Is the Pope God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matariel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Matariel said:
Why is everyone questioning my sincerity? 😦

Ugh, I really want to hear how Catholics react to this, 'cause every time I defend Roman Catholics and their beliefs, they say stuff like, “Didn’t the Pope claim to be God on Earth, or Lord God the Pope?”

And I see these quotes, and I was wondering, are they forgeries, bad Popes making fallible statements, etc.?

I don’t know why I never get treated seriously…
Click to expand...
Until you answer some of the questions asked, you will not be taken seriously, as nothing you quoted is accurate.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
The answer to your question is NO.
Click to expand...
Ok, I see that many people say these are forgeries, so that’s reasonable.
So we can understand where you are coming from with such a question and such incorrect sources, please explain your profile,
It says you are a Metaran, formerly Metatron.
Click to expand...
Well, you can look and see that I posted quite a lot, about a year ago, under the handle “Metatron”. However, I completely forgot my password when I came back recently, and have the handle, “Matariel” now, the Angel presiding over rain, in Judeo-Christian para-tradition.
A Llulist Kaballist Anglican. Would you please be so kind as to enlighten those of us, particularly me, who are ignorant as to what these terms mean.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Llullist Kabballist-- a reader and devotee of the writings and life of the Blessed Raymond Llull, Catholic saint who presented a Christian view approaching Kaballah; however, this is not to be confused with the new-age Lurianic “Kaballah” used by celebrities and such as a publicity stunt. Raymond Llull wrote much on the Dignitaries (equivalent of the 10 Sephiroth in Jewish Kabballah) or Dignities of God and his attributes.

Traditional Anglican-- An Anglican within a jurisdiction in America under the traditional Ugandan Anglican Church, deriving Apostolic Succession from Old Catholic, Independent Catholic, and Anglican lines (Reserving the Holy Orders to men) and holding to the Catholic and Sacramental Faith.
 
Matariel said:
Why is everyone questioning my sincerity? 😦

Ugh, I really want to hear how Catholics react to this, 'cause every time I defend Roman Catholics and their beliefs, they say stuff like, “Didn’t the Pope claim to be God on Earth, or Lord God the Pope?”

And I see these quotes, and I was wondering, are they forgeries, bad Popes making fallible statements, etc.?

I don’t know why I never get treated seriously…
Click to expand...
Try not to take it too personally. People here can be suspicious because it is not uncommon for someone to come here posing as a Catholic with doubts, or someone who is thinking about becoming Catholic. These people then start a thread pretending to ask a question and proceed to cut and paste large sections of anti-Catholic websites. I think they believe that they are stealthily introducing us Catholics to claims we have never seen before that will ultimately cause us to abandon our faith. I’m not saying that you are one of those people, but your OP fits that MO.

Sadly, this has the effect of making many of us suspicious (and at times a little hostile) when people fit that MO, even when it turns out the poster is sincere. Posting the source of your collected quotations would go a long way towards assuring people of your sincerity. (Unless, of course, you compiled the quotes yourself after doing your own research, in which case, you should let that fact be known)

In your OP, you posted at least ten different quotations of varying degrees of reliability. To fully answer your question, each quotation would need to be evaluated separately for accuracy and context. People have already answered you more generally by saying that Catholics do not believe the pope is God (and never have).
 
Matariel said:
Why is everyone questioning my sincerity? 😦

Ugh, I really want to hear how Catholics react to this, 'cause every time I defend Roman Catholics and their beliefs, they say stuff like, “Didn’t the Pope claim to be God on Earth, or Lord God the Pope?”

And I see these quotes, and I was wondering, are they forgeries, bad Popes making fallible statements, etc.?

I don’t know why I never get treated seriously…
Click to expand...
The idea that Pope could have ever claimed to be God, or to be a god, is so foreign to what we believe as Catholics that many of us are having trouble believing you could be serious.

So you’ve heard how Catholics react: with an emphatic NO.

Thanks for seeking the truth about such claims.
 
Llullianarts.net shows some of the writings and essays of Bl. Raymond Llull. (Sorry, don’t know how to post links.)

(Note: As the term “Kaballah” or “Caballa” has become increasingly associated with the new-age thinking of Isaac Luria and Lurianic Kaballah, many devotees of Llull’s writings and life refuse to refer to it as “Kaballah”. Many call it Llullism.)
 
You see, it is an unfortunate fact that a very few nonCatholics (some of them other Christians, and some of them nonChristian) have made all sorts of false claims about Catholicism. Every time this happens these claims get refuted, but (especially now with the Internet) it is easy for somebody to just ‘pump them out’ again, usually as a huge ‘group’ of ‘attributed statements’ thrown out all together to show just how ‘awful’ the Church is and how ‘ongoing’ the heresies (supposed) have been.

