The Pope?

[gardenswithkids]

I’m glad your back, and I’m glad you’re getting somewhere with Mercygate. I think I can manage being nice now.

The Pope doesn’t decide doctrines such as birth control, he declares them. The difference is that we believe God defines sin, and we believe the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error–that doesn’t mean individual people can’t be wrong or sin, it means the official teachings won’t be wrong. Birth Control is a tough one for many Catholics, and their are lots and lots of threads about that topic and many of them offer extensive scriptural support for the Church’s position. (Which incidently was a postion shared by ALL Christian Churches until the 1930’s.) Quick Bible basics on that is God says children are blessings (Psalms), and told us to “go forth and multiply” (Genesis).

Does the Pope talk directly to God in a way that we don’t? I think that depends on the Pope. Our last Pope had a phenomenal prayer life, praying for hours and hours each day I heard. Some Popes have been mediocre and some downright sinful, and I doubt that the bad ones had much of a prayer life. God invites all of us to a life of prayer, as you already know.

Is he on a first name basis? I think we all are when we pray “Jesus”.

I don’t pray for an easy going Pope, I pray for a Holy Pope who will proclaim truth in a way that we can understand. We pray for our Pope by name in all of our Masses, every day. He will account to God for how he leads the people in the Church and he needs our prayers.

I don’t expect you to understand all of this because I know it’s a very different way of looking at scripture than you are used to. But I appreciate your efforts to share the Good News of Jesus Christ as you understand it, and I hope that we can somehow help each other to understand it better.

 

[mrS4ntA]

ml1957:

MERCYGATE,

you rock. Now we are getting somewhere.

If the Pope decides birth control is a sin,do all of you do as he says?

It seems to me if you are married,and you don’t want a house full of kids, you pray for a easy going Pope.

Does the Pope talk directly to God in a way that we don’t? I mean is he on a first name basis?

The sin of withholding the sacred gift of sexuality has been the constant teaching of the Church. The Pope, being the guardian of the deposit of Faith, just re-inforces that teaching and sees to it that the faithful isn’t ambiguously confused as to what to do.

It seems that your understanding of the Pope is as if he could conjure up a doctrine of his liking and invention any day. You need some more research and homework to do, friend.

 

[jimmy]

ml1957:

I am beginning to feel like a Christian in the Roman catholic lions den, and the lions are hungry.

What books are you reading?

This is enough information i need for a while.I will continue to study and pray for all of us.

I have been told that I will be banned from this forum if I continue to beleive in what i beleive in. I will continue to bear my cross daily and if I get punted out of here,it will be a sign. I am not sure what kind of a sign it will be.

How do you know what the pope is saying. I can barely hear a word they say. I see a lot of waving…the pope wave…is he blessing people who see the wave? what if you see it on tv?

First of all, one thing that we read is the Early Church Fathers. That is where we learn much of the history and the early doctrine.

Second, you would be banned for offensive comments. Not for what you believe. There are many non Catholics on this board that have been for a long time. They are all welcome here, and so are you. But don’t make offensive comments.

 

[jimmy]

ml1957:

MERCYGATE,

you rock. Now we are getting somewhere.

If the Pope decides birth control is a sin,do all of you do as he says?

It seems to me if you are married,and you don’t want a house full of kids, you pray for a easy going Pope.

Does the Pope talk directly to God in a way that we don’t? I mean is he on a first name basis?

What we believe isn’t solely about what the pope says. It is about the consistent teaching of the Church through history. The moral teachings of the Catholic Church have been very consistent through history and they have taught the same thing through the last 2000 years.

The pope is first among equals. Christ gave him the authority to teach the Church. That does not mean that he and God dialogue on what is truth. It simply means that he is the supreme pastor of the Church.

 

[EA_Man]

“That it does not pertain to princes to choose a Bishop. Let every election of a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, made by princes stand null, according to the canon which says: If any bishop making use of the secular powers shall by their means obtain jurisdiction over any church, he shall be deposed, and also excommunicated, together with all who remain in communion with him. For he who is raised to the episcopate must be chosen by bishops, as was decreed by the holy fathers of Nice in the canon which says: It is most fitting that a bishop be ordained by all the bishops in the province; but if this is difficult to arrange, either on account of urgent necessity, or because of the length of the journey, three bishops at least having met together and given their votes, those also who are absent having signified their assent by letters, the ordination shall take place. The confirmation of what is thus done, shall in each province be given by the metropolitan thereof.” (Second Council of Nicaea, canon 3)

“Of the twenty-five popes between 955 and 1057, thirteen were appointed by the local aristocracy, while the other twelve were appointed (and no fewer than five dismissed) by the German emperors. The ancient axiom that no one may judge the Pope was still in the law-books, but in practice had long since been set aside. The popes themselves were deeply embroiled in the internecine dynastic warfare of the Roman nobility” (Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, p. 87)

So according to the pronouncement of the Second Council of Nicea, at least 5 and perhaps as many as 25 popes should have been declared null by Canon Law. But of course someone would have had to have brought charges wouldn’t they? Good thing they didn’t because that would have meant a break in the line of sucession wouldn’t it?

