Why Not?

[Nine_Two]

You miss my point. First, Augustus did indeed declare himself a god and in fact there was much debate of this action in the Roman Senate for the Senators at the time beleived they alone had such power to confer that title. Second, I never said Christ was an Emporer. Rather, Christ became an important figure to Romans and Rome accepted the Christian cult as a state sanctioned religion. Often, Rome would look back in its history and declare those it deemed great leaders as gods or demi gods. This too is simply a fact and the accounts of several Roman historians demonstrate this point.

Would you mind sourcing a good academic source that says Augustus declared himself a God?
Additionally Christianity wasn’t the state religion of the Empire until some some time after Constantine, all Constantine did was ended the persecutions and give the church his patronage. At no time did he make it the official state religion.

And you should double check your history of Constantine’s actions at Nicea. He did indeed break the deadlock over the bishops’ debate as to the nature of Christ’s being. Thus, my point - a roman Emperor, following the tradition as firmly established by Augustus and other rulers, worked again to declare a human being a god.

You’re going to have to show your evidence of this as well. In addition to showing they actually voted on whether or not he was a god (they voted on the orthodox vs. Arian possition, but both believed he was a god, and the Arian side only received three votes), you’re also going to have to give me evidence of someone else who was not an Emperor, with the notable exception of Julius Caesar, who was proclaimed a god well after the fact.

My point is that declaring someone a god was not at all surprising. And remember too, none of the Gospels were written by Christ and at least three were written well after the disciples were all dead. So what finally got written was written by others not there and prone to the embelishments of history, time and imagination, all during a primitive, supersticious time!!

Actually it is surprising that an individual like that would be declared a God so long after the fact. And two of the gospels were written after all the disciples were dead, with one written after eleven of the twelve were dead. You’ll note which ones I quoted from.
Additionally I find your argument that it happened “during a primitive, supersticious time!!” to be quite fascinating, as though that allows you to just throw away any argument anyone else might have from that time. Here’s news for you, we live in a “primitive, supersticious time!!”, aside from most people in the world being a member of religions - which you clearly believe to be superstitious and primitive. A great many more believe in things such as divination and the like. There was a study published not long ago that showed Atheists in the United States were more likely than others to have superstitious beliefs.
Therefore if you are going to dismiss any argument against your preconceptions as coming from a “primitive, supersticious time!!”, then give me one good reason why I shouldn’t dismiss yours likewise? Such argumentation is intellectually dishonest, and is based more on emotion than anything else.

PS: I know a lot of Catholics think writing in the Greek is impressive when it comes to quoting the bible, but reallt, its just a language, written by falable men like any other language.

Actually the point in doing that was so you couldn’t make the claim that it said something else, as such a claim would require actually going through it and proving what is really written. While there was no indication you would do that, it is the most usual plan of attack for those who claim Christ was only a man.

 

[Nine_Two]

Are you suggesting that there is an absolute way of knowing that a deity exists and that, furthermore, it is possible to ascertain, through reason, which specific deity it is? If you can’t, then I really don’t understand how my position is unreasonable. Your correlation between agnosticism and a lack of understanding of details regarding the universe is pedantic. They are not the same. One appears impossible to reasonably understand (by that I mean, impossible without an act of faith) and the other requires ignorance of science. How exactly are they related? That’s like saying agnosticism is an unreasonable position because it is also unreasonable to not believe peanut butter has peanuts in it.

Nope, I’m suggesting that the only reasonable option is to actively search for the truth. Agnosticism implies giving up. While at some point you do have to make a leap of faith, that is not the first step when it comes to learning the truth.

 

[Agripa]

Thank-you. You have showed me something I never knew. I always thought you either believed and were Christian, and didn’t so were an Atheist. I never saw an In-between way before.

You have showed me that there is only one thing that I can do. Is pray for you to receive the Grace from God somehow, some way. I hope you do not mind. Again thank you for being so kind and honest in your response.

Well, from the Agnostic position, it does not preclude me from understanding that there must be a God because rationally “all” does not come from “nothing”. I simply do not accept the belief that God is human, although if God created humans, then something of humans may be in God. I simply do not know this, and nor does anyone else, although many will claim it under Faith.

Believe me enough to at least to know that when I stand on a moutain top under a starry night, or in a deep wood, or when looking at the complexity of places like New York City or the wonders of the human body, I know intutively there is a God, but I do not reduce that God to a family, a Father, a Son or some mystical Spirit which are simply easier ways to explain God to a general mass of people who tend to identify everything in terms of human-ness. (For example, we intuitively anthropomorphize all things - we want to see human traits in everything. Why Walt Disney made millions assigning human traits to animal creatures and yet animals are not human, but we WANT animals to reflect human traits. Its a desire all humans share!)

