Is the POPE really HOLY?

[viole]

That's a good point.

Yes, did you notice how people reacted when they suddenly understood what the priest was saying?



Ciao

- viole

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, did you notice how people reacted when they suddenly understood what the priest was saying?



Ciao

- viole

Now you've gone off into nonsense again.

 

[viole]

Now you've gone off into nonsense again.

Romans (Catholics). No sense of humor

Ciao

- viole

 

[Glaurung]

I think the Catholic Church started its decline, at least in church attendance, when the latin liturgy has been abandoned. The reasons are obvious.

It's not just a question of the Latin liturgy. The ordinary form when done well can be reverent. I'm not anti-novus ordo nor do I think that it's "all the fault" of Vatican II. The big betrayal has been the ivory tower movement (in large part by the clergy) to water down the faith out the misguided notion of cultural relevance. I want to go to Church to encounter the divine. I want to be smacked by the smell of incense and hear the crackle of candles. I want to see icons and be lost in the otherworldliness of chant. Not to go to some minimalist "community hall" to sing kumbaya and listen to wishy-washy philosophy.

The core problem with modernist Catholicism is that it tries to appeal to the widest possible demographic, which as with almost everything else usually results in banality.

 

[sojourner]

Yeah no, I'm not budging. Christ established a Church as a visible institution and vested teaching authority to the Apostles and their successors. It does matter to which church you belong and it does matter what you believe.

So, what you're really saying is that, unless one identifies as "Roman Catholic," one doesn't really love; one just "plays" at it. There are several problems with your assertion. I'll try to outline them without being disrespectful, because I respect everyone's right to sincerely-held beliefs.
1) To try to make love proprietary in this way is to do the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. Remember, the Judaic religious authorities tried to say that, unless one kept all 613
Laws, one was not really righteous -- IOW, one didn't really love God, unless one was a rigidly-observant Jew. Jesus said, "Bullspit! All these Laws can be encapsulated in two little rules: 1) Love God, and 2) Love neighbor as self." Jesus didn't see love as proprietary, rather, Jesus saw love as impetus. One didn't have to belong to a certain religion or believe certain things, so long as one loved.
2) I agree that teaching authority was vested in the apostles (who, in turn, vested that authority in their successors). But you need to realize that many of those successors became part of different judicatories. The RCC is patently not the "original" church. The RCC is one expression of a much larger "original church," that includes the Eastern Church, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, and, indeed, any body that lies within the Apostolic succession. Rome has tried to claim primacy since the beginning, but has always been unsuccessful, except in its own estimation (which doesn't really count for much in the bigger picture).
3) Christ established a church -- not an "institution" -- as a visible example.

 

[viole]

It's not just a question of just the Latin liturgy. The ordinary form when done well can be reverent. I'm not anti-novus ordo nor do I think that it's "all the fault" of Vatican II. The big betrayal has been the ivory tower movement (in large part by the clergy) to water down the faith out the misguided notion of cultural relevance. I want to go to Church to encounter the divine. I want to be smacked by the smell of incense and hear the crackle of candles. I want to see icons and hear be lost in the otherworldliness of chant. Not to go to some minimalist hall to sing kumbaya and listen to wishy-washy philosophy.

The core problem with modernist Catholicism is that it tries to appeal to the widest possible demographic, which as with almost everything usually results in banality.

Well, yes, me too, it sounds a bit elistist but i know what you mean. You might find it hard to believe, but I actually favor a much more conservative church. But that is a selfish wish,of course. It would just accelerate the process of seeing the last stone falling from the last church on the head of the last priest.

Having said that, and Even though I get sick when I smell to much incense, I like those solemn masses that are addressed to more than two people in the room who are usually older than 90.

The question is why the Catholics decded to appeal to the widest demographic. I can only think of two reasons:

1) the message of Christ should be accessible directly by as many people as possible
2) the elitist approach was going nowhere, given the obvious supremacy of modernism in normal life, independently from it being a good thing or not

What is more likely?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Glaurung]

So, what you're really saying is that, unless one identifies as "Roman Catholic," one doesn't really love; one just "plays" at it. There are several problems with your assertion. I'll try to outline them without being disrespectful, because I respect everyone's right to sincerely-held beliefs.

