happened 800 years ago. Catholics don’t have the time to bring out all the fallen pastors withing the last century alone.

We can’t do that…Protestants didn’t exist until 400 years ago.

Now doctrine? That you can attack, Go for it.

 

[ABiii]

I guess the preconceived notions arise from the fact that:

• The pope is called His Holiness, (none of the apostles allowed to be referred to as such, especially not Peter)
• people bow down to kiss his ring, (none of the apostles would have allowed that)
• he has an Infallibility clause, (none of the apostles would have allowed that) , and questioning him would be considered somewhat heretical… to the point where one could get excommunicated.
• Papacy has exerted strong political influence in the past
• Roman Catholicism used to (and still somewhat) claims to be the only way to Jesus and heaven.
• has utilized his “power to bind and loose” to tell people to do crusades in exchange for the forgiveness of sins…

My point is, not that the pope is supposed to be perfect, but that the pope exhibits power and influence, and so it is normal for people to expect from him. If the virtues promoted by the president of the United States were supposed to be chastity and wisdom, well maybe people would criticize the last two.

After all, didn’t Jesus say that the greatest among us is the servant of all? If the pope, exerted humility above power, and showed this via example, such as abandoning titles and telling people not to kiss his ring or bow down before him, maybe protestants would look at him differently.

Maybe if they sold away any expensive art from the Vatican and gave it to the poor…? I know that the Vatican is not that rich, but surely, there may be millions of dollars worth of art… including the Jewelry of the past popes.

 

[2ndGen]

I guess the preconceived notions arise from the fact that:

 

[Rightlydivide]

=2ndGen;3199714]

And before thou goeth off into another rant as to how this one sinned and that one did that, forget ye not the homosexual pedophilic lifestyle of your greatly revered (well, at least you trusted him/her to tell you “what” The Word of God was more than you trusted Christianity) King James (aka by his followers as “Queen James”).

Specifically, what part did King James play in the translation of the KJV?

 

[ABiii]

Hi, I am not starting a flame war, just expressing perceptions.

• The pope is called His Holiness, (none of the apostles allowed to be referred to as such, especially not Peter)

None of the Apostles were called “pastors” either.

Agreed, but still it does not negate the fact that none of the apostles would allow to be referred to as such.

Quote:

• people bow down to kiss his ring, (none of the apostles would have allowed that)

Jesus bowed down and washed The Apostles feet.
What’s more humbling?

I don’t see the humility in allowing people to kiss his ring and bow down before him.
The apostles found it horrible when people bowed down before them, so did angels.
Please explain how this is humble for the pope to accept.

Quote:

• he has an Infallibility clause, (none of the apostles would have allowed that) , and questioning him would be considered somewhat heretical… to the point where one could get excommunicated.

Luke 10:16
“The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

Like I said, a person with absolute authority will always be questioned, unless this person is God.
If the members of the Sanhedrin questioned the motives of Caiaphas, maybe Jesus would not have been crucified.

Quote:

• Roman Catholicism used to (and still somewhat) claims to be the only way to Jesus and heaven.
  Prove it…

It is hidden in most Catholic manuals today, but is rampant in pre-vatican two documents. I have a copy of
a book at home. I forgot the title. It basically states that protestantism does not lead to heaven.
If I get you a direct excerpt, I guess I can get you to agree.

Also, check out the fundamentalist section of the forum, I am sure they can find it faster than I can.

Quote:

• has utilized his “power to bind and loose” to tell people to do crusades in exchange for the forgiveness of sins…

Doctrinally?

Historically, this is true.

Quote:
After all, didn’t Jesus say that the greatest among us is the servant of all? If the pope, exerted humility above power, and showed this via example, such as abandoning titles and telling people not to kiss his ring or bow down before him, maybe protestants would look at him differently.
Yep…and The Pope foregoes wife and children and forsakes lands and possesions to serve God. You’re right!

Well, celibacy wasn’t really a prerequisite before, Peter was married… Celibacy can be reversed by the Pope…

And people don’t kneel to The Pope…they kneel to the “office” which is Christ’s representative on earth…It is not The Pope in the Chair, but the “persona Christi”.
How do you look at Peter who had his feet washed by Jesus?

The pope should know better than to allow that. Office or not, even Peter would never accept it, and St. Paul would neither.