And when we say “God is Love”, that is really a recognition that unlike other beasts, man has the capacity to Love and that is an amazing thing in deed with or without assigning all that to God alone.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Far differently from Agnosticism. Despite the fact religious people often lump Agnostics in with Atheists, they are different.

Atheists simply say there is no God and then go on to explain some other way the universe came into being or some other way we established and enforce moral codes and notions of right living.

Agnostics, however, simply say “I dont know” if there is a God. There could be or there could not be a God. I have no real proof either way and because whatever God may be, its far too big for the mere mortal minds to even contemplate. We are then free to create moral codes and philosphies of living based on simply the benefit that moral living confers upon people trapped in a thing called life.

Like Atheiests, however, an Agnositc will be suspect of men, the writings and religious institutions of men and the stories of men that purport to know and define God which Agnositcs will view as simply a contrivance that allows some men to control vast numbers of other men.

I was always taught in philosophy that agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknowable, while atheism is where a person doesn’t believe in God.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Publisher
???

So there are no rites or rituals that the CC beliieves one must participate in AND claim to be the sole arbiter of those rituals?

The CC does not expect it’s members to follow what it says BECAUSE it says it?

The CC does not expect it’s members to be compliant and accept it’s teachings without dicention?

The CC does not require a creed to be recited?

What part of my vision is “distorted”?

***Friend. I’m not sure “vision” is the word your searching for; try “my understanding.”

But for the sake of discussion, lets say for a monment that your right in your “vision.”? YOUR NOT, but lets assume [at great personal risk] that you are.

I’m recently retired, but while in the work force I don’t beleive that I ever lived in a Country without laws, supervision and restrictions on what I can do. [That may change but that’s a different topic.] Nor Have I worked anywhere that I could darn well do as I please, nor do of I know of any “religions” without some sort of “Mission Statement” of beliefs, that it expects it’s adherents to follow.

The CC has existed quite successfully [thank you Jesus] for some 2000 years, so we must be doing something Right? And a great many of our current beliefs, practices and Teachings actually go back that far.

So is your issue with authority in General, or do not like Christ Church in particular, and do you actually have some grounds persecutingfor it, or you just don’t like us Catholics on General principles? “Saul, Saul why are you persecuting Me? 'Who are you sir,” … ‘I AM the God of Abraham.’ "] And of Course Saul now known as Saint Paul[thank you Jesus] was targeting Christ Catholic Church, as are you. Saul did not understand this, neither do you.

Saul / Paul listend to God; WILL YOU? ***

Love and prayers friend,
Pat

 

[Agripa]

Would you mind sourcing a good academic source that says Augustus declared himself a God?
Additionally Christianity wasn’t the state religion of the Empire until some some time after Constantine, all Constantine did was ended the persecutions and give the church his patronage. At no time did he make it the official state religion.
You’re going to have to show your evidence of this as well. In addition to showing they actually voted on whether or not he was a god (they voted on the orthodox vs. Arian possition, but both believed he was a god, and the Arian side only received three votes), you’re also going to have to give me evidence of someone else who was not an Emperor, with the notable exception of Julius Caesar, who was proclaimed a god well after the fact.
.

The accession of Constantine was a turning point for the Christian Church, generally considered the beginning of Christendom. After his victory, Constantine took over the role of the patron for the Christian faith. He supported the Church financially, had an extraordinary number of basilicas built, granted privileges (e.g. exemption from certain taxes) to clergy, promoted Christians to high ranking offices, and returned property confiscated during the Great Persecution of Diocletian, R. Gerberding and J. H. Moran Cruz, Medieval Worlds (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004) pp. 55-56] and endowed the church with land and other wealth. (According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen) Between 324 and 330, Constantine built, virtually from scratch, a new imperial capital at Byzantium on the Bosphorus (it came to be named for him: Constantinople) – the city employed overtly Christian architecture, contained churches within the city walls (unlike “old” Rome), and had no pagan temples. R. Gerberding and J. H. Moran Cruz, Medieval Worlds (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004) p. 56]

In doing this, however, MacMullen notes Constantine I required the Pagans “to foot the bill”. Christian chroniclers tell that it appeared necessary to Constantine “to teach his subjects to give up their rites (…) and to accustom them to despise their temples and the images contained therein,” quoted after MacMullan] This led to the closure of pagan temples due to a lack of support, their wealth flowing to the imperial treasure; Constantine I did not need to use force to implement this, quoted after MacMullan] although his subjects are said to simply have obeyed him out of fear. Only the chronicler Theophanes has added that temples “were annihilated”, but this is considered “not true” by contemporary historians. quoted after MacMullan]

The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the Christian Emperor in the Church. Emperors considered themselves responsible to God for the spiritual health of their subjects, and thus they had a duty to maintain orthodoxy. Richards, Jeffrey. The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages 476–752 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979) pp. 14–15.]