No. I'm saying that Christ really established a Church, a real visible Church that would maintain apostolic continuity. This Church is the Catholic Church and the pope is truly the successor of Saint Peter. It is not that outside the Church is utterly devoid of truth, but it is only through the Church that anyone can merit salvation.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Does this mean, that anyone who is not Catholic is damned? Nope. It just means that whosoever merits salvation has merited it through grace transmitted by the Church. Not everyone in the Church is necessarily known to the Church visibly, hence we may never presume to know the eternal fate of any given soul regardless of whether or not said soul was Catholic.

 

[sojourner]

Sin is anything that is in contrast to the standards expected by God. Sin is indeed a state, it is the state of moral guilt incurred by the failure to live up to the standards expected by God. It has everything to do with how you live your life including your actions. Human beings are free to their own choices, but they are not free from God's judgement. To live in a state of conscious sin and maintain unrepentance 'till the end will result in reprobation.

I disagree. "God's standards" are wholeness, so sin is whatever fragments us from ourselves, from others, and especially from God. It has little to do with "moral guilt," except as such guilt is a result of having been fragmented as a result of one's actions, or having failed to seek out wholeness.

"Till the end?" When is that, exactly? Isn't God and God's kin-dom eternal? Doesn't the shepherd seek the lost sheep until it is found? Doesn't the father wait until the prodigal returns?

Christians ought to strive to develop benevolence and ultimately bring all to Christ.

Christians bring others to Christ by bringing others to love, and helping those so in a state of love to realize their anointing in that love.

But this means being honest about the human state and the real darkness of sin.

The honest truth about the "human state" is that God created us "very good," that each of us is made of "God-stuff," and that we are the very image of God. The sin that covers us is real, but it's a mask only -- a sham -- a shadow. It has not, and cannot, snuff out the light within us.

Mere good-will and humanism do not suffice as Christian love. One can display both without any notion of religious obligation.

Love isn't "merely" anything. Love is ... of God. Religion has no ownership of love. Neither is love any sort of "obligation." Love is love; it is available to all and can come from all, regardless of religious affiliation. you don't get to claim some sort of entitlement, just because you're RCC.

Sin is a state of moral guilt before God.

Sin is a state of separation from God.

Your notion of sin is vague bordering on meaningless, because you want to avoid "judgementality".

It's not vague, it's etymology. The word "sin" comes from the same root as "sunder." You're overanalyzing it because you want to claim some sort of ownership over its judgment.

we can definitively determine what a sinful lifestyle is.

Of course we can. It's any lifestyle that doesn't foster wholeness.

Such lifestyles are rampant today even among so called Christians. This is by in large the reason for the decline in belief.

"Decline in belief" is a misnomer. People believe, they just don't believe in the kind of picayune, unnecessary, and judgmental kind of faith that drove the church for far too long. Homosexuality (because that's really what you're talking about here) isn't a "lifestyle," it's a valid and recognized identity.

I ultimately believe that God will address this sooner or later, and when he does it will hit the world very hard.

That's very easy for you to say, when you're part of the "entitle majority." I ultimately believe that God is, and will be, on the side of the marginalized and the powerless, and that this reality will hit the entitled power-base very hard.

God's mercy is infinite (there is no depth from which God cannot pull us) but it is conditional.

Love is unconditional, or it's not love. "Love does not insist on its own way" as the Apostle's teaching says.

Words, mere words and platitudes.

Entitlement and judgment, mere entitlement and judgment.

 

[sojourner]

It's not just a question of the Latin liturgy. The ordinary form when done well can be reverent. I'm not anti-novus ordo nor do I think that it's "all the fault" of Vatican II. The big betrayal has been the ivory tower movement (in large part by the clergy) to water down the faith out the misguided notion of cultural relevance. I want to go to Church to encounter the divine. I want to be smacked by the smell of incense and hear the crackle of candles. I want to see icons and be lost in the otherworldliness of chant. Not to go to some minimalist "community hall" to sing kumbaya and listen to wishy-washy philosophy.

The core problem with modernist Catholicism is that it tries to appeal to the widest possible demographic, which as with almost everything else usually results in banality.

I like this statement. But you have to realize that lots of other other faiths want these same things. "Cultural relevancy" is really more about entitlement than it is about shallow philosophy.

 

[sojourner]

No. I'm saying that Christ really established a Church, a real visible Church that would maintain apostolic continuity. This Church is the Catholic Church and the Pope is truly the successor of Saint Peter.