Quote:
Maybe if they sold away any expensive art from the Vatican and gave it to the poor…? I know that the Vatican is not that rich, but surely, there may be millions of dollars worth of art… including the Jewelry of the past popes.
Heard that one a zillion times…but humans don’t have the right to do away with what gifts members give to The Church. That Sistine Chapel is just as much mine as it is the next Catholic’s.
In the book of Acts, what was done with the possesions of the initial believers?
Same deal. The Church must have electricity and walls and pens in order for them to see where to sign the checks that they write out for all the charity works (like hospitals and orphanages and soup kitchens that they run…oh yes, they are the number one Charity in Christ in the world).

I am not saying that the Vatican should be bankrupt, but the humility of early christianity is missing.

And that is why people criticize the pope and his office.

 

[paarsurrey]

Remember, all The Apostles failed Jesus except John (who in the tradition of Jesus’ perfection was graced because he had to take care of Mary upon Jesus leaving the earth.

Hi

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim. Please allow me to point out certain corrections in your point of view according to my point of view.

“All the Apostles failed Jesus except John” this might be only an NTBible view. Quran respects all the twelve and does not attribute anything against them:

The Holy Quran : Chapter 3: Aal-e-`Imran

[3:51] ‘And I come fulfilling that which is before me, namely, the Torah; and to allow you some of that which was forbidden unto you, and I come to you with a Sign from your Lord; so fear Allah and obey me;’
[3:52] ‘Surely, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him this is the right path.’"
[3:53] And when Jesus perceived their disbelief, he said, ‘Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah?’ The disciples answered, 'We are the helpers of Allah. We have believed in Allah. And bear thou witness that we are obedient;'
[3:54] ‘Our Lord, we believe in that which thou hast sent down and we follow this Messenger. So write us down among those who bear witness.’ **
[3:55] And Jesus’s enemies planned and Allah also planned, and Allah is the Best of Planners.**
[3:56] Remember the time when Allah said, 'O Jesus, I will cause thee to die a natural death and will raise thee to Myself, and will clear thee of the charges of those who disbelieve, and will exalt those who follow thee above those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, and I will judge between you concerning that wherein you differ.’
[3:57] ‘Then as for those who disbelieve, I will punish them with a severe punishment in this world and in the next, and they shall have no helpers;’ **
[3:58] ‘And as for those who believe and do good works, He will give them their full rewards**. And Allah loves not the wrongdoers.’
[3:59] That is what We recite unto thee of the Signs and the Reminder, full of Wisdom.
www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=3&verse=42

Thanks

 

[BlestOne]

ABiii,
Perhaps you don’t understand a few things… your understanding of these things is what leads to misconceptions. Let me try to explain a few things for you in another way:

Christ Jesus came to establish a Church of believers. He knew he wouldn’t be physically with us, so he handed the keys to Peter… this denotes authority. We call Peter pope which means Father. When Peter died, his responsibilities were passed on to a successor (Linus) and so on…

Jesus told us that the CHURCH is the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth… not the Bible and not Churches…

Jesus also told his apostles that whoever rejects them, rejects him (Jesus) and He who sent him (the Father).

Since Jesus said these things… and also said that the gates of hell shall not prevail we know that Jesus would never let his church that he established on earth ever fall into error (doctrinally) So although popes are men and can and do sin, they cannot lead Christ’s Church astray… so we CAN say that the Popes are infallible in the teaching of faith and morals ONLY. There have only been a few times in all 2000 years that a pope has spoken “excathedra” which means in the place of God, or doctrinally on a matter of faith or morals.

When we talk about “in persona Christi” that means in the person of Christ… This is going to be a hard one for you to understand coming from a faith tradition without apostolic progression but we will try… Basically, when a priest forgives sins… it isn’t him, it is Christ forgiving sins, the priest is there to say the words of Christ, but it is Christ himself that forgives. In the consecration of the bread and wine into the body and blood… the priest is also speaking in persona Christi… it is Christ that is consecrating the Eucharist.

Now for some of the points you seem to be having trouble with:

1. 
   *]The pope is called His Holiness
   People are not required to, they do it out of reverence because he is the Vicar of Christ on earth… basically he is the guy on earth that is in charge of God’s Church (remember the keys of the kingdom?)
   *]people bow down to kiss his ring
   Again, not required but done out of reverence… when people kiss his ring, it is the acknowledgment that he is the Vicar of Christ so this is how they show their submission to his authority. They are not just kissing some guys ring… they are saying, we know you are Jesus’s right hand man and we will trust and listen to you
   *]Roman Catholicism used to (and still somewhat) claims to be the only way to Jesus and heaven
   Perhaps you are talking about this:catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
   *]he has an Infallibility clause
   I have already explained that this is in matters of faith and morals above and I have explained why as well
   *]Papacy has exerted strong political influence
   Is there some other way that communism or dictatorships could have been demolished without wiping out the entire populations of these countries? Of course he uses political influence!!! Why, there used to be Christendoms instead of kingdoms or countries… why is this an issue?
   *]has utilized his “power to bind and loose” to tell people to do crusades in exchange for the forgiveness of sins…
   *Again, this is his right as the Vicar of Christ. Do you not realize that all of Europe would have been taken over by Muslims if the crusades had not occurred? *

 

[2ndGen]

Specifically, what part did King James play in the translation of the KJV?

