Pope = God?

[Th0t]

This dude posted these references saying that we’re the "Whore of Babylon and we see the pope as if he was God and so that means that we’re not Christ’s true church.

What can I say to this?

"To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.-I?i the Gloss “Extravagantes” o.f Pope John XXII Cum inter, Tit. XIV, Cap. IV. Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685

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.”

“The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God. and the vicar of God.” -Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary

“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”.

 

[NHInsider]

Ask him to produce his sources.

These frequently-cited quotes are, for the most part, fakes, originating in anti-catholic writings, and then re-quoted as if they were genuine. (The ones that are not outright fabrications are taken out of context - the 18th century version of photoshopping to make it look as if someone said something that is the opposite of what they actually said.)

They’ve been dissected neatly by this blogger here.

 

[Cat_Herder]

This should help.

And yes, the quote is a fake. The Pope’s real title is Vicar of Christ. You’ll need to explain to this person the meaning of the word vicar, which means “representative” or “agent.”

 

[tester]

This should help.
And yes, the quote is a fake. The Pope’s real title is Vicar of Christ. You’ll need to explain to this person the meaning of the word vicar, which means “representative” or “agent.”

from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_of_Christ

Vicar of Christ (from Latin Vicarius Christi;** Vicar of God is used as an equivalent title)**1] is a term used in different ways, with different theological connotations throughout history. A vicar is a servant who stands in place of the real sovereign in some administrative matters of his kingdom, equivalent titles include “representative” or “overseer”. The title is now used in Catholicism to refer to the bishops[2] and more specifically to the Bishop of Rome (the pope).[1]

And if you don’t like WIKI : Note that Catholic Encylopedia says the same thing
from newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

Vicar of Christ
(Latin Vicarius Christi).

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: “Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep” (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.

In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. “Inter corporalia”, 2, “De trans. ep.”). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. “Quanto”, 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is “the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ” (cap. “Licet”, 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. “Fundamenta ejus”, 17, “De elect.”, in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Vicar of Christ (from Latin Vicarius Christi;** Vicar of God is used as an equivalent title)**1] is a term used in different ways, with different theological connotations throughout history. A vicar is a servant who stands in place of the real sovereign in some administrative matters of his kingdom, equivalent titles include “representative” or “overseer”. The title is now used in Catholicism to refer to the bishops[2] and more specifically to the Bishop of Rome (the pope).[1]

That is exactly what I said.

Do you have a problem with pastors representing Christ to their congregations?

And if you are OK with “Vicar of Christ” but not “Vicar of God,” do you believe that Christ is God?

 

[tester]

That is exactly what I said.

Do you have a problem with pastors representing Christ to their congregations?

And if you are OK with “Vicar of Christ” but not “Vicar of God,” do you believe that Christ is God?

i’m sorry : when you wrote

The Pope’s real title is Vicar of Christ

I thought you meant that the Pope is not “Vicar of God,” and that is why you thought the quote from -Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary was fake.

And yes, the quote is a fake. The Pope’s real title is Vicar of Christ.

 

[Cat_Herder]

i’m sorry : when you wrote I thought you meant that the Pope is not “Vicar of God,” and that is why you thought the quote from -Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary was fake.

No problem, I was actually referring to the OP’s “Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium” quote.

 

[Todd_Easton]

…and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. (Galatians 4:14)
St. Paul = angel of God? St. Paul = Christ Jesus? By the same illogic, the churches of Galatia must also be the “Whore of Babylon” and “not Christ’s true church,” because they received St. Paul “as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.”

 

[patrick457]

I’ve actually devoted two posts in my blog (please pray that part 3 will see the light of day ) specifically on this issue.
“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”.
I’ll quote:
This seems to be another case of ‘hiding behind the curtain of obscurity’ as we are merely given the author’s surname of Barclay, with no reference to a book title.

As for the identity of this mysterious ‘Petrus Bertanous’, this author personally tends to believe that this refers to a certain 16th-century Dominican named Petrus Bertanus Fanensis (aka Pietro Bertano; November 4, 1501, Nonantola-March 8, 1558, Rome), who once served as bishop (later cardinal) of Fano in Italy – the present-day diocese of Fano-Fossombrone-Cagli-Pergola – and who, among with other Dominicans, was apparently one of the leading prelates at the council of Trent and was an orator and advocate at that same council.

During the papacy of Pope Julius III (who reconvened the second period of the Tridentine council in 1551 after Pope Paul III died in November 10th 1549 at the behest of Emperor Charles V/Charles I of Spain), who entered into a league against the duke of Parma and Henry II of France (1547–59), the Emperor’s party requested that Julius admit eight people into the college of Cardinals. Four of them are to be named immediately and the other four are to be reserved in petto until conditions became more favorable; one of those whom they requested to be named immediately is Bertano, who was a member of the imperial party. Eventually he, along with thirteen others, were made cardinals on November 20, 1551, as a sign of reassurance to Charles (especially considering that all fourteen were favorable towards him).

