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

[angelheart]

No response needed here, you have answered your own question.

I will add though that all properly Baptized Christians are all “brothers and sisters in Christ” even though their particular denominations are not in full union with the Roman Catholic Church. Most of these non-Catholic Christian denominations contain Christian truths, where the Roman Catholic Church is a fuller expression of Christian truth. Many of our sister catholic churches are very close to the Roman Rite, with just a few more hurdles to overcome. I pray for true Christian Unity, unity in Christian beliefs!

Moreover, I love, respect and admire the Orthodox (catholic), Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew. I also love, admire and respect many other “Protestant” leaders, although, as a Roman Catholic, I may not agree with everything that they say or write, I do agree with the “parts’ that are true. I hope this helps.

Take Care and God Bless You!

Hello,

You have misunderstood me, but you probably already know it.

God bless!

 

[vocatio]

I’d love to hear this Pope Joan…anti-Pope from CAF. I saw a documentary on this before coming home to the Catholic Church.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Jimmy B:

Hello Madaglan,

I love women and I think that most of my posts here (at CAF) on the Virgin Mary will bear this out. None of the Apostles were women and I believe that “Pope Joan” was an "anti-Pope. I will try to find a reliable web site that addresses this and post it here.

Thank you for your post!

Hello Jimmy B,

Pope Joan did not exist. Pope Joan was a popular myth passed down through the ages. It’s a fun story but there never was a woman made Pope (or anti-Pope for that matter).

 

[angelheart]

What you may not realize is that, the teaching of Jesus and or the Apostles become doctrine when the said teachings come under attack, by Rulers, kings, governments, and secularism. When the Catholiic church infallibly cannonized your bible, was for the purpose that bishops and or false teachers would stop using anti christian or teaching against the already belief that Jesus taught and the Apostles themselves handed down to the church, from other sources. The Catholic church, these are the books inspired of God and will be used for the Liturgy of the word of God and the Eucharistic liturgies.

Others here think, that because other councils, kept confirming these original cannonized books of the bible, throughout history it was not done infallibly. The reason for the synods was, because the books of the bible kept coming under attack, sometimes by Catholic theologians themselves. Note however at the conclusion of each council the same result was the original cannonized books of the bible which you hold in your hands today.

When you look at your bible and see how precious it is, Know this, Many Catholic Popes, bishops and religious gave up their Lives, and spilled there blood, for your bible. No other Christian protestant can make that claim, other than they removed books from the bible, and added to the scriptures.

Peace be with you.

You may find me ignorant, but I got stuck reading your post. I don’t understand who gave up life, spilled blood, etc. and why. Cause if it is for the infallibility doctrine, please forgive me, but I haven’t heard anything about it.
By the way, who attacked the Church when the doctrine of infallibility was formulated?

God bless!

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by angelheart:

By the way, who attacked the Church when the doctrine of infallibility was formulated?

Anti-monarchist revolutionaries!!!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So it’s a miracle that cannot be perceived either by any of the senses or any of the sciences. Very unlike the miracle of Jesus turning real water into real wine.

Yet Jesus never told His Apostles, or us, to “believe” that the bread would, miraculously, become His body, blood, soul and divinity. The dogmas of “Real Presence” and “Transubstantiation” introduced into Christianity an aspect of “faith” that neither Jesus, or His Apostles, ever required.

It’s not a miracle at all. That something is a miracles is perceptible by the senses - that belongs to the nature of a miracle. To persist in calling it what it is not, makes no sense. So of course He didn’t - as it is not a miracle, why would He tell them to believe that it is ?​

It’s perfectly true that the word T’ion is as such not in the Bible, just as the concept is not - but both word & concept do OTOH correspond to the Biblical data: in the sense that what the word denotes is the same thing as those data. The word is as much or as little legitimate as (say) homoousion - in both cases, terms from outwith the Biblical text are used to denote actualities within that text. That neither the word nor the concept “transubstantiation” are present is true, but that is not a fatal objection - it suffices that the actuality is denoted, & is present in some way. The word is a 13th-century name for a 1st-century actuality.