In 316, Constantine acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the Donatist controversy. More significantly, in 325 he summoned the First Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council. The long-term effects of the Council of Nicaea were significant. For the first time, representatives of many of the bishops of the Church convened to agree on a doctrinal statement. Also for the first time, the Emperor played a role, by calling together the bishops under his authority, and using the power of the state to give the Council’s orders effect. [See generally Theodoret, General Council of Nicæa Book 1 Chapter 6 of his Ecclesiastical History; The Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, concerning the matters transacted at the Council, addressed to those Bishops who were not present Book 1 Chapter 9 of his Ecclesiastical History, a 5th century source]

As to Augustus, you are correct, he did not self proclaim his god-hood, the Senate did. When he died, it was proclaimed that Augustus joined the company of the gods as a member of the Roman pantheon. Upon his death in AD 14, Augustus was formally declared a god by the Senate, to be worshipped by the Romans. But my point remains, Roman rulers, particularly in the empire period, either made themselves gods or were declared gods.

 

[Agripa]

I was always taught in philosophy that agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknowable, while atheism is where a person doesn’t believe in God.

Correct. We say we simply cannot know. (I probably am less an agnostic than simply a monotheist - absolutley - no prism of three gods in one and all that jazz!)

 

[Nine_Two]

The accession of Constantine was a turning point for the Christian Church, generally considered the beginning of Christendom. After his victory, Constantine took over the role of the patron for the Christian faith. He supported the Church financially, had an extraordinary number of basilicas built, granted privileges (e.g. exemption from certain taxes) to clergy, promoted Christians to high ranking offices, and returned property confiscated during the Great Persecution of Diocletian, R. Gerberding and J. H. Moran Cruz, Medieval Worlds (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004) pp. 55-56] and endowed the church with land and other wealth. (According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen) Between 324 and 330, Constantine built, virtually from scratch, a new imperial capital at Byzantium on the Bosphorus (it came to be named for him: Constantinople) – the city employed overtly Christian architecture, contained churches within the city walls (unlike “old” Rome), and had no pagan temples. R. Gerberding and J. H. Moran Cruz, Medieval Worlds (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004) p. 56]

In doing this, however, MacMullen notes Constantine I required the Pagans “to foot the bill”. Christian chroniclers tell that it appeared necessary to Constantine “to teach his subjects to give up their rites (…) and to accustom them to despise their temples and the images contained therein,” quoted after MacMullan] This led to the closure of pagan temples due to a lack of support, their wealth flowing to the imperial treasure; Constantine I did not need to use force to implement this, quoted after MacMullan] although his subjects are said to simply have obeyed him out of fear. Only the chronicler Theophanes has added that temples “were annihilated”, but this is considered “not true” by contemporary historians. quoted after MacMullan]

The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the Christian Emperor in the Church. Emperors considered themselves responsible to God for the spiritual health of their subjects, and thus they had a duty to maintain orthodoxy. Richards, Jeffrey. The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages 476–752 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979) pp. 14–15.]

In 316, Constantine acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the Donatist controversy. More significantly, in 325 he summoned the First Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council. The long-term effects of the Council of Nicaea were significant. For the first time, representatives of many of the bishops of the Church convened to agree on a doctrinal statement. Also for the first time, the Emperor played a role, by calling together the bishops under his authority, and using the power of the state to give the Council’s orders effect. [See generally Theodoret, General Council of Nicæa Book 1 Chapter 6 of his Ecclesiastical History; The Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, concerning the matters transacted at the Council, addressed to those Bishops who were not present Book 1 Chapter 9 of his Ecclesiastical History, a 5th century source]

As to Augustus, you are correct, he did not self proclaim his god-hood, the Senate did. When he died, it was proclaimed that Augustus joined the company of the gods as a member of the Roman pantheon. Upon his death in AD 14, Augustus was formally declared a god by the Senate, to be worshipped by the Romans. But my point remains, Roman rulers, particularly in the empire period, either made themselves gods or were declared gods.