While at first glance this connection may seem plausible (considering that both Pius V and Bertano were both Dominicans), we have to consider the following:

1.) This quote is attributed to Pope Pius V by “Bertanous” (sic). However, Michele Ghislieri O.P. only ascended to the Chair of Peter in January 7, 1566, about eight years after Pietro Bertano died. How could someone who is not then a pope make a statement about the papacy, much less someone who was dead at the time Ghislieri became pope?
2.) Considering that at the time Fra Pietro is still alive, Fra Michele still does not have the power of pronouncing ex cathedra statements - as he was not pope yet - are there chances that his statement (let’s suppose for a moment that his “words” are true and are either not a misquote, mistranslation, or just flat-out made up) are actually reflective of official Church teaching?
3.) Are there any more reliable and independent sources for this quote, if any, aside from this rather obscure (and badly-titled) one?

Some sources for this ‘quote’ add the following phrase: “Cardinal Cusa (i.e. Nicholas of Kues)* supports this statement.*” Now, are there any contents from Cardinal Nicholas’ work which support this quote? Here is a chronological listing of Nicholas of Cusa’s works. If anyone can point out a paragraph or a sentence in his works (if anyone has them) which says very much the same thing as above (preferably the original Latin included), I’ll be glad to put that up.

 

[patrick457]

Now for the Fr. Pereira quote:
Quite believable, this one, isn’t it? Yet the problem with this quote is:

1.) Pope Gregory XIII’s Canon Law was published in 1582, not 1580 (though this is just a minor quibble).

2.) António Pereira de Figueiredo (1761-1797) was a priest in Lisbon who published many works, including a translation of the Bible and a work entitled Tentativa Theologica (first published in 1766; it is in this work where this quote supposedly appears), in which he attacked the Papal predominancy in Portugal. The work was then translated in Latin, Spanish and Italian and sparked a controversy; eventually because of this, Pereira was excommunicated.

There is some information about Pereira in this (Spanish) work entitled Historia de los Heterodoxos Españoles (History of heterodox Spaniards?) VII, chapter 2. If someone knows Spanish and can translate this chapter for me, please contact me or post in the comment box.

3.) All that Fr. Pereira he says is that the passage in the gloss referred to (in other words, the passage that is referred to in the gloss) appears in the Canon Law edition. He does not say that the gloss itself appears in this edition of the Canon Law (and it doesn’t). So, suppose someone were to write a false statement in relation to another written work anywhere, would that affect the truth or otherwise the referenced written work itself?

To add:

I did find a copy of Tentativa Theologica online (in English). The problem passages in question are: pages 129, 130,131, and the notes on page 180 and 181, where the problem quote appears. Now, Pereira uses an early 14th century work known Extravagantes - more about this here.

 

[Big_Dummy]

2 Corinthians 5:20
We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

Ephesians 6:20
for which I am an **ambassador **in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.

The work in question, the “Extravagantes of Pope John XXII) was actually written by a canonist, Zenzelinus de Cassanis, in the early 14th century(1325). But did he really write the words “Lord God the Pope”?

seanhyland.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/the-truth-about-the-anti-catholic-charge-of-lord-god-the-pope/

 

[Pons]

Great stuff. Here’s another quote that’s found its way into a trivia reference book of all things:.

“The popes, like Jesus, are conceived by their mothers through the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost. All popes are a certain species of man-god.” — Pope Stephen V (or VI), c. late 800s.

I wonder how this one got started. It’s scarcely on the internet.

And for another fake papal quote, there’s “it has served us well, this myth of Christ” allegedly said by Pope Leo X.

 

[Big_Dummy]

I can’t see giving the Just Curious About History, Jeeves By Jack Mingo, Erin Barrett quote any merrit based on the fact that they do not give exact references to any document that is offical.

 

[Big_Dummy]

You may want to teach your friend about the differences between polemics and fact.

 

[dcb188]

We actually have so much freedom of speech that we sometimes don’t know how to use it constructively. Of course the Pope is not God, so there is absolutely no need for you to even respond to your friend. When people say things, we think we are obligated to respond to them. We are not, but we feel like we have to or they will not understand.
If someone told you that St Paul is God, would you waste your time even responding? No. Same with this notion that the Pope is God. Same with Bethlehem is really New York City, same with saying Europe had motor vehicles in the year 1515. Nonsensical things do not even need to be responded to.

 

[Th0t]

Thank you all for your responses! Even I have learned more. I was like “Wow Lord, you always give me more reasons to love Your Bride!”



You are right dcb188 but we are called to help the ignorant and lead them to the truth. Praise be to God!