The argument from “what Jesus did not do” is a two-edged sword: He did not command His Apostles to compose the writings you rely on for knowledge of what He did. Very obviously, that does not show the positive rightness of the Church’s use of the T-word or the T-concept; but it does show that the argument from “what Jesus did not do” is as ruinous to the having of a written NT as to the Catholic acceptance of T.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Amen! Extremely well stated.

Christ’s peace.

TY - And also with you ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

At least not very often (see the list of Church-approved Eucharistic miracles at www.therealpresence.org).

The teaching on the real presence is nothing new, though.
The web page below gives quotes from early Church fathers regarding the Eucharist. St. Ignatius of Antioch heard St. John the evengelist when he (St. Ignatious) was a child.
See therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html#bible

Blessings,
Cathy

The OP’s words were:​

• The communion elements bread and wine do not magically transform their molecular structure into that of human blood and human flesh.
  But:
• There is no magic involved - &;
• the molecular structures of the Gifts are not affected by the consecration.
  So the OP is not describing transubstantiation; so the description has nothing whatever to do with any supposed Eucharistic miracles.

So, too much is being conceded to the OP.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Type “Transubstantiation and modern physics” into a search engine and do your own research.

They are completely unrelated, so why would anyone couple “Transubstantiation and modern physics” ?​

Since the two are completely unrelated, progress in the latter does not constitute an objection to the former. There are objections to transubstantiation, and to belief in it - but not from biology, physics, or chemistry. Objections from those sciences could only seem to have weight as objections to transubstantiation if the objecter did not understand what is meant by the word.

 

[brkn1]

I would like to get back to the original question about why I do not recognize the Pope as my leader.

The Pope is known as the Vicar of Christ, which means the substitute for Christ.
The problem with this idea is that Jesus said that He had to go to the Father so that the Holy Spirit (the Comforter) could come to guide us into all truth.
The Comforter would not come to us if Jesus did not depart according to Scripture. (John 16:7)
I don’t need a substitute Jesus on earth. I want Jesus in Heaven, where the indwelling Holy Spirit allows me to pray directly to the Father in my Lord Jesus’ Name, Who is both my Redeemer and Mediator with the Father in Heaven.

 

[Jon_S]

I would like to get back to the original question about why I do not recognize the Pope as my leader.

The Pope is known as the Vicar of Christ, which means the substitute for Christ.
The problem with this idea is that Jesus said that He had to go to the Father so that the Holy Spirit (the Comforter) could come to guide us into all truth.
The Comforter would not come to us if Jesus did not depart according to Scripture. (John 16:7)
I don’t need a substitute Jesus on earth. I want Jesus in Heaven, where the indwelling Holy Spirit allows me to pray directly to the Father in my Lord Jesus’ Name, Who is both my Redeemer and Mediator with the Father in Heaven.

The Pope as the “Vicar of Christ” does not mean the Pope is a substitute for Christ in all things. The words “on earth” are key here. We all want Jesus in Heaven, but we’re not quite there yet.

In John 16 Jesus is addressing the Apostles. I don’t see anything in chapter 16 that would indicate he was referring to the general public. The Apostles commanded positions of authority and guidance. We see this clearly in the Book of Acts.

Jesus is the mediator and redeemer with the Father for me and the Pope too.

As far as Transubstantiation, the argument against it from a “molecular” standpoint, seems to entirely miss the meaning of the word.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hello Jimmy B,

Pope Joan did not exist. Pope Joan was a popular myth passed down through the ages. It’s a fun story but there never was a woman made Pope (or anti-Pope for that matter).

Hello Madaglan,

Thank you,

That’s what I thought but I was on my way out the door, so I posted, “I believe…”, because I didn’t have the time or a reliable source handy to properly address the poster here. I knew she wasn’t a Catholic Pope and that there are some who have put her in the category of “anti-Pope” (claimed to be, but not really a Pope) so I figured I’d tackle this one later, when I had some more time and information for the person here who brought up this question.