Besides it was much easier for the German aristocracy to simply appoint or remove the pope as desired - no need for messy Church arguments or excommunications of popes.

 

[jimmy]

"

So according to the pronouncement of the Second Council of Nicea, at least 5 and perhaps as many as 25 popes should have been declared null by Canon Law. But of course someone would have had to have brought charges wouldn’t they? Good thing they didn’t because that would have meant a break in the line of sucession wouldn’t it?

Whether this is true or not, it would not affect apostolic succession since apostolic succession is not passed on simply through the pope. Your statements are irrelevant.

 

[EA_Man]

jimmy:

Whether this is true or not, it would not affect apostolic succession since apostolic succession is not passed on simply through the pope. Your statements are irrelevant.

Not so fast Jimmy.

Here are the first two paragraphs from the Apostolic Succession page at catholic answers.com. I’m sure you’re familiar with it.

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

According to catholic “answers” apostolic succession not only passes through the papacy, it is a guarantee of doctrinal purity.

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia web site had a similar, and as usual, a much more tortured explanation of Apostolic Succession.

It would seem to me that the two most promising approaches here are:

1. Challenge Eamon Duffy’s scholarship directly. (Good Luck!)
   or
2. Continue to insist that none of this matters because the RCC always maintains Apostolic Succession despite any evidence to the contrary. Ignore the historical fact of multiple concurrent popes, popes that have counter manded or refuted other popes teachings, popes who had mistresses, etc…

Bottom line: It never matters if any of these things are “true or not”. There’s always a clever distinction or ruling or category that keeps the ball rolling. One pope contradicts another in doctrine or pronounces another a heretic, no big deal they weren’t speaking ex cathedra. Of course it doesn’t seem to bother anyone that Pope Honorius I was teaching error, you just have to believe in it anyway. Then believe the opposite when it is condemned.

 

[jimmy]

EA_Man:

Not so fast Jimmy.

Here are the first two paragraphs from the Apostolic Succession page at catholic answers.com. I’m sure you’re familiar with it.

According to catholic “answers” apostolic succession not only passes through the papacy, it is a guarantee of doctrinal purity.

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia web site had a similar, and as usual, a much more tortured explanation of Apostolic Succession.

It would seem to me that the two most promising approaches here are:

1. Challenge Eamon Duffy’s scholarship directly. (Good Luck!)
   or
2. Continue to insist that none of this matters because the RCC always maintains Apostolic Succession despite any evidence to the contrary. Ignore the historical fact of multiple concurrent popes, popes that have counter manded or refuted other popes teachings, popes who had mistresses, etc…

Bottom line: It never matters if any of these things are “true or not”. There’s always a clever distinction or ruling or category that keeps the ball rolling. One pope contradicts another in doctrine or pronounces another a heretic, no big deal they weren’t speaking ex cathedra. Of course it doesn’t seem to bother anyone that Pope Honorius I was teaching error, you just have to believe in it anyway. Then believe the opposite when it is condemned.

As I said above, apostolic succession does not pass through the pope alone. Apostolic succesion passes through all the bishops. So, even if the pope was not pope it would not matter because there are hundreds of other bishops that contain the true faith and are in communion with the true Church, so apostolic succession is not destroyed by a faulty election of a pope. A pope is appointed by the bishops, which are the holders of apostolic succession.

In other words, apostolic succession is not held solely by the pope.

Your statements aren’t knew. Anti-popes don’t affect apostolic succession either for the same reason stated above.

You grossly misunderstand what the teaching is concerning papal authority and infallability. I refer you to the Catholic Answers tracts.

 

[boppysbud]

You all are wasting your collective breaths on ML. He is obviously a Campbellite a member of the so called “church of Christ”. I was raised in that denomination that denies that it is a denominatiom just “the church”. I am very familiar with the rhetoric used by them, and his "beleive, repent, confess, be baptised (as a beleiver only, by submerrsion only) and be added to the church teaching is straight from the cofC’s unwritten creed. For the most part they are the most Catholic hating denomination in existence except for perhaps the Seventh Day Adventists.

As we see from one of ML’s posts he confuses his opinion about Christianity and the Bible with the Bible it’self.