Everything you just posted about Constantine supports what I’ve written. I also note that didn’t say anything about his supposed tie-breaking vote.

 

[Agripa]

Everything you just posted about Constantine supports what I’ve written. I also note that didn’t say anything about his supposed tie-breaking vote.

I say Constantine did make Christianity the state religion, even if de facto.

The fact remains, there was a dispute, Constantine was in the middle of it and Constantine resolved it as to the matter of Christ’s nature.

My point remains: Rome made some men gods and its a tradition that carried on into christianity.

 

[Nine_Two]

I say Constantine did make Christianity the state religion, even if de facto.

The fact remains, there was a dispute, Constantine was in the middle of it and Constantine resolved it as to the matter of Christ’s nature.

My point remains: Rome made some men gods and its a tradition that carried on into christianity.

And yet you don’t seem able to back up your points.

And no, Constantine was hardly in the middle of the dispute - a dispute which was of a totally different nature than what you were originally claiming. He simply organized a meeting. It should be noted that the Arians only grew in number and power following that meeting, even though they were overwhelmingly rejected.

So prove your point. Give me evidence of Rome making past historical figures into Gods.

 

[Publisher]

***Friend. I’m not sure “vision” is the word your searching for; try “my understanding.”

But for the sake of discussion, lets say for a monment that your right in your “vision.”? YOUR NOT, but lets assume [at great personal risk] that you are.

I’m recently retired, but while in the work force I don’t beleive that I ever lived in a Country without laws, supervision and restrictions on what I can do. [That may change but that’s a different topic.] Nor Have I worked anywhere that I could darn well do as I please, nor do of I know of any “religions” without some sort of “Mission Statement” of beliefs, that it expects it’s adherents to follow.

The CC has existed quite successfully [thank you Jesus] for some 2000 years, so we must be doing something Right? And a great many of our current beliefs, practices and Teachings actually go back that far.

So is your issue with authority in General, or do not like Christ Church in particular, and do you actually have some grounds persecutingfor it, or you just don’t like us Catholics on General principles? “Saul, Saul why are you persecuting Me? 'Who are you sir,” … ‘I AM the God of Abraham.’ "] And of Course Saul now known as Saint Paul[thank you Jesus] was targeting Christ Catholic Church, as are you. Saul did not understand this, neither do you.

Saul / Paul listend to God; WILL YOU? ***

Love and prayers friend,
Pat

Friend, I do not “persecute” anyone for their religious beliefs…I understand there are some who do believe that to simply disagree with someone is “persecution”…Where have I indicated I do not like “Catholics” on general principles?

I am readily willing to admit, I may not have all the ins and outs of Catholic thought and belief figured out and thus a lack of understanding…If you feel “persecuted” any time anyone disagrees with you…that must be a difficult burden to bear in a world where disagreements are very common.

Let’s turn your post around…am I to understand you do not like Quakers because they disagree with you? By your post am I to understand you persecute the Society of Friends because we understand…though perhaps very pooly…the Eternal Light of Christ differently than you?

See how silly such accusation sound when “turned around”?

I am amazed time and time again how members of some faith traditions cry “persecution” simply because they are disagreed with…I guess that is simply a human failing many of us share This Side.

As far as “authority”…I have no problem with authority…I simply do not accept the authority of the Catholic church over my life and beliefs…should I conclude that since you do not accept the Clerk of the Yearly Meeting in your area his or her “authority” that you have a problem accepting any authority?

I have not attacked anyones sense of character in my posts…I am at a loss why you feel it necessary to in your posts…can you explain why? I would be interested in your reasons…it would certainly help me to not do so again in the future…please be so kind and enlighten me concerning my attacks and what you base your asertions upon.

 

[Agripa]

And yet you don’t seem able to back up your points.

And no, Constantine was hardly in the middle of the dispute - a dispute which was of a totally different nature than what you were originally claiming. He simply organized a meeting. It should be noted that the Arians only grew in number and power following that meeting, even though they were overwhelmingly rejected.

So prove your point. Give me evidence of Rome making past historical figures into Gods.