Baloney. That church is the amalgamation of several (if not many) separately-identifiable bodies. The Catholic Church is merely one branch of a larger tree. The Pope may or may not be the successor of Peter in actuality, but even if he is, Peter was, at best, a "first among equals."

it is only through the Church that anyone can merit salvation.

Bollocks. God will save whom God will save, and God will have mercy upon whim God will have mercy.

No one "merits" salvation. Grace is a gift, and is unmerited.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

The RCC desperately needs to get a bigger picture of what constitutes "church."

Does this mean, that anyone who is not Catholic is damned? Nope. It just means that whosoever merits salvation has merited it through grace transmitted by the Church. Not everyone in the Church is necessarily known to the Church visibly, hence we may never presume to know the eternal fate of any given soul regardless of whether or not said soul was Catholic.

OK. You can't talk out both sides of your mouth. Either you claim that "the church" is specifically the RCC, or it is not specifically the RCC. Which is it?

 

[Lyndon]

The Catholic church hierarchy and clergy sound a lot like the Pharisees described in the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

The Catholic church hierarchy and clergy sound a lot like the Pharisees described in the Bible.

That seems like taking things to an extreme.

 

[Nada]

Holiness comes in degrees, and one is holy insofar as they are in conformity to the will of God because God is holy. The office of pope (bishop of Rome) is holy because it was instituted by Christ (Matthew 16:18) not because the man who happens to be pope is inherently holy or infallible in and of himself.


No we don't. Your post is nothing more than wilful lies and misrepresentations.


No he wasn't, he was a great pope demonised by the secular media and liberal elements. He did a lot of good for the Church in a difficult time.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Glaurung]

Baloney. That church is the amalgamation of several (if not many) separately-identifiable bodies. The Catholic Church is merely one branch of a larger tree. The Pope may or may not be the successor of Peter in actuality, but even if he is, Peter was, at best, a "first among equals."

Of course, if you thought otherwise you wouldn't be a Protestant.

Bollocks. God will save whom God will save, and God will have mercy upon whim God will have mercy.

This is true, and that salvific mercy is though the Church. Matthew 16:19

No one "merits" salvation. Grace is a gift, and is unmerited.

No one merits salvation through their own efforts, we cannot save ourselves, but we do merit salvation by baptism and active co-operation with the grace of God.

The RCC desperately needs to get a bigger picture of what constitutes "church."

I'm not expecting you to like it, but that is core Christian doctrine since the beginning. There is one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. That is the creed of the Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental churches. The so called "invisible church of believers" is a schismatic rationalisation that is at odds with the Creed. Provided the Creed is even accepted of course.

OK. You can't talk out both sides of your mouth. Either you claim that "the church" is specifically the RCC, or it is not specifically the RCC. Which is it?

No, you're just refusing to understand. The Church teaches that salvation is impossible outside of it, therefore anyone who knows this and rejects the Church cannot be saved. However, not everyone culpably rejects the Church. Can someone born and raised in a sincere Protestant tradition be held to account for rejecting the Catholic Church? Of course not, hence we hope for their salvation which if it occurs will be by Christ though the Church even if they were not "in" the Church during their lives. Protestants lack valid sacraments, and hence their churches in and of themselves lack any salvific potential. But again, that does not mean Protestants are damned unless said Protestant knows fully well the position of the Catholic Church and refuses to enter it.

The Catholic church hierarchy and clergy sound a lot like the Pharisees described in the Bible.

The clergy are human of course, but if by Pharisee you mean, steadfast in Catholic doctrine which you dislike, then it's a good sign that they're doing their job.

 

[kepha31]

Is the POPE really HOLY?

The question reflects a misunderstanding.

The writer of Hebrews calls the recipients of his epistle “holy brethren” (Heb 3:1). Peter refers to a “holy priesthood” (1 Pet 2:5) and “holy women” such as Sarah (1 Pet 3:5) and “holy prophets” (2 Pet 3:2; cf. Acts 3:21; Zechariah’s prophecy in Luke 1:70). John the Baptist is referred to as a “righteous and holy man” in Mark 6:20. Jesus refers to a “righteous man” in Matthew 10:41. Therefore, men can be called “holy” in Scripture. That solves half of this “pseudo-problem".

"Holy" in the title "Holy Father" does not mean the Pope never sins. He confesses his sins weekly. Pope Francis says to many he meets, "Pray for me." "Holy" in the title "Holy Father" means his office is holy, not necessarily the person holding the office.

Can men also be called “father”? Of course they can:

Acts 7:2 (RSV) And Stephen said: “Brethren and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, . . .”

