Why won’t all other Christians recognize the Roman Catholic Pope as their leader?

[Jimmy_B]

Why won’t all other Christians recognize the Roman Catholic Pope as their leader?

Leaders and leadership positions exist in every aspect of our lives.

A “chain of command” with a leader at the top and an upper echelon (central leadership) is essential to any large organization. Any organization without a central command, where authority is not passed down from the top, through a series of steps or positions, with each person accountable to the one(s) directly above them, leads to confusion, chaos and that organization is ultimately doomed to failure.

Christianity has never been a democracy and Christianity has always had leaders.

Decision-making responsibilities always originate from the “top” of any properly structured organization, from the higher levels of authority to the lower levels. This is called leadership.

Leadership encourages compliance without dissension. Most organizations’ have a ‘pyramid” type structure or something very close.

All Governments have various leadership positions.
All Businesses have various leadership positions.
All Militaries have various leadership positions
All Professional Sports Teams have various leadership positions.

They all have a leadership structure or “chain of command", which starts at the top from the higher levels of authority to the lower levels.

I can go on forever with examples of leaders, leadership and various organizations with a “chain of command”.

Leadership is “structure”, that’s all it is. Human beings have always craved “structure” in their lives, going all the way back to tribal leaders, it’s in our nature.

Structure is a good thing, it prevents confusion and chaos.

There are 2500+ Catholic Dioceses worldwide and one billion Catholics. It is unreasonable to expect there not to be a “chain of command” and a leadership structure in the Roman Catholic Church and this would include the head of the Church here on earth, the Pope.

The Pope is the “glue”, which holds it all together.

If it was not for the Roman Catholic Pope and the centrally organized structure of the Roman Catholic Church, there would not be a Bible today, there would not be Christianity today, and we would not be having this discussion.

Christianity would have been wiped from the face of the earth, well before any “Protestant” movement.

Why is it, that there are so many “Christians” who experience a “chain of command” or a hierarchy in ever aspect of their lives cannot accept this concept, when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope?

Finally, all families have a “pecking order’ or various levels of authority, with the parents at the top, over their children. there is no democracy in a family. Christianity (Catholicism) is one big family, and our “papa” is the Pope.

Why won’t all other Christians recognize the Roman Catholic Pope as their leader?

 

[mathematician]

Why won’t all other Christians recognize the Roman Catholic Pope as their leader?

Leaders and leadership positions exist in every aspect of our lives.

A “chain of command” with a leader at the top and an upper echelon (central leadership) is essential to any large organization. Any organization without a central command, where authority is not passed down from the top, through a series of steps or positions, with each person accountable to the one(s) directly above them, leads to confusion, chaos and that organization is ultimately doomed to failure.

Christianity has never been a democracy and Christianity has always had leaders.

Decision-making responsibilities always originate from the “top” of any properly structured organization, from the higher levels of authority to the lower levels. This is called leadership.

Leadership encourages compliance without dissension. Most organizations’ have a ‘pyramid” type structure or something very close.

All Governments have various leadership positions.
All Businesses have various leadership positions.
All Militaries have various leadership positions
All Professional Sports Teams have various leadership positions.

They all have a leadership structure or “chain of command", which starts at the top from the higher levels of authority to the lower levels.

I can go on forever with examples of leaders, leadership and various organizations with a “chain of command”.

Leadership is “structure”, that’s all it is. Human beings have always craved “structure” in their lives, going all the way back to tribal leaders, it’s in our nature.

Structure is a good thing, it prevents confusion and chaos.

There are 2500+ Catholic Dioceses worldwide and one billion Catholics. It is unreasonable to expect there not to be a “chain of command” and a leadership structure in the Roman Catholic Church and this would include the head of the Church here on earth, the Pope.

The Pope is the “glue”, which holds it all together.

If it was not for the Roman Catholic Pope and the centrally organized structure of the Roman Catholic Church, there would not be a Bible today, there would not be Christianity today, and we would not be having this discussion.

Christianity would have been wiped from the face of the earth, well before any “Protestant” movement.

Why is it, that there are so many “Christians” who experience a “chain of command” or a hierarchy in ever aspect of their lives cannot accept this concept, when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope?

