Do we really need a pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorns
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t call a mole or birthmark evidence of satanic practice. Nor rock and roll singers (more recent) worshipers of Satan and satanic practitioners. Satanism in the musical show business is more a gimmick. What is satanic practice? Something you don’t understand quite probably.
The Church never condemned rock n’ roll.

I understand that Satanists worship a being who wages a war against God and seeks the eternal torment of our souls. What more do I need to understand?
I can’t think of anything more horrifying than following our own blind and fallen nature and I don’t call that satanic practice. 🤷
I’m not as hedonist, so I don’t follow my own nature. I’m a Catholic, and I follow Christ.
At the time of Innocent viii medicine was probably a satanic practice.
Another baseless and false statement. :rolleyes:
 
The Church never condemned rock n’ roll.

I understand that Satanists worship a being who wages a war against God and seeks the eternal torment of our souls. What more do I need to understand?

I’m not as hedonist, so I don’t follow my own nature. I’m a Catholic, and I follow Christ.

Another baseless and false statement. :rolleyes:
I’m sure these two things are witchcraft and satanic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_mania

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesthesiology

The second being the basis behind automatic writing, “water witching” and other forms of divination. We know that’s Satanic.
 
I’m sure these two things are witchcraft and satanic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_mania

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesthesiology

The second being the basis behind automatic writing, “water witching” and other forms of divination. We know that’s Satanic.
Kinesthesiology is a form of physical therapy. It’s not Satanic. Though those other practices do appear to be occult.

But what does identifying Satanic practices have to do with the Church condemning them?
 
All churches generally have one person who sits at the top ( non catholic ) and calls the shots - how is that any different? They just don’t call them a pope.

Does a Ship need a Captain when there are so many sailors aboard.

Does a Corporate Company need a CEO when there are so many executives aboard.

You can call the head of any organization what you like, the Catholic Church is Pope, a large Company President, every Company, Organization has “someone on the top” where the buck stops- just have a different name.

Even the 40,000 Protestant denominations have someone at the head of there Church, to govern the church policy, etc. Most families have a Dad, Hospitals have someone in total control who makes all the decisions, even the Nurses have a Matron.

So can you imagine what it would be like with no Matron, well Nurses could do what they like, Hospitals had know one in charge well Doctors, Surgeons, Nurses could do what they like as know one was in charge to put policies in place. It would be the Law of the Jungle.

Its just not logical.
 
Thorns #1
So is a pope really necessary since, it would seem, that the only necessity is that the teachings themselves are infallible?
This questions God Himself in the person of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, who specifically founded His Church on the first pope St Peter without whom there would be no infallibility in teaching, for Christ endowed him with infallibility for the sake of the Church.

What more needs to be said?
 
Kinesthesiology is a form of physical therapy. It’s not Satanic. Though those other practices do sound occult.

But what does identifying Satanic practices have to do with the Church condemning them?
What does the nature of “Occult” mean? Not very well known, esoteric. Not understood. The nerve energy that is used in physical therapy is the same energy that moves a planchette across a Ouija board . The truth there though is, the board can open us to outside influences that “speak” through that nerve energy of ours. Our lower nature that hasn’t been purified that would be perhaps “demonic” but I don’t know about Satanic (yes I mean there’s a difference). But essentially what I’m saying is there are things not explained by current knowledge and in a lot of ways the church has been in some ways in the way of learning. In time we’ll learn more and things will change. But nerve energy from kinesthesiology also can be used instead of “casting lots” to see what food or herbal supplement is better for an illness. Occult? maybe in someways but Chiropractic stems from “occult” too. D.D. Palmer learned his technique from the “otherside”. But he was skilled. The church uses the term “occult” in fear.
 
What does the nature of “Occult” mean? Not very well known, esoteric. Not understood. The nerve energy that is used in physical therapy is the same energy that moves a planchette across a Ouija board . The truth there though is, the board can open us to outside influences that “speak” through that nerve energy of ours. Our lower nature that hasn’t been purified that would be perhaps “demonic” but I don’t know about Satanic (yes I mean there’s a difference).
What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with papal infallibility.
 
What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with papal infallibility.
No I think maybe I may have gotten a little off track here. It’s been a long day. I think I’m going to get ready to sign off for the night. I’m not trying to hijack the thread. I think I’ll leave it at this. Nite all.
God Bless +
 
The pope only speaks exceedingly rarely excathedra, infallibly, but some believe it’s a daily occurrence. It’s not.

We believe that Christ, himself, did the first ordinations, if you will, when he breathed on them, giving them authority to forgive sin. After the resurrection, Christ said all power and authority on heaven and earth had been given to him. Jesus turned to Peter and asked him, and him alone, 3 times, to shepherd the sheep. Jesus said Simon would be Peter, the rock on which he would build his Church, that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

Peter was the apostle’s clear leader in the absence of Jesus. Peter spoke for them, on their behalf. He was always listed as the first, and foremost, apostle. Jesus told Peter that it’d be necessary later that he go back and strengthen his brethren.

When there were any concerns or disputes, when Peter spoke, it was considered final.

Peter’s was the first of the miracles of the apostles.

Christ gave Peter alone the “keys of the kingdom”. Keys are a symbol of authority. Jesus told Peter that what he held bound on earth would be bound in heaven.