Romans 4:12 . . . the father of the circumcised . . . our father Abraham . . .

Romans 4:16-17 . . . Abraham, for he is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations . . .” (cf. 9:10; Phil 2:22; Jas 2:21)

1 Corinthians 4:15 For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

That solves the other half of the weak, insubstantial objection. If you can call a man “holy” and also (spiritual) “father”, then you can call a person both together (both being biblical), and the “problem” vanishes into thin air.

Pope Francis is a humble and holy man if anyone bothers to read the full context of what he actually says, and not the spin of cheap internet tabloids. Here is where to find them:
http://www.osservatoreromano.va/en

http://www.zenit.org/en

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/

 

[sojourner]

Of course, if you thought otherwise you wouldn't be a Protestant.

Who says I'm Protestant? I may be Anglican or Orthodox, for all you know. Or something else entirely. The point is that not all RCCs are as entitled as you appear to be.

This is true, and that salvific mercy is though the Church. Matthew 16:19

That's fine, but "Keys to the kingdom" =/= "RCC exclusively." "Church" =/= "institution." It does = "people." Salvific mercy is through those who follow Jesus' teachings of love.

I'm not expecting you to like it, but that is core Christian doctrine since the beginning.

The "core" Xian doctrine has nothing to do with "the RCC" in particular. It became that, in the West, after the Great Schism of 1054.

There is one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

But there is not one, holy Catholic and apostolic Church." According to any of the three major creeds -- Apostles', Nicene, or Athanasian.

That is the creed of the Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental churches. The so called "invisible church of believers" is a schismatic rationalisation that is at odds with the Creed. Provided the Creed is even accepted of course.

The Orthodox and Oriental (and let's not forget the Anglicans) aren't under the "umbrella" of the RCC. They are just as historic, just as ancient, just as valid, as the RCC, and share apostolic authority -- and any other branch of the church that is apostolic in nature.

No, you're just refusing to understand. The Church teaches that salvation is impossible outside of it, therefore anyone who knows this and rejects the Church cannot be saved. However, not everyone culpably rejects the Church. Can someone born and raised in a sincere Protestant tradition be held to account for rejecting the Catholic Church? Of course not, hence we hope for their salvation which if it occurs will be by Christ though the Church even if they were not "in" the Church during their lives. Protestants lack valid sacraments, and hence their churches in and of themselves lack any salvific potential. But again, that does not mean Protestants are damned unless said Protestant knows fully well the position of the Catholic Church and refuses to enter it.

That doesn't remotely address my point. To address my point, the church consists of people who love, because that's the core "doctrine." Love, compassion, mercy, forbearance, hospitality, forgiveness, kindness. The church is not a set of theological propositions, but a community that lives the way of love, the truth of love, and the life of love that Jesus lived. You're (incorrectly, I believe) circling the wagons around polity and theological proposition, rather than around acts of love.

 

[kepha31]

In all pages of this thread, there have been no derogatory remarks about His Holiness the 14 Dhali Lama.

That would be politically incorrect.

 

[Unification]

For over 1 Billion people this man, given this position as pope, is the final word for them.They treat him like he is a god.This man seems to be just like any other man.Imperfect.Why can't people see this? The pope and those before him have done so many things that point out just how wrong they really are.Involvment in wars and politics for one.The Inquisitions is another.Cetain things done recently are mind blowing.

Well, if that external staff he's holding with a pine cone and cross on it is established internally... The spinal cord, pineal gland, and his ego/unconscious mind was crucified... Then he would have a holy(whole) mind that is one and a higher natured way of internal being.

All of the outward, imagery(staff with pine cone/cross, robe, hat, etc.) of internal symbols for inward/spiritual stuff would be more as a personal hobby with no relevance.

 

[Mitch M]

In the 3 rd century - Rome was Split into two parts with 2 emperors *( Maxentius—and Constantin - seeking to Rule all of Rome. They went war against each other - and fought a battle.

The Emperor Maxentius— was defeated by the Emperor Constantine .
Constantine Butchered and Slaughtered His Way to power and Murdered His Wife to secure His Future as Emperor. Thinking that His Wife was not Loyal enough to Live.

Constantine afterwards - began to experiment with merging Christianity with paganism. Pagan Dates, Pagan, Rituals, Pagan Ceremonies - PAGAN Mythology and Pagan Myths. Making His VERSION of Christianity into the LAW of the Land.