Finally, all families have a “pecking order’ or various levels of authority, with the parents at the top, over their children. there is no democracy in a family. Christianity (Catholicism) is one big family, and our “papa” is the Pope.

Why won’t all other Christians recognize the Roman Catholic Pope as their leader?

Becausde infallibility sounds like a good way of talking yourself into a corner out of which you cannot subsequently get. I suppose a good example of that is the doctrine of transubstantiation, which relies upon a theory of matter which simply is not tenable any more.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Becausde infallibility sounds like a good way of talking yourself into a corner out of which you cannot subsequently get. I suppose a good example of that is the doctrine of transubstantiation, which relies upon a theory of matter which simply is not tenable any more.

Transubstantiation is real and it is supported by the bible. Next…

Eucharist:- Real Presense

**John 14:18-19 **
18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. 19 In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live.

Matthew 26:26-28
26 14 15 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:22-24
22 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed 8 for many.

Luke 22:17-20
17 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

Acts 2:42
42 They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.

Acts 20:7

7 on the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Eucharist:- Real Presense (continued)

Corinthians 11:23-29
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

I Corinthians 10:16
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Hebrews 13:10
10 We have an alta from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.

John 6:51-58
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

Luke 14:15
15 One of his fellow guests on hearing this said to him, “Blessed is the one who will dine in the kingdom of God.”

I Corinthians 11:26-29
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Eucharist:- Real Presense (continued)

Revelations 5:6
6 Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb 4 that seemed to have been slain. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the (seven) spirits of God sent out into the whole world.

Malachi 1:11
11 For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

**John 14:18-19. **
18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
19 In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Eucharist:- Real Presense (continued)

Revelations 5:6
6 Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb 4 that seemed to have been slain. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the (seven) spirits of God sent out into the whole world.

Malachi 1:11
11 For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

**John 14:18-19. **
18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
19 In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live.

 

[jdnrite01]

Becausde infallibility sounds like a good way of talking yourself into a corner out of which you cannot subsequently get. I suppose a good example of that is the doctrine of transubstantiation, which relies upon a theory of matter which simply is not tenable any more.

Lack of a strong central leadership position in the Anglican Community is causing it to become absolutely unglued. Transubstantiation isn’t a theory of matter at all. It’s religious dogma.

 

[mathematician]

Lack of a strong central leadership position in the Anglican Community is causing it to become absolutely unglued. Transubstantiation isn’t a theory of matter at all. It’s religious dogma.

It tries to talk about matter as if it was a container for something called its essence, and another lot of things called accidents. It may have been possible to posulate such a distinction once upon a time, but it is no longer. Something is blood if and only if it has the mokecular structure of blood; those molecules are made up of atoms, and those atoms are made up of sub-atomic particles. There is no room in there for a distinction between what something appears to be and what it actually is.

 

[mathematician]

Transubstantiation is real and it is supported by the bible. Next…

I won’t bother to plough through all those many quotes. The Roman Catholic problem is that it can’t distinguish between a dogma called the Real Presence and one called Transubstantiation. You can arguably derive the former from scripture, but you cannot derive the latter from scripture. the RC Church talks much about mystery, but in practice it is unable to live with it; it must have an explanation. The attempted explanation of how Christ comes to be present in the elements is transubstantiation. Unfortunately transubstantiation is a theory based upon an obsolete conception of matter.

 

[mikey_b]

If you were hungry and saw a piece of bread that was free would you eat it? What if you knew that same bread had been exposed to a large amount of radiation- seeing that it still looks the same would you eat of it?

 

[mathematician]

If you were hungry and saw a piece of bread that was free would you eat it? What if you knew that same bread had been exposed to a large amount of radiation- seeing that it still looks the same would you eat of it?

What is your point? Either the bread is still bread, in which case it will still have the same chemical composition, or else it will have been transformed into something else, in which case it will have a different chemical composition. Either it has got the chemical composition of bread, in which case it is bread, or it hasn’t got the chemical composition of bread, in which case it isn’t bread. There is no halfway house.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It tries to talk about matter as if it was a container for something called its essence, and another lot of things called accidents. It may have been possible to posulate such a distinction once upon a time, but it is no longer. Something is blood if and only if it has the mokecular structure of blood; those molecules are made up of atoms, and those atoms are made up of sub-atomic particles. There is no room in there for a distinction between what something appears to be and what it actually is.