Here is a tiny handfull of “evidence”:

Imperator Caesar Augustus, Son of a God, Father of his Country, the man who had ruled the Roman world alone for almost 45 years, or over half a century if the triumviral period is included, was dead. He was accorded a magnificent funeral, buried in the mausoleum he had built in Rome, and entered the Roman pantheon as Divus Augustus. [my emphasis]. In his will, he left 1,000 sesterces apiece to the men of the Praetorian guard, 500 to the urban cohorts, and 300 to each of the legionaries. In death, as in life, Augustus acknowledged the true source of his power. [Dio 55.33.5, 55.34.2, 56.26.2-3, 56.28.1-2; see also Southern, 181-90. Tiberius’s position: Suet. Tib. 21.1; Vell. Pat. 2.121.1.]
The inscription entitled “The Achievements of the Divine Augustus” (Res Gestae Divi Augustae; usually abbreviated RG) remains a remarkable piece of evidence deriving from Augustus’s reign. The fullest copy of it is the bilingual Greek and Latin version carved into the walls of the Temple of Rome and Augustus at Ancyra in Galatia (for this reason the RG used to be commonly referred to as the Monumentum Ancyranum). Original position of the RG: RG pr.; Suet. Aug. 101.4. ). For a recent analysis, see Ramage, Nature and Purpose.

As to Gaius Caligula, Gaius’s enthusiasm for divine honors for himself and his favorite sister, Drusilla (who died suddenly in A.D. 38 and was deified), is presented in the sources as another clear sign of his madness, but it may be no more than the young autocrat tactlessly pushing the limits of the imperial cult, already established under Augustus. [All further described most fully by Josephus (AJ 18.261-309; BJ 2.184-203) and Philo (Leg. 188, 198-348). Thorough modern assessments can be found in Barrett, Caligula, 188-91, cf. 140-53 (on Gaius’s demand for divine honours, which some argue are exaggerated by the sources); Bilde “Statue in the Temple”; and Smallwood, Jews (above, note [8]), 174-80. Drusilla: Suet. Gaius 24.2-3; Dio 59.11; Smallwood, Documents Illustrating, nos 5.12-15, 11, 128, 401.12; Wood, "Diva Drusilla

Vespasian died peacefully - at Aquae Cutiliae near his birthplace in Sabine country on 23 June, A.D. 79, after contracting a brief illness. The occasion is said to have inspired his deathbed quip: “Oh my, I must be turning into a god!” In fact, public deification did follow his death, as did his internment in the Mausoleum of Augustus alongside the Julio-Claudians. [see Suet. Vesp. 23]

I tire of besting you. Good day. :tiphat:

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m sorry, I asked for non-Emperors, I haven’t argued that Emperors weren’t diefied.

As for being “tired of besting” me, that’s a cheap cop out and you know it. You haven’t proven a single thing and you’ve abandoned half your points.

 

[Madaglan]

Nine_Two;6253262:

While there was a cult of Emperopr worship, Christ was not an Emperor, and Augustus didn’t do anything, he just didn’t stand in the way of a cult dedicated to him.

And Constantine didn’t vote at Nicea, he simply sat in. And even if he did, why would he want to diefy Christ? The fact is it is written quite clearly within the Gospels that Christ himself proclaimed his godhood.QUOTE]

And remember too, none of the Gospels were written by Christ and at least three were written well after the disciples were all dead. So what finally got written was written by others not there and prone to the embelishments of history, time and imagination, all during a primitive, supersticious time!!

PS: I know a lot of Catholics think writing in the Greek is impressive when it comes to quoting the bible, but reallt, its just a language, written by falable men like any other language.

The Gospels actually were written quite early relative to the life of Christ. Even considered earlier than the Gospels are the Pauline epistles, some which were written less than 15 years after the death of Christ. 1 Corinthians, one of the earliest written epistles, includes the death and resurrection of Christ.

 

[Nine_Two]

Agripa;6254347:

The Gospels actually were written quite early relative to the life of Christ. Even considered earlier than the Gospels are the Pauline epistles, some which were written less than 15 years after the death of Christ. 1 Corinthians, one of the earliest written epistles, includes the death and resurrection of Christ.

Further while Luke and Mark were not apostles, they had been followers of Christ from early on.

 

[Catholic_to_LDS]

Okay, That is fine. But in order to say something you must back it up, Thats only Fair. Noe you said that you find MANY contradictions between the Church and scripture.

Could you SHOW me Just ONE of the many you proclaim?

Why do you bow down before the Pope and kiss his ring when you read for example in Exodus 23:24 it states that you should bow down before God only? Are you (RCC) proclaiming the Pope is God on earth??? If so even we LDS don’t proclaim that our Prophet is God on earth.

