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

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

Very well, and I can only respond, Faith supersedes logic.

 

[Singinbeauty]

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

Uncalled for and ignorant.

Do you have facts to back this rubbish?

That seems to be the pat answer for questions regarding why protestants don’t believe as catholics do on some issues.

That we are hateful spiteful people only out there to oppose catholics and no other reason. That we have no faith it is just that we hate catholics so much we started our own beliefs just to tick them off and ‘show them’.

I am so sick of it…

 

[Hisalone]

Uncalled for and ignorant.

Do you have facts to back this rubbish?

That seems to be the pat answer for questions regarding why protestants don’t believe as catholics do on some issues.

That we are hateful spiteful people only out there to oppose catholics and no other reason. That we have no faith it is just that we hate catholics so much we started our own beliefs just to tick them off and ‘show them’.

I am so sick of it…

Have there been any popes which have abused their authority? Have done harm to the poor and powerless?

 

[Singinbeauty]

Have there been any popes which have abused their authority? Have done harm to the poor and powerless?

I am sure there have been, as we are all human. But not being catholic I have not done much research on the subject.

My response was to the person who indicated that the reason protestants don’t follow the pope was due to us wanting loot or because of our hate for the ‘bride’. Indicating that we are not part of the church (the bride of Christ).

 

[gcnuss]

Have there been any popes which have abused their authority? Have done harm to the poor and powerless?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding Pope Leo X –

The only possible verdict on the pontificate of Leo X is that it was unfortunate for the Church. Sigismondo Tizio, whose devotion to the Holy See is undoubted, writes truthfully: “In the general opinion it was injurious to the Church that her Head should delight in plays, music, the chase and nonsense, instead of paying serious attention to the needs of his flock and mourning over their misfortunes”. Von Reumont says pertinently–“Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church.”

I choose to quote a Catholic source because I think it is evidence that even within the Church at least one pope was seen as having reigned in a less than exemplary fashion.

 

[RAR]

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?

I like the way you think Jimmy. I’ve never been in the forces or a policeman, fireman, or any other, but my dad was a football coach and teacher and I enjoyed playing sports until I graduated high school. I didn’t grow up Catholic, but when in college I was baptized, confirmed, and received my first Communion, this was one of the main things that attracted me to the Catholic church. In a world full of Christian denominations I felt I was drowning. It was the authority and hierarchy of the Catholic church that spoke to me otherwise I’d likely still be treading water.

As a side note, I now live in Utah and have an added appreciation for my Protestant brothers and sisters… God bless them.

RAR

 

[mikey_b]

Before you jump on someone by telling them their question is dumb perhaps you could actually answer it. I care what you have to say so could you please answer the question.

 

[mikey_b]

Before you dis someone for asking a question by calling it dumb could you possibly try actually answering it? I think it’s a good question and I’d like to hear something substantive from you if you would.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Ok, for the sake of discussion, let’s avoid infallibility. Supposing the Pope does not have the gift of infallibility. Still, why not recogize the Pope as the leader of God’s Church?

 

[Jimmy_B]

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

Hello allischalmers,

LOL, maybe so, I do sometimes ask dumb questions.

I guess my point here is, if there is a common Christian belief that there exists “one body In Christ”, or “one Church” then what’s wrong with “one leader” (here on earth)? Catholics are Christian too.

I’m Catholic, so obviously my choice for the position would be the Roman Catholic Pope.

Doesn’t your Church or Christian denomination have a leader or leaders (here on earth)?

Who would you vote for, if you could?

God Bless You

 

[Milliardo]

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, if we are to follow your logic, we should also not believe in the Transfiguration since this is a physical impossibility that is no longer viable, is that correct?

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

So, are we to suspend belief in God as well? After all, your point here is exactly the same point given by atheists, in that God’s existence is at variance with what we know about the nuclear nature of matter. That is why they reject God–He cannot exist in what we know matter to be.

 

[allischalmers]

Hello allischalmers,

LOL, maybe so, I do sometimes ask dumb questions.

I guess my point here is, if there is a common Christian belief that there exists “one body In Christ”, or “one Church” then what’s wrong with “one leader” (here on earth)? Catholics are Christian too.

I’m Catholic, so obviously my choice for the position would be the Roman Catholic Pope.

Doesn’t your Church or Christian denomination have a leader or leaders (here on earth)?

Who would you vote for, if you could?

God Bless You

Yes We do, there is the pastor, the deacons, the Sunday School Superintendant, the treasurer, the financial secretary and a whole lot of others.

 

[Harmony1988]

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.

