The Pope

being probally the most revered figure/leader in all of history since Christ, the leader of an institution which never broke apart, and someone who also can penetrate the hearts of the faithfull (list can go on and on haha) but what about u guys?? do you see him with respect or disgust??

discuss about benedict, and if u want, pass popes (basically because the pope has came to the states) and for whatever reasons for liking or hating him, describe why.

thanks

Disgust.

Since the Pope is using authority that the Church itself has invented, and which is stated nowhere in the Bible, he is abusing authority that was never given to him in the first place by the religion he so claims to be upholding.

Since the Pope is also the head of the Catholic church, his existence is, in part (and a large part at that), responsible for the many feuds between Catholics and Protestants, and before that, feuds between the Church and other religions in history.

Being one of the most influential people on the planet, if he excommunicates the leader of a nation, he's basically releasing the people of that nation from servitude to the leader, if they accept his authority. Since enough people in Western civilization are Catholic, this could cause even further feuding should it ever occur (which it likely wouldn't, but I don't like the fact that it COULD).

And many, many other reasons besides which will only cause further, irrelevant debate. I don't care if Benedict or John Paul or any other Pope were nice blokes, the fact that they support(ed) an inherently corrupt system will forever leave me with the bitter taste of disgust in my mouth when their names are mentioned.

hey buddy, at 1st the christians had to group up with eachother to make sure that they were believing the same thing and such. jesus invented the church, "on this rock i will build my church" sound a bit familiar??


2nd, the church made the bible. the church is the only reason for christianity being preserved and not destroyed.

also, the pope exomunicates leaders becuase they are not upholding the truth of the church. if they are being a bad influence, then why not make them no longer an influence.

e.g- you have 2 brothers, one has bad values and the other has good ones. u are grouped up more with the one with bad values. wouldnt your mom want to make sure you dont get embroiled into the bad influence, and if so she ould have to make measures.

western culture is so lax when it comes to reliougouse movements, becuase you can basically institute anything you want and make urself feel better unlike in the muslim world where unrest is most prone to occur, so western powers and such are in no manner in danger of some exomunication reprucusions directed in violence. maybe in the old days that happened, but not now, atleast in the west.

...This is not starting well.


Either cooler heads prevail or the thread is locked, 'kay?

Did Jesus say "On this rock I will build my Church, and we will have a democratic process to decide who will be the representative of God's authority once I'm gone"? I don't believe he did.

Secondly if we assume that the church made the Bible, and the Church is run by the Pope, then indirectly the Pope made the Bible. So indirectly, the Pope invented what he claims to be trying to preserve in the first place. He has created the reason for his own existence, and yet has conveniently forgotten to include "Oh, and there will be a Pope" in it.

Edit: Also I'm not trying to cause any animosity, the thread was based in asking our opinion, and I gave mine. It may have been a little strong, granted, but I think on this kind of topic it's bound to be. I also gave reasons for my opinion, which were also asked for. So juanzup, if you think I was offensive in any way, I apologise, but I just posted what you asked for so yeah.

your right i did spaz out haha, ur view man and thats it

anyone else?? hes not in the states for ever you know haha

According to the Bible we (meaning christians) can talk directly to God. We don't need an intermediary like the pope. The pope is just a man; the Bible states that no man is holy, so the pope has no more religious athority than anyone else does.
In general cathaloism is a bit contradictory to the bible. For example, the catholic bible has several parts added on to it (such as a couple extra chapters in the book of daniel), despite the fact that the bible states it should not be added apon or have parts removed.

2nd, the church made the bible

Actually God made the Bible. He basically told people like moses what to write. This also happened a long time before Christs death (the birth of Christianity) so the christian church couldn't have made the bible anyway becuase they didn't exist.

Originally Posted by juanzup

being probally the most revered figure/leader in all of history since Christ, the leader of an institution which never broke apart, and someone who also can penetrate the hearts of the faithfull (list can go on and on haha) but what about u guys?? do you see him with respect or disgust??

discuss about benedict, and if u want, pass popes (basically because the pope has came to the states) and for whatever reasons for liking or hating him, describe why.

thanks

Hi juan,

Pope Benedict XVI is a very intelligent man. I respect him very much for his intellectual achievements-- he's a very good academic.

I also like his sense of style and tradition. Watch carefully whenever he offers Mass. He is doing his best to "re-orient" the Church through his liturgical arrangement. That's why he authored Summorum Pontificum, I think. He wanted the usage of the extraordinary rite of the Mass (the so-called "Latin Mass") to help cross-pollinate and enrich the saying of Paul VI's Mass.