Thanks again and God Bless You!

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hello,

You have misunderstood me, but you probably already know it.

God bless!

I do, thank you!

 

[panoikei]

So Pope Joan falls in the same catagory as the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?

 

[moondweller]

It’s not a miracle at all. That something is a miracles is perceptible by the senses - that belongs to the nature of a miracle. To persist in calling it what it is not, makes no sense. So of course He didn’t - as it is not a miracle, why would He tell them to believe that it is ?​

It’s perfectly true that the word T’ion is as such not in the Bible, just as the concept is not - but both word & concept do OTOH correspond to the Biblical data: in the sense that what the word denotes is the same thing as those data. The word is as much or as little legitimate as (say) homoousion - in both cases, terms from outwith the Biblical text are used to denote actualities within that text. That neither the word nor the concept “transubstantiation” are present is true, but that is not a fatal objection - it suffices that the actuality is denoted, & is present in some way. The word is a 13th-century name for a 1st-century actuality.

The argument from “what Jesus did not do” is a two-edged sword: He did not command His Apostles to compose the writings you rely on for knowledge of what He did. Very obviously, that does not show the positive rightness of the Church’s use of the T-word or the T-concept; but it does show that the argument from “what Jesus did not do” is as ruinous to the having of a written NT as to the Catholic acceptance of T.

So its not a miracle. Will you give me a list of some other things in this world that transubstantiate on a regular basis?

Would it not be a miracle for your human body to be in more than one place at a time, and yet not be detected by the senses?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by panoikei:

So Pope Joan falls in the same catagory as the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?

Yes, and if you leave a $20 bill on the kitchen table at night, you will awaken in the morning to find a writ of indulgence in its place!

 

[Singinbeauty]

The Pope as the “Vicar of Christ” does not mean the Pope is a substitute for Christ in all things. The words “on earth” are key here. We all want Jesus in Heaven, but we’re not quite there yet.

In John 16 Jesus is addressing the Apostles. I don’t see anything in chapter 16 that would indicate he was referring to the general public. The Apostles commanded positions of authority and guidance. We see this clearly in the Book of Acts.

Jesus is the mediator and redeemer with the Father for me and the Pope too.

As far as Transubstantiation, the argument against it from a “molecular” standpoint, seems to entirely miss the meaning of the word.

I thought that our representative from Heaven on earth is the Holy Spirit…

 

[Jon_S]

I thought that our representative from Heaven on earth is the Holy Spirit…

I’m not quite sure where you derive this from Biblically.

It’s my understanding that the Holy Spirit is the operator of grace and the sanctifier of souls.

The Pope’s position on earth has very little to do with either of those. Catholics do not receive graces from the Pope, nor are we sanctified by him. Those things come from God alone.

The priests, bishops, popes; can participate in Christ’s unique mediatorship (such is the case with Eucharist) but this is not of their own power. You will find this participation in Christ’s unique role expanded upon in the writings of St. Paul.

I’m open to correction by any of my Catholic brothers and sisters, but I think that about sums it up.

 

[Singinbeauty]

I’m not quite sure where you derive this from Biblically.

It’s my understanding that the Holy Spirit is the operator of grace and the sanctifier of souls.

The Pope’s position on earth has very little to do with either of those. Catholics do not receive graces from the Pope, nor are we sanctified by him. Those things come from God alone.

The priests, bishops, popes; can participate in Christ’s unique mediatorship (such is the case with Eucharist) but this is not of their own power. You will find this participation in Christ’s unique role expanded upon in the writings of St. Paul.

I’m open to correction by any of my Catholic brothers and sisters, but I think that about sums it up.

John 14:25-27:

25"All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

I believe that is pretty clear… at least, to me anyway…

 

[Cajetan]

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

Because then there wouldn’t be any heretics.