Constantine introduced the Claim of the Papal claim to temporal power.

Thereafter - a hundred years later - 400 Years - * {400 Years} - AFTER 'Christ. - {400 Years} - The ROMAN Government then made an Italian / LATIN Translation The Bible .

THEN it took the Catholic Church ANOTHER 1200 Years Years' LATER . * (( 1500 Years. after Christ ) to Produce a Bible translation into ANOTHER Language, OTHER That Latin. *( or a Translation besides Latin.

the bible is NOT a catholic Book. SO - Everything that the Catholic Believes, comes from the Authority in Rome. *( ITALY )

. "" ' They Take A FEW - Ideas, Phrases, Comments / A FEW - Characters - From the Scriptures and BLEND them with their Particular Message, and Faith - that is not Supported by Scriptures

Muslims and Catholics, SIMPLY have no Scriptures for their Faith.

They have no Bible, No History, No Truth, Their God is not the God of Abraham.

Before Constantine. The Catholic Church has no recorded, Chronicled History. There is no RECORD of the Catholic Church in the Bible. and no RECORD of the Catholic Church in World History UNTIL 300 Years later when Constantine Began to Mix Characters and ideas of the Bible - with His Pagan beliefs around Him.

Making the mixture into the law of the Land. Called CATHOLIC UNIVERSAL LAW.
Catholics simply have no Bible.

400 Years after Jesus - The ROMAN Catholic organization Produced its Latin Translation of the Bible.

1500 Years after Christ The ROMAN Catholic organization Produced a Non Latin Translation of the Bible.

The Pope is HOLY to people who do not LIKE the bible - The Pope is Holy to people who are not really interested in the BIble.

The pope is Holy to people who dislike the BIble - and seek to pretend to have a Connection, an Admiration and an Association and a Bond with Abraham. But they really dislike Abraham and are unsatisfied and Disgusted with Abraham and The Polygamous ways of His SCRIPTURES and Children and Generations.

If Abraham or Jacob or Solomon - were alive today. Catholics would not Like Him. They would Put them into Jail or Persecute them,

Catholics also are Un Satisfied with the Characters of the New Testament. They are are not Happy with the Mary, * They don't Like Her as She is Presented in the Bible.

or Jesus and The Basic - Simple - teachings of the Bible. They insist on making up other things about the passages and the Characters to suit their Personal Lust and Personal tast. Mary of scriptures is not the Mary that Catholics Love.

The Pope is Holy to People who do not find Satisfaction in the Scriptures. They are at Odds or *( WAR ) with Jesus, Mary and Abraham. So they seek to REPRESENT them in their Own Image of Holiness.

And the Pope Is a Headman who collects the complaints and dis- taste and hatred that these Catholics have for the Bible and its message

and the Pope Re Presents the bible - to Be changed to fit Their Own Form of Holiness and their Personal Preferences. Changing - Adding - Subtracting and Altering from the original message.

To Catholics - This makes Him Holy.

Catholics have made up a List of Popes Listing Peter as the First pope .
But this List is False. There is no Record of Peter Being Catholic

No RECORD or history in the Bible or anywhere of anyone Leading a Church in Rome with Catholic Religious Ideas . Until 300 Years after Jesus.

that's Why it took rome 400 Years after Christ ( 400 years ( --- To PRODUCE a Latin Translation of the Bible.

Then 1500 Years *( 1500 Years ) After Christ for the Catholic Church to Produce a Bible Translation into another Language. * Other Than Latin )

That's because Catholics have no Scriptures for their Faith. Their faith Lies in the Opinions, Writings, Fantasy and imagination s and ALTERATIONS of the popes and other Italian / German Men who help them COPE and sort through the Fact that they Do not Really Like Abraham . In fact they really dislike Abraham,. Pretending to Like Him.

most People only Pretend to have this GREAT Connection, RESPECT, ADMIRATION Special LOVE and Bond with Abraham.

 

[Milton Platt]

For over 1 Billion people this man, given this position as pope, is the final word for them.They treat him like he is a god.This man seems to be just like any other man.Imperfect.Why can't people see this? The pope and those before him have done so many things that point out just how wrong they really are.Involvment in wars and politics for one.The Inquisitions is another.Cetain things done recently are mind blowing.

The answer would depend entirely on whether a god exists and then upon whether that particular god acknowledges the pope. Good luck with figuring that all out.