I think it's truly a blessing to have him as Pope.

Originally Posted by Sage of the Earth

Disgust.

Why disgust, my friend? In a world which is increasingly secular, you will find that a principled man and able defender of the rationality of Christian faith like Pope Benedict XVI is far more of an ally to you than many other people. Always look for the good, and you will find it. Part of the Christian mission is turning our pre-reflexive disgust for our fellow man into joy in finding Jesus in them-- just as we ought to identify Jesus in the faces of the poor, the imprisoned and the hungry (cf. Matthew 25), why ought we not identify Him in those whom we categorize as spiritually poor, imprisoned and hungry?

And many, many other reasons besides which will only cause further, irrelevant debate. I don't care if Benedct or John Paul or any other Pope were nice blokes, the fact that they support(ed) an inherently corrupt system will forever leave me with the bitter taste of disgust in my mouth when their names are mentioned.

"Inherently corrupt?" I think it is a sad reality that any system with people will be inundated with sin, but it is far from inherently corrupt. Disperse the disgust with good Christian love.

Did Jesus say "On this rock I will build my Church, and we will have a democratic process to decide who will be the representative of God's authority once I'm gone"? I don't believe he did.

Do you agree, then, that Jesus did build His Church on the rock of Peter?

As for the process of succession, surely it only begs the question to assume that it must be in Scripture, doesn't it?

Secondly if we assume that the church made the Bible, and the Church is run by the Pope, then indirectly the Pope made the Bible. So indirectly, the Pope invented what he claims to be trying to preserve in the first place. He has created the reason for his own existence, and yet has conveniently forgotten to include "Oh, and there will be a Pope" in it.

The claim was imprecise. It would be more accurate to say that specific members of the Church wrote the Bible (under divine inspiration). The more important claim is that the Church canonized the Scriptures. It was through the Church's support and recognition that we came to our official understanding of the limit and extent of the canon of Scripture. This is a much more difficult objection, for sola scriptura cannot reach back beyond its origins to determine itself.

Originally Posted by ShiekahSage

According to the Bible we (meaning christians) can talk directly to God.

Catholics would wholeheartedly agree. Private prayer and devotion is a central pillar of the Catholic spiritual life.

We don't need an intermediary like the pope.

To talk to God? Of course not. But I have a feeling that you mean something else.

The pope is just a man; the Bible states that no man is holy, so the pope has no more religious athority than anyone else does.

Your reasoning here is a bit problematic. Let me explain.

You reason that:

The Pope is a man.
No man is holy.
Therefore the pope has no more religious authority than anyone else.

But we can see that this has several steps, and in fact, several 'hidden' premises within it. Let me try to make them explicit.

P1. The Pope is a man.
P2. No man is holy.
C1: The Pope is not holy.

Now, you seem to suggest that because of this he has no religious authority over anyone else.

So, let's assume:

P3. No [person who is not holy] is [someone who has religious authority over someone else].
P4. (C1) The Pope is a person who is not holy.
C2. Therefore, No [the Pope] is [someone who has religious authority over someone else].

Now that's a valid syllogism!

Now, I would disagree with you on several counts.

P2 is manifestly false. I prove it thus: any person regenerated by God by forgiveness of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is holy. All Christians are such people. Therefore, Christians are holy. One counterfactual claim destroys the premise. Besides, the NT scriptures testify that Elizabeth and Zechariah were "righteous in the eyes of God" (Luke 1:6). James characterizes Elijah as a righteous man (James 5:16-18).

P3 is also false. A person's holiness is quite simply irrelevant to a person's spiritual authority. This error is called the Donatist heresy. Now, you'd agree with me that spiritual authority is given by God as a gift. Hence, spiritual authority depends on the gift of God, and not on the personal ability of the person who received it (after all, it is far beyond his person ability). But if it depends on the gift of God, and not the person's holiness, then P3 is false.

I've undermined both P3 and P4 (C1), which means I have utterly undermined the conclusion.

The real questions to ask are: does God give any special religious authority to men? The answer is: yes. Note the special authority of the apostles, and of the bishops, presbyters and deacons whom they appointed. The next question is, did God give any special religious authority to Peter above the other apostles? The answer seems to be yes, for Peter is recorded as, being 1. called the rock on which the Church is built, 2. is given the power to bind and loose singularly (whereas the apostles are given it only as a group together), 3. is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:16-18).

In general cathaloism is a bit contradictory to the bible. For example, the catholic bible has several parts added on to it (such as a couple extra chapters in the book of daniel), despite the fact that the bible states it should not be added apon or have parts removed.