He “authorized” it.

 

[Rawb]

The pope is called His Holiness, (none of the apostles allowed to be referred to as such, especially not Peter)

• people bow down to kiss his ring, **(none of the apostles would have allowed that) **

• he has an Infallibility clause, (none of the apostles would have allowed that) , and questioning him would be considered somewhat heretical… to the point where one could get excommunicated.

I made bold some statements that I thought were interesting.

How you know what the apostles would and would not have done?

 

[2ndGen]

None of the Apostles were called “pastors” either.

 

[2ndGen]

[Continued…]

Yep…and The Pope foregoes wife and children and forsakes lands and possesions to serve God. You’re right!

Well, celibacy wasn’t really a prerequisite before, Peter was married… Celibacy can be reversed by the Pope…

Peter was married before he was called to ministry. And he left his wife behind when called to work in Christ’s name. Also, Jesus said that some were called to be celibate for the sake of The Kingdom of Heaven.

Matthew 19:
10. His disciples said to him, “If there is such commitment between husband and wife, we should not get married.”
11. He told them, however, "This manifestation does not go down well* for everyone, except for the ones that it applies.
12. “For there are celibates that were born from their mother’s womb like this, and there are celibates who became celibate from humanity, and there are celibates who became celibate of their own free will, for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Whoever can do without it, let them be without it.”

And people don’t kneel to The Pope…they kneel to the “office” which is Christ’s representative on earth…It is not The Pope in the Chair, but the “persona Christi”.
How do you look at Peter who had his feet washed by Jesus?

The pope should know better than to allow that. Office or not, even Peter would never accept it, and St. Paul would neither.

Why should The Pope interfere with the homage that people pay to Christ’s position?

Have you ever prayed in your bedroom and there was a dresser in front of you while you prostrated yourself over your bed? Did that make you a worshipper of the dresser or the wall in frong of you? Of course not.

I am not saying that the Vatican should be bankrupt, but the humility of early christianity is missing.

And that is why people criticize the pope and his office.

So Priests foregoe personal relationships, give up worldly possessions, submit their wills to God, travel to where ever they are sent, give their live to evangelization of The Gospel, all led by The Vatican, and this “isn’t” Apostlelike?

What is “unhumble” in The Vatican?

It’s been around for almost 2,000 years. The longer one exists, the more they accumulate. They have a Flock of 1.3 Billion (with a capitol “B”) to attend to.

What, do you expect to see them working out of a converted wharehouse?

The Vatican, The Sistine Chapel, Saint Peter’s Cathedral, that’s how they built things back then. Is The Church to relinquish what men put their lives and souls into just to “appear” to be humble?

They are living humility. The are servants of what belongs to God. Man is no one to give away what men have given to God.

Read Leviticus. You’ll see what God asked for when He wanted a Temple to be built to Him. As long as The Spirit is there, there is nothing wrong with men creating beauty for Him.

Matter of fact, the Christian artwork, the music, the architecture all glorify God. God has never been known to reject our worship to HIm. Just false worship to Him (Cain & Abel…perfect example).

Pax.

 

[LilyM]

He “authorized” it.

I think he did a bit more than that - specifically appointed the scholars who were to produce the KJ Version, for example.

 

[2ndGen]

Hi

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim. Please allow me to point out certain corrections in your point of view according to my point of view.