 

[TheosisM]

Why do you bow down before the Pope and kiss his ring when you read for example in Exodus 23:24 it states that you should bow down before God only? Are you (RCC) proclaiming the Pope is God on earth??? If so even we LDS don’t proclaim that our Prophet is God on earth.

Bowing is a sign of respect in many cultures and religions, and has nothing to do with believing that the Pope is God on earth, which Catholics do not believe. What does it mean to not “bow down”? Is it referring to a physical act or a viewpoint?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I never was Catholic.

My parents were raised devout Catholics, but they both joined the Assemblies of God during the charismatic movement.

So that’s where I am, today.

 

[PJM]

=Publisher;6255386]Friend, I do not “persecute” anyone for their religious beliefs…I understand there are some who do believe that to simply disagree with someone is “persecution”…Where have I indicated I do not like “Catholics” on general principles?

I am readily willing to admit, I may not have all the ins and outs of Catholic thought and belief figured out and thus a lack of understanding…If you feel “persecuted” any time anyone disagrees with you…that must be a difficult burden to bear in a world where disagreements are very common.

Let’s turn your post around…am I to understand you do not like Quakers because they disagree with you? By your post am I to understand you persecute the Society of Friends because we understand…though perhaps very pooly…the Eternal Light of Christ differently than you?

See how silly such accusation sound when “turned around”?

I am amazed time and time again how members of some faith traditions cry “persecution” simply because they are disagreed with…I guess that is simply a human failing many of us share This Side.

As far as “authority”…I have no problem with authority…I simply do not accept the authority of the Catholic church over my life and beliefs…should I conclude that since you do not accept the Clerk of the Yearly Meeting in your area his or her “authority” that you have a problem accepting any authority?

I have not attacked anyones sense of character in my posts…I am at a loss why you feel it necessary to in your posts…can you explain why? I would be interested in your reasons…it would certainly help me to not do so again in the future…please be so kind and enlighten me concerning my attacks and what you base your asertions upon.

***My dear friend in Christ,

It would seem that I have misplaced my communicaton skills [assuming on my part that I had same to misplace?

Historically, the CC has been under continual persecution before it was even formaly announced by Christ as told in Mt. 16:15-19. And verifid in numerious other places. I once did a “One Church” bible search and founf 37 such references in the NT. That persecution has never ended, and has just taken different form and topics over h centuries.

In rereading my post, I was indeed too personal; but I was only seeking to find out what you believe or understand. If I came across with a lack of charity; PLEASE fogive me. **

***Faith is always a gift from God. Some make use of it in a fuller and “truer” sense than do others. I don’t ever recall making fun of others beliefs; even though at times, I am simply amazed at what some folks who choose to call themselves “Christians” hold as truth when it is so clearly refuted in the Bible.

I do assume one of two reasons for non-Catholics to dialog on this Forum. Either they have questions about what. why, and how we beleive and Practice our faith, or they wish to demonistrate “where we are wrong.” In the case of the latter; explaining my Faith can and easily becomes “defending” our Catholic Faith, which, I admit can get out of hand. If I have done so with you, again I’m offering sincere appologies.***

***If you consider yourself and your faith “Christian”, one assumes you accept the Bible? The Bible is a Catholic Book, having been birthed through the CC.

I frankly have no problem with people disagreeing with me and my Catholic Faith beliefs beyond actually not listening to what we share and the evidence we present as support of our faith. I do find it useful though to try to understand the people, not just there positions, when there is disagreement. And that was the purpose of my post.

Love and prayers,
Pat*****

 

[PJM]

=Catholic to LDS;6256541]Why do you bow down before the Pope and kiss his ring when you read for example in Exodus 23:24 it states that you should bow down before God only? Are you (RCC) proclaiming the Pope is God on earth??? If so even we LDS don’t proclaim that our Prophet is God on earth.

***No,

Fair question.

Two factors.

The Pope is the Divinely Inspired choice of God to Lead His Chirch on earth.

So the first reason is respct for the positionn held. But the Second reason cnot be seperated from the first reason.

The bowing and kissing of the ring goes back to the same tradition in the OT Kingdoms. This was a honor given to many great kings through out history.

We do see the Pope as a KING per-sae, rather as the “keeper of the keys to the Kingdom.”

It was a sign of Faith fediality, unity and a pledge of COMPLETE Obedience. Because the Pope holds “the keys” [Mt. 16:19] to the “Kingdom of heaven” this is not a far reach into logic and tradition. ***