Pope, King of the world?

[Trento]

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) suppressed some abuses connected with indulgences, spelling out, for example, that only a one-year indulgence would be granted for the consecration of churches and no more than a 40-days indulgence for other occasions. But very soon these limits were widely exceeded. In fact, false documents were circulated with indulgences surpassing all bounds: indulgences of hundreds or even thousands of years.[29] In 1392, more than a century before Martin Luther published the 95 Theses, Pope Boniface IX wrote to the Bishop of Ferrara condemning the practice of certain members of religious orders who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next.[31]

Although the church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth," nevertheless Jesus also revealed that in its ranks there may be - like apostle Judas the betrayer - those leaders who are "wicked servants."

Mathew 24:45 "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household , to give them their food at the proper time?
46 Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.
47 Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.
48 But if that wicked servant says to himself, `My master is delayed,'
49 and begins to beat his fellow servants, and eats and drinks with the drunken,
50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know,
51 and will punish him​

Likewise, though Jesus calls the church the "the kingdom of heaven," nevertheless He reveals how it will be burdened with many who are wicked - straight until the Day of judgment.

Matthew 13:24 Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, `Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' 28 He said to them, `An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, `Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29 But he said, `No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"​

From this parable we know that quitting and leaving the church, because it sins, is not God's will: "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another-- and all the more as you see the Day approaching" (Hebrews 10:25). Rather than judging the church, we should learn how to deal with each "apostle Judas" as well as "evil men and impostors who will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived" (2Tim 3:13).

 

[WarriorAngel]

High on supremacist superlatives

You suggesting to read the heart of the Pope? Or was that for someone else?

That is close to slander considering the detail he has gone into in substantiating his assertions.

Does that mean I have to agree with his substantiation? He doesnt agree with mine...does he?
Does that make him slanderous then?

You do this man a great injustice & the rest of us a great disservice by asking such a question.

Apparently not.


I beg to differ.




We get that plenty. You need to practice what you preach & study it from a Protestant perspective.

I can easily see the Protestant side of it - i can see it in a variety of ways if i so choose [to meet the variety of protestant interpretations] - but still they were writing regarding the Church...so there is really only ONE way to read it correctly and contextually.

About the Church and from the Church.
Obviously not from outside the Church.

It never did for me.




You've tried that before & failed miserably, except in you & your Church's opinion.

Be realistic.

Yea ok - i failed. I am so bad at just pasting them and letting everyone else see for themselves.

Then i get complaints i C&P but no one will mention the text.

Yeah.
Kissin' his ring is either a whole different ballgame or just another inning.

http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/how-and-why-we-kiss/weird-science
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Rings

Mt. 16:19 is future tense.

Revelation still shows Christ Jesus with the keys.

Some foundation for the concept of the papacy.

As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn't mean he can't give it to Peter, as his "prime minister," the keys to his heavenly kingdom.

In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king's right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the "key of the House of David."

Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king's duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.

Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as "the holder of the key of David." Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.

There's a problem with this argument.

In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace--the king isn't. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king's affairs. If we apply this to Christ, Then we must conclude he's not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah's chief representative!

Although Jesus is called the "holder of the key of David" in Revelation 3:7, he doesn't hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Luke 1:32-33). He really is the king, not the master of the king's palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes--without losing the authority those keys represent.
It's the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give--the keys of the kingdom of heaven--thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

Yeah, it's too bad your church doesn't control access to Scripture anymore. It makes it much more difficult to pass off false doctrines as truth.

Actually it appears to have made it easier ...

 

[MrPolo]

Oh and you think trent treats us any different than "Elliott" does you?

First, I repeat my point on Elliott: he is not the best source to learn about Catholicism. Let me count the times he quoted Ferraris as the authority on Catholic teaching in his book by a simple online search! And he missed the part of Ferraris on the Pope when Ferraris goes into the Pope as "the servant of servants." But the overuse of Ferraris demonstrates a cursory, basic misunderstanding of the Catholic faith.

To your question here, of course not. Trent does not call you by childish slang insults like "popery" or "Romanist" or "heretic-erinos" or "heretic-schmeritics." And it also does not call you a heretic as I explained at least twice on this forum, to you included.

#1, in order to be culpable of heresy, one must be aware of the trueness of the Catholic faith from which they depart doctrinally. Traditionally, you can see a good definition from Thomas Aquinas:

The heretical tenets may be adhered to from involuntary causes: inculpable ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas. In none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore, one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely subjective or material.​

In other words, if you are honest in not understanding the Catholic faith as the true faith, you are not guilty of heresy.

Also from Catholic Answers:

A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.​

So if you honestly don't recognize the Catholic Church as THE Church in the first place, you cannot be guilty of heresy against it.