 

[mercygate]

ml1957:

MERCYGATE,

you rock. Now we are getting somewhere.

Thanks, ML – I understand a lot of your questions.

If the Pope decides birth control is a sin,do all of you do as he says?

Actually, ML, until the year 1930 NO CHRISTIAN BODY accepted artificial or unnatural means of birth control. The current Catholic view is not just the Pope’s opinion, it is based on the first book of revelation: The created universe – i.e., natural law (which is not the same thing as the law of the jungle). BTW, the Catholic Church DOES allow birth control: It’s called Natural Family Planning, and it works better than condoms and such. Not that you need anything more to read, but a little manual by Christopher West entitled Good News about Sex and Marriage" gives the Catholic position in Q&A format that is easy to handle. 'Nother thread! My constant chant is that NFP does NOT stand for “Not For Protestants” – and in fact, many Protestants are beginning to reclaim the beauty of this theology of marriage and life – which has only been obscured in the last 75 years…

The fact that some Catholics fail to live up to Church teaching does not make the teaching incorrect.

It seems to me if you are married,and you don’t want a house full of kids, you pray for a easy going Pope.

As I said above, there are “Catholic” ways of regulating the number of children you have, provided your reasons are serious. The papal Encylical Humanae Vitae (vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html,) in which Pope Paul VI re-stated the age-old teaching of the Church, includes economic, psychological, and social conditions among those “serious reasons.”

Does the Pope talk directly to God in a way that we don’t? I mean is he on a first name basis?

Hey! aren’t we all on a first name basis? If God calls all the stars by name, why not me? The more important question is how does God talk to the Pope?

When it comes to official teaching on faith and morals, the Pope does his homework – and lots of it. The inspiration by which the Holy Spirit guides the Church is different from the God-breathed inspiration of Holy Scripture.

Catholics put a lot of faith in the ordinary means of grace. It’s like the old “two boats and a helicopter” joke. God gives us what we need, often in perfectly accessible and non-mysterious ways. The Church exercises all of its God-given natural gifts, such as reason and scholarship, holds them up to the light of Sacred Scripture (which can never be contradicted), and submits these processes to the movement of the Holy Spirit.

A Protestant once told me (man – I loveit when non-Catholics tell me what that Catholic Church teaches! ) that Catholics believe the Pope has a special talisman – like the Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament – that tells him what God wants him to say. Well – maybe that isn’t so funny, because this guy BELIEVED Catholics think that!

 

[DianJo]

ml1957:

If the Pope decides birth control is a sin,do all of you do as he says?

It seems to me if you are married,and you don’t want a house full of kids, you pray for a easy going Pope.

The Pope does not decide if birth control is a sin - God has already determined that! The Pope cannot “make up” doctrine. He cannot change any doctrine - doctrine - meaning God’s divinely revealed truth. He can only protect God’s truth. The early church fathers also teach (in writing) that contraception, abortion and the like are grave sins.

The Pope only explains, reiterates or expounds on the truth already divinely revealed by God. You really should read some of JP’s writings, they are truly beautiful! He wants so much for us to understand God and the path He has laid down for us so we can be with Him in heaven forever!

The Pope only “holds our feet to the fire of truth!” already divinely revealed by God.

 

[Ignatius]

bkniceley:

Now… the name Peter in the greek is “Petrus” which means a little stone or better yet a piece of rock. And then when he says upon this “rock” the greek word is Petra which means a solid foundation or a big rock.

You have to remember that in Greek you have masculine, and feminine nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because it would have been an insult to call a man by the feminine form. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

What’s more, in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

Kepha means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’

Then two important things were told him. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, “From now on your name is Asparagus,” people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman “Rock”? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom.

Yours in Christ

 

[Ignatius]

ml1957:

I have been told that I will be banned from this forum if I continue to beleive in what i beleive in.

Now that is plain dishonest. There are many, many noncatholics of every stripe on these boards who have no trouble presenting their own points of view without being banned.

Yours in Christ.

 

[Ignatius]

boppysbud:

You He is obviously a Campbellite a member of the so called “church of Christ”. I was raised in that denomination that denies that it is a denominatiom just “the church”. I am very familiar with the rhetoric used by them.

I don’t see CoC on the list of the ‘who started your church’ website.(whostartedyourchurch.com/).

Can you please help me find out some information? I would like to know who founded it, what year, and where. Thank you.

Peace be with you.

 

[boppysbud]

Ignatius, the origins of the so-called “churches of Christ” are somewhat unusual since every congregation within this group is completely independent of the others and they have no headquarters.

Actually there are six different groups operating under this same name, all slightly different.

The somewhat less conservative “grace centered”
churches of Christ, some actually using musical instruments.