Now, when Judas committed suicide, he was replaced by Matthew. These were positions that we’d refer to in our, modern, times as “offices”. When Peter left, authority was passed to someone else.

Do we need a pope? Yes. We need some kind of leadership. When Christ was on earth, he was the leader. When Christ ascended, Peter was the Church’s leader, but Christ never intended his Church to be leaderless.

Some other churches have done away with the pope, only to have their own leaders, their own “popes”, although they don’t use that word, calling them other names, instead. At least, our pope is leading by divine authority.

Now, we believe Jesus is still guiding his Church, even now. Some other churches don’t have any leader, and when they have questions on matters of faith, in these leaderless churches, there is no one with authority to answer these questions, make decisions, or even call a council.

It’s a matter of faith to us, the pope, infallibility. In 2,000 years, we have used this system that Christ, himself, set up. The Catholic Church is actually the world’s longest lasting institution, and we don’t think that’s by accident. People study the Church to find out what its secret of longevity is, but we believe it’s due to God’s guidance.

We take, on faith, Christ’s word. We accept the representatives he has given us. I believe if we reject his representatives, we reject Christ. If we reject Christ, we reject the one who sent him.
👍
 
Only those who follow the teachings of the Church are truly Catholic.
No one follows the teaching of the Church 100%. We all commit some sin or fall short in some way. By your way of reckoning only the perfect and therefor no one is Catholic.

-Tim-
 
No one follows the teaching of the Church 100%. We all commit some sin or fall short in some way. By your way of reckoning only the perfect and therefor no one is Catholic.

-Tim-
I meant “follow” as in “assent to the teachings of”. This is clearly stated in the Catechism of St Pius X.
 
Another question comes to mind…

What good is the infallibility of the pope if priests, deacons, brothers, cardinals, bishops etc. arent protected in the same way? The others can lead more people astray by teaching in error too. How does the popes infallibility protect the Church from error as a whole?
 
Another question comes to mind…

What good is the infallibility of the pope if priests, deacons, brothers, cardinals, bishops etc. arent protected in the same way? The others can lead more people astray by teaching in error too. How does the popes infallibility protect the Church from error as a whole?
Because he’s the highest authority. Whomever he sides with is correct. Without him, there would be no higher authority to decide which bishop is right.
 
The pope guided in his infallibility regarding faith and morals certainly is icing on the cake, especially a pope who sets such an outward and visual example of humility. However, should the pope or any pope ever teach something in error, he automatically excommunicates himself and the faithful are still left with the objective teachings of the Church. So is a pope really necessary since, it would seem, that the only necessity is that the teachings themselves are infallible?
Yes. That is the way Christ divinely instituted the Church.

There have been many heretical and bad bishops. Why don’t we just get rid of the office of bishop then?

There have been many heretical and bad priests. Why don’t we just get rid of the office of priest then?

What are we left with?

Protestantism.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Yes. That is the way Christ divinely instituted the Church.

There have been many heretical and bad bishops. Why don’t we just get rid of the office of bishop then?

There have been many heretical and bad priests. Why don’t we just get rid of the office of priest then?

What are we left with?

Protestantism.

Blessings,
Marduk
Excellently stated, Marduk.
 
This questions God Himself in the person of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, who specifically founded His Church on the first pope St Peter without whom there would be no infallibility in teaching, for Christ endowed him with infallibility for the sake of the Church.

What more needs to be said?
Extending on that…based on this statement, “…and upon (you) I will build my church…”
No Pope = No Christian Church!

'nuff said really.

:cool:
 
Extending on that…based on this statement, “…and upon (you) I will build my church…”
No Pope = No Christian Church!

'nuff said really.

:cool:
So Jesus said in actuality Thou art a rock(cephas) and upon this rock I will build my church? Some of the translations are a little skewed.
 
The pope guided in his infallibility regarding faith and morals certainly is icing on the cake, especially a pope who sets such an outward and visual example of humility. However, should the pope or any pope ever teach something in error, he automatically excommunicates himself and the faithful are still left with the objective teachings of the Church. So is a pope really necessary since, it would seem, that the only necessity is that the teachings themselves are infallible?
We have a pope because Jesus in establishing His Church selected one to be over the many.
 
We, Catholics, obviously have a pope and we are now seeing (or I’m just noticing) that we are not exempt from being split into many different groups ourselves. I see liberal and conservative Catholics, practicing and non-practicing Catholics, practical atheist type Catholics, and so on.
However, unlike Protestands we have the Magisterium which gives us definite guidance on the tenets of the faith. Of course individual Catholics are free to agree or disagree with it, unlike Protestant churches where you go to one church that teaches that one thing is okay while another Protestand church down the street.says it is not
 
However, unlike Protestands we have the Magisterium which gives us definite guidance on the tenets of the faith. Of course individual Catholics are free to agree or disagree with it, unlike Protestant churches where you go to one church that teaches that one thing is okay while another Protestand church down the street.says it is not
So in other words, so log as the Magisterium stays intact and without error then all is well. So where does the pope’s infallibility come into all this?

In Catholicism, you can go to a parish a city away and some things will be ok, says that priest. Go to another parish, and that priest says its not. Essentially the same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top