“All the Apostles failed Jesus except John” this might be only an NTBible view. Quran respects all the twelve and does not attribute anything against them:

The Holy Quran : Chapter 3: Aal-e-`Imran

[3:51] ‘And I come fulfilling that which is before me, namely, the Torah; and to allow you some of that which was forbidden unto you, and I come to you with a Sign from your Lord; so fear Allah and obey me;’
[3:52] ‘Surely, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him this is the right path.’"
[3:53] And when Jesus perceived their disbelief, he said, ‘Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah?’ The disciples answered, 'We are the helpers of Allah. We have believed in Allah. And bear thou witness that we are obedient;'
[3:54] ‘Our Lord, we believe in that which thou hast sent down and we follow this Messenger. So write us down among those who bear witness.’ **
[3:55] And Jesus’s enemies planned and Allah also planned, and Allah is the Best of Planners.**
[3:56] Remember the time when Allah said, 'O Jesus, I will cause thee to die a natural death and will raise thee to Myself, and will clear thee of the charges of those who disbelieve, and will exalt those who follow thee above those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, and I will judge between you concerning that wherein you differ.’
[3:57] ‘Then as for those who disbelieve, I will punish them with a severe punishment in this world and in the next, and they shall have no helpers;’ **
[3:58] ‘And as for those who believe and do good works, He will give them their full rewards**. And Allah loves not the wrongdoers.’
[3:59] That is what We recite unto thee of the Signs and the Reminder, full of Wisdom.
www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=3&verse=42

Thanks

Understand this, that the Koranic view came 600 years “after” The NT view.

600 years “later”.

600 years.

What you call a “correction”, the faith from which Muslims derive Jesus calls history.

Of course, the only way you could dissprove a Christian belief is by using the source from which Christianity derives it’s beleifs “from”.

Anybody can come along hundreds and thousands of years later and say “that’s wrong”.

But where is the proof if not in the original Scritpures themselves?

 

[2ndGen]

I think he did a bit more than that - specifically appointed the scholars who were to produce the KJ Version, for example.

Thanks Lily for that addendum.



Is that what you were looking for Rightlydivide?

 

[Rightlydivide]

He “authorized” it.

I suppose I am trying to ascertain exactly what you are getting at. Lily, It is not my understanding that the specific translators were chosen by King James, do you have a reliable source for that. What does a person’s homosexuality have to do with the translators?
I

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Why should The Pope interfere with the homage that people pay to Christ’s position?

Have you ever prayed in your bedroom and there was a dresser in front of you while you prostrated yourself over your bed? Did that make you a worshipper of the dresser or the wall in frong of you? Of course not.

When people bow to the pope they bow to him, he should not accept that kind of worship.

Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

 

[LilyM]

I suppose I am trying to ascertain exactly what you are getting at. Lily, It is not my understanding that the specific translators were chosen by King James, do you have a reliable source for that. What does a person’s homosexuality have to do with the translators?
I

My bad - from wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

“James and the Bishop of London wrote the brief that guided the translation … ensuring the position of the Church of England was recognised on various points.”

So it sounds like King James had a fair say as to the actual content (ie that the translation must support certain Church beliefs).

Thus his personal beliefs have everything to do with it, and his lifestyle shows how (un)trustworthy those beliefs were.

 

[2ndGen]

I suppose I am trying to ascertain exactly what you are getting at. Lily, It is not my understanding that the specific translators were chosen by King James, do you have a reliable source for that. What does a person’s homosexuality have to do with the translators?
I

Since there is so much emphasis by “some” on something being inspired by God and the importance of the “perfection” of a person who has religious authority, I was just wondering how many of those who hold King James’ Translation as being, well, “inspired” by God considering that he was not only an unrepentant homosexual that lived his lifestyle openly, but was also a pedophile.

Would God pick and unrepentant homosexual pedophile to “authorize” His Word?

I feel icky just putty the term in the same sentence with His name, but let’s take and honest look at the subject.

If history says that he was, can his “authority” be trusted?

 

[2ndGen]

When people bow to the pope they bow to him, he should not accept that kind of worship.

Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

What does this have to do with prostration?

You’re referring to “worship”.

Different subject.

 

[BlestOne]

What does this have to do with prostration?

You’re referring to “worship”.

Different subject.

The problem here is that there is a difference but many times Protestants don’t make that distinction. We kneel down in front of a statue or a crucifix and Protestants accuse us of idol worship… how hard is it to understand that we are not “worshiping” that hunk of rock or piece of wood? I guess when you have been brainwashed so long about it… you start to believe it.

For what it is worth… Guys… did you get down on one knee when you proposed to your wives? Were you worshiping her?

Ladies, did your husband get down on his knee and propose? Were you letting him worship you?

Of course not!!! So if a man can get down on his knees to ask for a woman to be his wife, why can’t Catholics get down on their knees and ask a saint or the Blessed Mother to pray for us? It does not mean we are worshiping a saint or our heavenly mother, it means we are showing reverence and humility as we ask for help.