The real question is, "what constitutes the Bible?" While Protestants accuse the Church of adding to Scripture, the Church thinks that it has Scripture in a complete form. That is to say, one could easily fault Protestants for removing Scripture (and the Scriptures also states, as you say, that no part ought to be removed). So it seems that a stalemate will occur if we simply accuse one or the other side of adding to or removing from Scripture. The better path to take would be, what belongs in Scripture and on what basis ought we to ultimately decide this?

-Rob

I'm not at all Catholic, however I can say that for the most part I respect the Pope.

From what I know about him he seems like a peaceful and nice guy. I can't say this for Popes in the past (remember the crusades?) but for the present day Pope I can.

Originally Posted by ShiekahSage

despite the fact that the bible states it should not be added apon or have parts removed.

Incorrect. The Bible does not state that. It's obvious that John the Revalator is referring to The Book of Revelation specifically when he said that things shouldn't be added to his own book. Otherwise, many books in the Bible don't belong, since they were written and added many years after The Book of Revelation.

On the same token, many plain and precious truths have been lost from the Bible. Eighteen books are missing from it:

• Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14)
• Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18)
• Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41)
• Book of Samuel the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29)
• Book of Gad the Seer ( 1 Chronicles 29:29)
• Book of Nathan the Prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29)
• Prophecy of Ahija (2 Chronicles 9:29)
• Visions if Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; 13:22)
• Book of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15)
• Book of Jehu (2 Chronicles 20:34)
• Sayings of the Seers (2 Chronicles 33:19)
• An Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians that precedes our current 1st Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5:9)
• An earlier Epistle to the Ephesians (Ephesians 3:3)
• An Epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Colossians 4:16)
• Prophecies of Enoch (Jude 1:14)
• Book of the Covenant (Exodus 24:7)
• The manner of the Kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Samuel 10:25)
• The Acts of Uzziah, written by Isaiah (2 Chronicles 26:22)

As for my views on the Pope, I respect him, but believe he doesn't have the authority to be acting in the name of God. And I about cringe every time I see him in his fancy dress, which is very hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Since the Pope is using authority that the Church itself has invented, and which is stated nowhere in the Bible, he is abusing authority that was never given to him in the first place by the religion he so claims to be upholding.

Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

Of course, in the literal Greek, this says something more like "what you shall bind on earth shall already have been bound in heaven...", which is where the doctrines of infallibility arise. What the Church (and specifically Peter, and by extension his successors) declares doctrine is not made doctrine, but is already true.

Since the Pope is also the head of the Catholic church, his existence is, in part (and a large part at that), responsible for the many feuds between Catholics and Protestants, and before that, feuds between the Church and other religions in history.

Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. The Pope is merely acting in the person of Christ, doing the work He gave to Peter. Prior this would be stated as "vicar of Peter," or "vicar of the principal apostle," but Peter was effectively the vicar of Christ, so the Vicarius Christi title was adopted to emphasize the role.

Being one of the most influential people on the planet, if he excommunicates the leader of a nation

When the Pope "excommunicates" the leader of a nation, he is not, in fact, doing anything at all besides declaring a pre-existing excommunication. Excommunication is merely the commission of a sin that damages or perverts the community of Christ in a substantial way. This would be necessary to declare in the case of prominent public figures in order to clarify the Church's disapproval of their religious practice or political exercise with respect to the Church.

Originally Posted by Blizzaga

Incorrect. The Bible does not state that. It's obvious that John the Revalator is referring to The Book of Revelation specifically when he said that things shouldn't be added to his own book. Otherwise, many books in the Bible don't belong, since they were written and added many years after The Book of Revelation.

On the same token, many plain and precious truths have been lost from the Bible. Eighteen books are missing from it:

• Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14)
• Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18)
• Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41)
• Book of Samuel the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29)
• Book of Gad the Seer ( 1 Chronicles 29:29)
• Book of Nathan the Prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29)
• Prophecy of Ahija (2 Chronicles 9:29)
• Visions if Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; 13:22)
• Book of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15)
• Book of Jehu (2 Chronicles 20:34)
• Sayings of the Seers (2 Chronicles 33:19)
• An Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians that precedes our current 1st Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5:9)
• An earlier Epistle to the Ephesians (Ephesians 3:3)
• An Epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Colossians 4:16)
• Prophecies of Enoch (Jude 1:14)
• Book of the Covenant (Exodus 24:7)
• The manner of the Kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Samuel 10:25)
• The Acts of Uzziah, written by Isaiah (2 Chronicles 26:22)

The problem is, as you say, that the Bible was composed of independent books. So, it is difficult to universalize their claim, viz., to say that because one says do not add or subtract from Scripture that it is referring to other Scriptures. It would seem to be best to take it as, "don't mess with Scripture." But it's hard to be polemical about such a statement.