The mainstream csofC which have sunday school.

The “anti” csofCn that find sunday schools “unscriptural” and refuse to have them.

The “anti” churches of Christ, that find church funding for “institutions” like orphahages and church based colleges “unscriptural” and do not fund them.

The “anti” csofC who consider the use of multiple shot glasses for their “Lord’s Supper” unscriptural, and use one glass that they pass through the congregation.

And the Boston/International csofC, who everyone considers a full fledged cult, even other Campbellites.

The csofC do not have a common founder, being the result of a scismatic movement in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). There were independent congregations all over the country who split from the Mother denomination over the issues of instrumental music in worship, and shared funding of mission work by missionary societies. This splinter began after the Civil War and was completed by 1906, which is the founding date for the so-called “churches of Christ”.

The original group the Christian Church was founded in about 1825 by three men, Thomas and Alexander Campbell (thus Campellite) and Barton Stone at a revival held at Bushy Creek in the upper South. I beleive that Bushy Creek is located in what is now West Virginia.

 

[boppysbud]

In the “churches of Christ” favor I will say that there are a few doctrines they hold in common with the Catholic Church in opposition to other fundamentalist Protestants.

They are very keen on the idea of Christian Unity. They too beleive that they are the one true church. Of course the problem with this is that they never existed before 1906. Christ had a church since the day of Pentecost long before 1906.

They beleive that baptism is the sacrament that brings one into Christ and the church, and forgives sins and is not just a symbolic “ordinence”. The only real differences are the age of the baptisee, and the amount of water used. Of course immerison is becoming more popular among us Catholics with baptismal pools being installed in more Catholic churches.

The campbellites in opposition to all other Protestants except the Episcopalians celebrates the Holy Eucharist each and every Sunday, it is considered absolutely mandatory. They do not beleive it to be the Real Presence and reject Transubstatiation, but still they celebrate it.

 

[EA_Man]

jimmy:

You grossly misunderstand what the teaching is concerning papal authority and infallability. I refer you to the Catholic Answers tracts.

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy.

How can it be that a Pope Honorius was an infallible guide of the faithful in official teaching and morals since he was declared a heretic and a tool of Satan at an official Council - the 6th Ecumenical Council which met in Constantinople in 680-681?

The explanation that Honorius was not teaching error but failing to suppress it (as Ludwig Ott does) does not explain why the Sixth General Council condemned him as heretical. Was this infallible council in error?

The claim that the pope was not infallible on this occasion only undermines the doctrine of infallibility. How can one know just when his doctrinal pronouncements are infallible and when they are not? Is there an infallible list of which are the infallible pronouncements and which aren’t? Without an infallilble list, how can the Roman Catholic church provide infallible guidance on doctrine and morals? If the pope can be fallible on one doctrine, why cannot he be fallible on another?

:ehh:

 

[ml1957]

More good information. I realy need to stop posting and do a lot of study.

Please let boppysbud know that calling me names,and other rude comments are offencive to me. If I am wasting his time,let him go read something else. I thought this was a forum to discuss different religions?

I have gained a lot of respect from much of what I have seen in my brief “message board catholic education”. let me know if this forum has spellcheck, because I can’t spell very well at all.

I am going to start by researching Peter and his chosen sucession. It is am important issue to me. His authority, decision making,policy making, changing with the times, leadership,and being called father gives me some concerns.

Please don’t aske me if I call my Dad Father. I know he is a man I call father. This crack has been made several times already.

 

[Milliardo]

Boppsybud isn’t calling you names. I don’t read anywhere that he did so. He is providing information about the Church of Christ and related stuff, but he’s not calling you names.

 

[Irenicist]

EA_Man:

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy.

How can it be that a Pope Honorius was an infallible guide of the faithful in official teaching and morals since he was declared a heretic and a tool of Satan at an official Council - the 6th Ecumenical Council which met in Constantinople in 680-681?

The explanation that Honorius was not teaching error but failing to suppress it (as Ludwig Ott does) does not explain why the Sixth General Council condemned him as heretical. Was this infallible council in error?

The claim that the pope was not infallible on this occasion only undermines the doctrine of infallibility. How can one know just when his doctrinal pronouncements are infallible and when they are not? Is there an infallible list of which are the infallible pronouncements and which aren’t? Without an infallilble list, how can the Roman Catholic church provide infallible guidance on doctrine and morals? If the pope can be fallible on one doctrine, why cannot he be fallible on another?

:ehh:

The problem is that you misunderstand what the Church means by “infallible”. Catholics do not consider the Pope or ecumenical councils “infallible” in the sense you are using it.

If you are really interested in the answers to the points you raise try

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Irenicist