#2, the Church by no means teaches non-Catholics are outside the realm of salvation. From the Catechism:

CCC#847 Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.​

So again, if you are sincere in not recognizing the Catholic Church as the Church Christ established and sincerely strive for truth, you too, can be saved.

- Mr. Polo, April 2008 ​

 

[JacktheCatholic]

As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn't mean he can't give it to Peter, as his "prime minister," the keys to his heavenly kingdom.

In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king's right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the "key of the House of David."

Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king's duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.

Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as "the holder of the key of David." Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.

There's a problem with this argument.

In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace--the king isn't. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king's affairs. If we apply this to Christ, Then we must conclude he's not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah's chief representative!

Although Jesus is called the "holder of the key of David" in Revelation 3:7, he doesn't hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Luke 1:32-33). He really is the king, not the master of the king's palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes--without losing the authority those keys represent.
It's the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give--the keys of the kingdom of heaven--thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

Theologically speaking I think everyone should now understand the basics of this Catholic doctrine. Any questions?


*WA is awesome with words.

 

[MrPolo]

Originally Posted by Brennin
Yeah, it's too bad your church doesn't control access to Scripture anymore. It makes it much more difficult to pass off false doctrines as truth.

Actually it appears to have made it easier ...

Too true, Angel.

 

[Rick Otto]

The answer is NO.

There has never been an official teaching of the Catholic Church that the Pope has ever been the "King of the World".

You're in denial.

 

[Rick Otto]

You suggesting to read the heart of the Pope? Or was that for someone else?

Someone else, but that isn't so hard to do:
Mt 12:34 - O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Does that mean I have to agree with his substantiation?

Of course not. No one is forcing you to listen to reason.

He doesnt agree with mine...does he?

No, and for excellent reasons that he has often given.

Does that make him slanderous then?

That isn't the reason you're statement was disrespectful. You made him sound unstudied on these matters. That was wrong.

Then i get complaints i C&P but no one will mention the text

That is simply not true. You need to be able to do the hard work of distilling your points from the texts you suppose support them. We don't have blind loyalty guiding us thru them.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You're in denial.

The closest thing I came to finding anything on the Pope as being king of the world was at the link below but I got this message when I tried to open it:

Sorry -- Archive temporarily closed
during 'high traffic' period.

I had to click on the "cache" to get to it

Results 1 - 10 of about 425,000 for pope as king of the world.

EU FRONT FOR POPE TO BE "KING OF THE WORLD"?
Alternative News and Views, Reported by Agents Around the World, 24 hours a day.
www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=21196 - 17k - Cached - Similar pages


EU FRONT FOR POPE TO BE "KING OF THE WORLD"?
Posted By: Phoenix
Date: Saturday, 20 July 2002, 7:23 p.m.

The following article offers the compelling perspective that the European Union is a Vatican plan to establish the Pope as the current “Holy Roman Emperor”. In this context I suggest that a fruitful line of inquiry to investigate is that the Vatican co-opted Jesus Christ and created the “Christian Church” with the Pope being the “Holy Roman Emperor” AKA “King of the World”.
​

 

[simonthezealot]

To your question here, of course not. Trent does not call you by childish slang insults like "popery" or "Romanist" or "heretic-erinos" or "heretic-schmeritics."

Hey Polo Elliott wrote in the mid 1800's papist popery was merely a manner to indicate a christians allegiance to the pope and there practice of it, i've read i believe that it started taking on speed as a negative connotation in america during a presidential election in the early 1900's when a catholic got the nod from one of the parties...
Let's say we get over the splitting of hairs here, ehh?
Afterall throughout history I can dig out many negative labels directed toward reformers...ever read the episcopal oaths forwarded by some of your popes?

 

[BrightCandle]

The answer is NO.

There has never been an official teaching of the Catholic Church that the Pope has ever been the "King of the World".

One of the titles that the Pope claims is "Pontifex Maximus", this title was taken from Pagan Rome and the Papacy applied it to itself over time to enhance its authority. Julias Caesar claimed the same title as the Pope. And we all know that the Roman Caesars claimed supreme rule over the earth.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

One of the titles that the Pope claims is "Pontifex Maximus", this title was taken from Pagan Rome and the Papacy applied it to itself over time to enhance its authority. Julias Caesar claimed the same title as the Pope. And we all know that the Roman Caesars claimed supreme rule over the earth.

I do not see why the Pope would need to "enhance" his authority???

Jesus gave him the authority to shephard His kingdom here on earth with the Keys. No other man has this same authority and only Patriarchs share in the power of the Keys in this unique and authoritative way. So, the Pope has the authority to speak for the King of King (our Lord Jesus Christ) and there is no need to enhance what is so great already.

 

[BrightCandle]

You're in denial.