The more interesting claim lies in the question of completion or fullness of revelation. The Epistle of Jude characterizes Christianity as "the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones" (Jude 3). This is more powerfully emphasized by the epistle to the Hebrews which says that, "in times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son" (Hebrews 1:1-2). That is, whereas revelation in former times was partial and incomplete, revelation now is full and complete because we have the Son Himself. These texts are foundational to the Christian view that the fullness of revelation has come to God's people in the revelation of the Son to mankind.

While an opponent might be able to launch a better-- or at least more sophisticated attack-- from this position, it still would ultimately fail. The Catholic Church also believes that the fullness of public revelation has been given, and so the attempt to attack this would be difficult. Of course, I do have a horse in this race.

As for my views on the Pope, I respect him, but believe he doesn't have the authority to be acting in the name of God. And I about cringe every time I see him in his fancy dress, which is very hypocritical.

When a priest is officiating at the Mass he is a symbol of the risen Christ. The glory which we try to represent is shown in the Apocalypse when Jesus is portrayed as a high priest in traditional priestly robes. "I saw... one like a son of man, wearing an ankle-length robe, with a gold sash around his chest" (Rev 1:12-13). In Exodus 28 and 29, for instance, the beauty of the robes which the priests wore is detailed. It reads: "These are the vestments they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a brocaded tunic, a miter and a sash. In making these sacred vestments which your brother Aaron and his sons are to wear in serving as my priests, they shall use gold, violet, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen" (Ex 28:4-5).

This is a good segue into the larger topic of "fancy" things in worship. It's hardly hypocritical to use fancy things in worship-- God has long commanded the use of such things. The worship of God is associated with many fine and even expensive things in the OT, by God's own command. The Temple itself is a veritable second paradise, replete with likenesses of animals and nature and angels-- lilies, oxen, a 'sea' of bronze, lions, palm trees, and cherubim. For instance, the "two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory" on the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:18). The Dwelling was made of "sheets woven of fine linen twined and of violet, purple and scarlet yarn, with cherubim embroidered on them" (Ex 26:1). Solomon's Temple is likewise-- the large cherubim of olive wood which "were overlaid with gold" (I Kings 6:23-24). Also, on the "walls on all sides of both the inner and the outer rooms had carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers" (1 Kings 6:29). Not to mention that "The floor of both the inner and the outer rooms was overlaid with gold." (1 Kings 6:30). And it continues about the: "carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. The doors were overlaid with gold, which was also molded to the cherubim and the palm trees" (1 Kings 6:32). Not to mention the humongous "sea": "The sea was then cast" and it laid on "on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east, with their haunches all toward the center, where the sea was set upon them" (1 Kings 7:25).

I'm sure it was breathtakingly beautiful. These expensive and beautiful things were used in the service and worship of God. Likewise with the 'fancy robes' which the Pope uses. It's not as if he lounges around all day in these garments-- he uses them in the service of God. And this is hardly discontinuous with what God has accepted and ordered. While Jesus did live a life a poverty, He did not deny the expensive gift of the anointing of oil which was given to Him (cf. Mark 14, John 12, etc). His detractors complained that it could have been sold 'for more than 300 days wages' and given to the poor, but He accepted it as a fitting gift. Expensive things are appropriate in our worship of God, and an appropriate way for a community to spend its money so as to show its priorities.

The problem is that our culture no longer understands how the beauty of earthly things can be the first step for raising our minds to the contemplation of God and true worship-- in many ways a strangely implicitly gnostic assumption.

-Rob

Originally Posted by Bobslob

The problem is that our culture no longer understands how the beauty of earthly things can be the first step for raising our minds to the contemplation of God and true worship-- in many ways a strangely implicitly gnostic assumption.

That's because "beautiful and earthly things" can bring out the natural man, which is an enemy to God. I believe modest dressing is better suited (simple suits and ties and dresses that aren't irreverent). It shows your humbleness before God, instead of showing off fancy stuff and rising yourself above others. I'm not blaming the Pope for being prideful (as I said, I respect the man), but in these days, I prefer modest dress. Jesus Himself, set that example for us to follow.

Originally Posted by Blizzaga

That's because "beautiful and earthly things" can bring out the natural man, which is an enemy to God. I believe modest dressing is better suited (simple suits and ties and dresses that aren't irreverent). It shows your humbleness before God, instead of showing off fancy stuff and rising yourself above others. I'm not blaming the Pope for being prideful