I think somebody earlier posted a link which refuted the whole ‘Lord God the Pope’ heresy (which used all these ‘original’ quotes) and showed how the whole thing had been twisted and ‘inflated’ into a false accusation against the Church, and the TRUTH which is that at no time had this ever been Church teaching.

So I would check out that link.

And stay away from antiCatholic web sites.

And read up in the library right here at CA a lot of stuff which shows where most of these ‘attacks’ come from (usually Hislops’ The Two Babylons and Boettner’s Roman Catholicism–both disproven eons ago but still ‘resurrected’ over and over).

And God bless!
 
coyotekate77 said:
And read up in the library right here at CA a lot of stuff which shows where most of these ‘attacks’ come from (usually Hislops’ The Two Babylons and Boettner’s Roman Catholicism–both disproven eons ago but still ‘resurrected’ over and over).

And God bless!
Click to expand...
You’re right about The Two Babylons– it’s a mythology of bigoted anti-Catholicism.

These quotes I found on several varied Protestant websites and I thought, since they had references under them, they must’ve had some wieght. But no. Mea maxima culpa.

As for Boettner’s Roman Catholicism– I’ve never read it, but heard it referenced numerous times.
 
In regards to Leo XIII taking the place of God, here is the statement in context. Notice he calls himself a mortal and also acknowledges Christ as his Redeemer and Master in the very same paragraph:
But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us. And as this Divine Prayer and Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the Unity of Divine Faith.
Click to expand...
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm
 
Genesis315 said:
In regards to Leo XIII taking the place of God, here is the statement in context. Notice he calls himself a mortal and also acknowledges Christ as his Redeemer and Master in the very same paragraph:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm
Click to expand...
In context, it doesn’t sound like he’s saying the Pope is God, but rather, as he says, the Pope “holds the place” of God. And what does he mean by that? He goes on to continue, reminding that God desires all to be saved, and thus, that is the desire of the Pope.
 
To the original poster - welcome. I am a former high Anglican myself, and was received into the Church this Easter, it’s a wise move! I urge you to do all you can to continue your search in honesty and prayer.

First piece of advice, don’t take your view on the Church from what uninformed opponents say. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read it cover-to-cover if you have time. This is the definitive summary of Church teachings, this is what you are saying you agree with when you are received into the Church. It’s available online, but it’s pretty cheap to buy:
amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-Second-U-S/dp/0385508190/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218109892&sr=8-1

As for the authority of the Pope, I’d put it to a simple test. It’s the same test C.S. Lewis suggested for the authority of Christ:
The Pope claims to be the vicar of Christ. This does NOT mean that he IS Christ, it means that he is Christ’s ambassador on earth, the one who speaks on Christ’s behalf in the name of the whole Church. Either:
a) he is right about that;
b) he is extremely deluded, and not to be listened to;
c) he is, as you say, a megalomaniac, and in fact, the anti-Christ, because he is taking for himself an authority which only belongs to the Holy Spirit.

The idea that tends to dominate in High Anglican circles is that the Pope is ‘a bishop’ or has ‘primacy of honour’ among bishops but is not able to tell any other bishop what to do. The Pope himself doesn’t give us this option, because he doesn’t act as if he only had primacy of honour, he acts as if he were the earthly head of the whole Christian Church. So either he is its’ head or he’s the Anti-Christ. ‘By their fruits you shall know them’ says Christ of His disciples. The fruit of a bishop is his teaching. Look at the teachings of the Catholic Church, its’ authentic teachings, as contained in the Catechism and papal encyclicals, not the distortions of those, and then judge for yourself. He’s either one or the other, and can be nothing in between.
 
DL82 said:
To the original poster - welcome. I am a former high Anglican myself, and was received into the Church this Easter, it’s a wise move! I urge you to do all you can to continue your search in honesty and prayer.

First piece of advice, don’t take your view on the Church from what uninformed opponents say. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read it cover-to-cover if you have time. This is the definitive summary of Church teachings, this is what you are saying you agree with when you are received into the Church. It’s available online, but it’s pretty cheap to buy:
amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-Second-U-S/dp/0385508190/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218109892&sr=8-1

As for the authority of the Pope, I’d put it to a simple test. It’s the same test C.S. Lewis suggested for the authority of Christ:
The Pope claims to be the vicar of Christ. This does NOT mean that he IS Christ, it means that he is Christ’s ambassador on earth, the one who speaks on Christ’s behalf in the name of the whole Church. Either:
a) he is right about that;
b) he is extremely deluded, and not to be listened to;
c) he is, as you say, a megalomaniac, and in fact, the anti-Christ, because he is taking for himself an authority which only belongs to the Holy Spirit.