“It is true that even among the Semites, and in Scripture itself, the phrase, “to eat some one’s flesh”, has a figurative meaning, namely, “to persecute, to bitterly hate some one”. If, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him.”

Read Part A:

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Read:

catholictheology.weebly.com/the-eucharist.html

Your comments on infallibility sounds like you haven’t understood what it actually means.

 

[reteeks21]

Hello allischalmers,

LOL, maybe so, I do sometimes ask dumb questions.

I guess my point here is, if there is a common Christian belief that there exists “one body In Christ”, or “one Church” then what’s wrong with “one leader” (here on earth)? Catholics are Christian too.

I’m Catholic, so obviously my choice for the position would be the Roman Catholic Pope.

Doesn’t your Church or Christian denomination have a leader or leaders (here on earth)?

Who would you vote for, if you could?

God Bless You

I see the point you are making, and it is an excellent one. I am a Protestant ( I actually dislike that word!), and I have no problem with the Pope. I think a leader is a very good thing. I just think that the whole infallibility thing throws some of us off. It is the same way with many Protestant leaders, because it is quite obvious we all get it wrong. Personally, I think that if we acknowledge no one leader is perfect, then we can all learn something from every leader in every denomination. But hey, that’s just my two cents worth.

 

[Harmony1988]

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.

So you forgot about the meta-physical realm then? Hey give us a break, we all know basic biology and physics here. What do you take us for? 8th grade students.

You have got to be kidding me if you think those arguments can stand up at the Vatican Pontifical Sciences and Theological/Philosophical arguments for transubstantiation.

You haven’t proved that perceptible qualities and the container theory is wrong, you just said once upon a time it was ok and now since we have atoms and sub-atomic particle it’s not ok, that in no way invalidates transubstantiation

Looks like you haven’t fully understood much, but just read a few lines here and there.

 

[Harmony1988]

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.

You won’t bother to read what he has put up, but want us to embrace or read your ideas, rather half-hearted attempts with no evidence but contradictory ideas on how transubstantiation is incorrect?

I am sorry, but statements like: “based upon an obsolete conception of matter” has to have proof behind it, and I hope you wont talk about sub-atomic particles again. If you must, why not read equilibrium states of the multi-verses to prove how transubstantiation is incorrect, it’s definitely closer than sub-atomic particles.

So 2000 years of bishops, popes, priests, theologians and philosophers have failed to “distinguish between a dogma called the Real Presence and one called Transubstantiation”

Give me a break Did you think you were the first to bring arguments against transubstantiation? Or perhaps did you think you knew more than Aquinas? Eitherways if you did or didn’t, you aren’t giving me proofs, just opinions.

 

[Harmony1988]

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.

I think the main problem you are having is coming to grips with META-PHYSICS. Before even talking about nuclear physics, which I doubt you even understand anyways, not more than 9th grade physics anyways, perhaps you should take some time out and learn a bit before getting into another mess again

 

[gcnuss]

Jimmy,

I guess my point here is, if there is a common Christian belief that there exists “one body In Christ”, or “one Church” then what’s wrong with “one leader” (here on earth)? Catholics are Christian too.

The idea of one leader is, I think, good. The difficulty is in putting it into practice. Our human condition is one that resists authority. That can be seen in our resistance to almost any authority, not just an ecclesiastical one. Certainly, for those of us who are not Catholic, the phrase “Rome has spoken: the case is closed” represents a claim to authority that we don’t believe exists. In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) it is hard to find anyone who will give such deference to “Chicago,” the site of our headquarters.

I will say that I have great respect for the papacy as the pre-eminent voice of Christianity in the world. That doesn’t mean that I agree with every pronouncement that come from Rome, but much that is good is made known to the world through the pope. Pope John Paul II was an excellent voice for Christ; I have great expectations for Benedict XVI as well.

I’m Catholic, so obviously my choice for the position would be the Roman Catholic Pope.

I’m afraid I don’t have any suggestions because I can’t foresee a time when all Christians will agree on a structure for the earthly leadership of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. I pray for that to change but our fallible human nature mitigates against that sort of unity. Perhaps, one day, the Holy Spirit will work a wondrous change in human hearts.

 

[mozart-250]

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

This question can also be flipped.

Why won’t all other Christians recognize the head of the Southern Baptist denomination as their leader?

Or the head of the Presbyterian Church USA as their leader?

Or the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church as their leader?

 

[Mickey]

the RC Church talks much about mystery, but in practice it is unable to live with it; it must have an explanation.

Yes. It is called scholasticism.