**Then how do you explain the incarnation? How do you explain the eyewitness account of the Transfiguration? Does one have to suspend the temporal realities of substance to enter into the eternal realities that supersede the temporal realities of matter?, In other words, What does it take faith or logic to understand the ways of God?

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.
2 Because of it the ancients were well attested.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, 3 so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.

I believe one does not need to understand or believe in Transubstantiation, as long as they have faith that the consecrated host is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The word Transubstantiation is a word that describes what happens, for those curious minds who seek an answer. Thank God for the Magesterium. **

 

[richardwy]

I’ll toss out 2 reasons: loot and hatred of the Bride.

 

[Cathy]

I was born into a Methodist family and visited many other brands of Christian churches as I was growing up (my late father used to speak against the death penalty and this was one of his ways of getting to know pastors and get invitations to speak at churches). In those days, my father wasn’t exactly a believer, but he did think it was important to go to church for the sake of the “philosophy” learned there. I don’t know how my father felt, but my mother definitely didn’t consider Catholics to be Christians. She taught me that they worshipped Mary and the pope, and believed all kinds of superstitions.

When I started to study history and found out where the Bible came from, I was shocked. I was also shocked to find out that Catholics actually read the Bible at Mass, and not only that, they read it more than I had ever heard before in any other Christian church. Then I met a priest, and he could actually answer questions about the Bible. In fact, he knew the Bible better than I did after teaching Sunday School for 25 years. Another shock: the prayers which priests pray every day, several times a day, in the Divine Office, are all from Scripture. I found out that Catholics do not give Mary the worship,honor and adoration due to God alone, and that even the pope goes to confession frequently. Wow! This is not the same church I grew up falsely believing to be the “Catholic Church.” (By the way, my mother was baptized Catholic at age 84, by her request, and I am her godmother, thanks be to God. And thanks to Scott Hahn, the former Presbyterian minister who allowed God to lead him home to Rome.)

 

[allischalmers]

because we are not catholic, :extrahappy: dumb question:

 

[mathematician]

**Then how do you explain the incarnation? How do you explain the eyewitness account of the Transfiguration? **

I don’t. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with mystery, but there is something wrong with trying to hang on to physical theories which are no longer viable.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I was born into a Methodist family and visited many other brands of Christian churches as I was growing up (my late father used to speak against the death penalty and this was one of his ways of getting to know pastors and get invitations to speak at churches). In those days, my father wasn’t exactly a believer, but he did think it was important to go to church for the sake of the “philosophy” learned there. I don’t know how my father felt, but my mother definitely didn’t consider Catholics to be Christians. She taught me that they worshipped Mary and the pope, and believed all kinds of superstitions.

When I started to study history and found out where the Bible came from, I was shocked. I was also shocked to find out that Catholics actually read the Bible at Mass, and not only that, they read it more than I had ever heard before in any other Christian church. Then I met a priest, and he could actually answer questions about the Bible. In fact, he knew the Bible better than I did after teaching Sunday School for 25 years. Another shock: the prayers which priests pray every day, several times a day, in the Divine Office, are all from Scripture. I found out that Catholics do not give Mary the worship,honor and adoration due to God alone, and that even the pope goes to confession frequently. Wow! This is not the same church I grew up falsely believing to be the “Catholic Church.” (By the way, my mother was baptized Catholic at age 84, by her request, and I am her godmother, thanks be to God. And thanks to Scott Hahn, the former Presbyterian minister who allowed God to lead him home to Rome.)

Hooray, God bless Cathy and Moma, for coming home, and finding rest in God, welcome home Cathy.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with mystery, but there is something wrong with trying to hang on to physical theories which are no longer viable.

So now a commentary or a word to describe an event is no longer viable? Can you help me understand your logic?

 

[mathematician]

So now a commentary or a word to describe an event is no longer viable? Can you help me understand your logic?

A theory which is at variance with what we now know about the nuclear nature of matter is no longer viable. That is what I said.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

because we are not catholic, :extrahappy: dumb question:

LOL,LOL,LOL Thats a good answer.