The idea that tends to dominate in High Anglican circles is that the Pope is ‘a bishop’ or has ‘primacy of honour’ among bishops but is not able to tell any other bishop what to do. The Pope himself doesn’t give us this option, because he doesn’t act as if he only had primacy of honour, he acts as if he were the earthly head of the whole Christian Church. So either he is its’ head or he’s the Anti-Christ. ‘By their fruits you shall know them’ says Christ of His disciples. The fruit of a bishop is his teaching. Look at the teachings of the Catholic Church, its’ authentic teachings, as contained in the Catechism and papal encyclicals, not the distortions of those, and then judge for yourself. He’s either one or the other, and can be nothing in between.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
And he said: Come. And Peter going down out of the boat, walked upon the water to come to Jesus. **But seeing the wind strong, he was afraid: and when he began to sink, he cried out, saying: Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretching forth his hand took hold of him, and said to him: O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt? **And when they were come up into the boat, the wind ceased.
 
Matariel said:
Hi, I’ve had a long history searching for the True Church of God on Earth, and I am currently a disgruntled Traditional Anglican. However, I am increasingly coming to believe in the Successor of St. Peter, the Pope of Rome, is the supreme head of the Church. But I recently came across these perplexing statements:

“All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.”
On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.”
Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”

“The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” Quoted in the New York Catechism.

These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: “To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.”

Father A. Pereira says: “It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title ‘Lord God the Pope,’ for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII.”

Writers on the Canon Law say, “The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth.”
Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. - Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.

Pope Nicholas I declared: “the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man.”
Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para

“The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.”
Catholic National, July 1895

“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty”
Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894

Roman Catholic Canon Law stipulates through Pope Innocent III that the Roman pontiff is
“the vicegerent upon earth, not a mere man, but of a very God;” and in a gloss on the passage it is explained that this is because he is the vicegerent of Christ, who is “very God and very man.” Decretales Domini Gregorii translatione Episcoporum, (on the transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Devretales, col. 205

So, are these Popes wrong in saying they are basically God on Earth? This is a statement on faith and morals, is it not? How is this reconcilable? :confused:
Click to expand...
**Where are you finding this stuff, anyway?
Christ instituted a Church. When He ascended to Heaven, Peter was in charge. Peter was also the head of all the other Apostles. I don’t see either where in Scripture or in the Church’s Sacred Tradition where it stipulates that anyone filling the office of Peter is a god. Maybe you are confusing this with the Roman emperors (Pontifex) who mandated that they were gods to be worshipped. But this has absolutely nothing to do with popes. The pope is a pastoral shepherd who leads the Church. When the pope dies, another one is elected in his place, to the office of Peter.

I like to think of the bishop who sits in the Chair of Peter to the Old Testament Davidic Kingdom. While the King is away, a prime minister sits in his place to make the decisions and guide the Kingdom. This is what the pope does, where the kingdom on earth, in this sense, is the Church.

A pope is not “God on earth” - never was, never will be.**
 
Quite invigourating thread

p.s., does Peter claim to be God too, acts 5 verse 4 🙂

anyway- it is nice to go through apologetics- i.e. reject the faith, morals- reject God, for the pope, councils, tradition are his mouthpiece on earth 🙂

God bless, and the words of the Excathedra are the words of God, but clarification, nothing that is not already in the scripture, or early tradition.:cool:

P.s. We cannot honor a saint too much, we only do so if we do not realize that all the goodness they have is God’s grace- and all their power is his. We can also mistakingly honour their writings, works or word too much, or out of context or proportion, or honour them apart or against God- these are even mortal sins, so we know the pope is not God, as the Universe is not God, but the pope is a tool of God, and a position of God, as the Universe is of God, and God is Reality (Augustine says the last one about reality- p.s. fine line between this and pantheism, don’t cross it).

In any case- philosophy is a fine line, and very specific, as with theology. Philosophy can justify Theology, and show it likely, but theology is greater, which is why the teachings of the kaballa man were rejected by Mother church, although he is a martyr.

We can of course honour a man beyond his place- this is sinful, and the “halo” effect, as with believing a man to be more right than he is, or flattery, which can be mortal sin,

but we cannot be sinning in right honour to saints- those who misquote these saints are sinning, keep Catholic, or become it, but be cautious of sites.

Do not honour sinners over saints, nor reliable sources over mistakes. In the original quote much of these dissappear. It is nice to use other languages for things, or old english, or side quotes. Even bishops can err, and Eusebus was one, even priests can err, Arius was one, even Monks, or priests can deny Holy Church, Luther did.

So, in such things follow conscience, and common sense- and always check sources against things such as councils, or excathedra statings, or ask of history.

Of course, Papal infallibility was not defined til Vatican I, although we understood it by conscience, so these quotes must be viewed with utter humours and laughter as falsehood, forgery, or out of context.

P.s. my research correlates, the accusations are false, and out of context.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top