So true, Rick. The Antichrist is counting on millions and billions of people being in a state of denial.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So true, Rick. The Antichrist is counting on millions and billions of people being in a state of denial.

That is why Jesus Christ the King of Heaven left us a Church so that we would be able to have the pillar and foundation of His Truth. The Catholic Church is The Church that has it's roots in Apostolic times and no other church can claim this so that is why I am glad to profess my membership in the Catholic Church.

Ignatius of Antioch


"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

The Catholic Church is where ever Jesus Christ is.

 

[BrightCandle]

I do not see why the Pope would need to "enhance" his authority???

Jesus gave him the authority to shephard His kingdom here on earth with the Keys. No other man has this same authority and only Patriarchs share in the power of the Keys in this unique and authoritative way. So, the Pope has the authority to speak for the King of King (our Lord Jesus Christ) and there is no need to enhance what is so great already.

Why? Because there are still multitudes of Christians on planet earth who do not, and will not bow the knee to the Pope or his doctrines. The historical Protestant view of the Papacy is that it is the "lawless one" (II Thess. 2), or the first "Beast" portrayed in Revelation 13 as arising out of the "sea", who by his deceptive power gets almost all of planet earth worshiping him, but thank God not all (Rev. 14:12).

 

[GuardianShua]

One of the titles that the Pope claims is "Pontifex Maximus", this title was taken from Pagan Rome and the Papacy applied it to itself over time to enhance its authority. Julias Caesar claimed the same title as the Pope. And we all know that the Roman Caesars claimed supreme rule over the earth.

I mentioned to the Catholics here that Constantine the Great was the Pagan High Priest until the day he died, but they did not want to believe me.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Why? Because there are still multitudes of Christians on planet earth who do not, and will not bow the knee to the Pope or his doctrines. The historical Protestant view of the Papacy is that it is the "lawless one" (II Thess. 2), or the first "Beast" portrayed in Revelation 13 as arising out of the "sea", who by his deceptive power gets almost all of planet earth worshiping him, but thank God not all (Rev. 14:12).

The devil and Pontius did not bow to Jesus either but that does not mean Jesus is not King. Now does it?

Just as the Pope is the Prime Minister of Jesus' kingdom and whether people recognize this or not it no more changes it as fact as Jesus being King is fact.

And yes many Protestants for reasons of hatred or ignorance or whatever have created new theologies that try to say the RCC is the "Beast" or is "Lawless". But these are man made and have never been taught with seriousness or credibility until the Protestant Reformation. So why would I even consider one of these man made theologies that fail when compared to Christianity and all it's great history.

No, the Catholic Church has it's roots all the way back to Apostolic times and can show that ALL of it's teachings are rooted to Jesus and the Apsotles. So I have no need of these man made religions and traditions that have become different plants from the same mother, The Protestant Reformation.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Why? Because there are still multitudes of Christians on planet earth who do not, and will not bow the knee to the Pope or his doctrines. The historical Protestant view of the Papacy is that it is the "lawless one" (II Thess. 2), or the first "Beast" portrayed in Revelation 13 as arising out of the "sea", who by his deceptive power gets almost all of planet earth worshiping him, but thank God not all (Rev. 14:12).

HOGWASH!!!!

 

[BrightCandle]

I mentioned to the Catholics here that Constantine the Great was the Pagan High Priest until the day he died, but they did not want to believe me.

There is no doubt as to Constantine's amalgamated faith, he seemed to have preferred a mix of Paganism and Christianity. What is very revealing is that the first Sunday law in history was enacted by him, but it was not dedicated to the "Son" (Jesus), but to "the venerable day of the Sun"! And we know that the Sun god worship is clearly pagan throughout human history.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I mentioned to the Catholics here that Constantine the Great was the Pagan High Priest until the day he died, but they did not want to believe me.

Apparenty no credible source does either. We have yet to see one from you.

But this has been posted to you previously. Did I miss your crdible source? If so, please prove me wrongf and share it again.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Equally noteworthy is the action of Emperor Aurelian in 270. A synod of bishops had condemned Paul of Samosata, Patriarch of Alexandria, on a charge of heresy, and had elected Domnus bishop in his place. Paul refused to withdraw, and appeal was made to the civil power. The emperor decreed that he who was acknowledged by the bishops of Italy and the Bishop of Rome, must be recognized as rightful occupant of the see. The incident proves that even the pagans themselves knew well that communion with the Roman See was the essential mark of all Christian Churches. That the imperial Government was well aware of the position of the pope among Christians derives additional confirmation from the saying of St. Cyprian that Decius would have sooner heard of the proclamation of a rival emperor than of the election of a new pope to fill the place of the martyred Fabian (Ep. 55:9).




The primacy of St. Peter and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are dogmatically defined in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus":

• "If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honour only: let him be anathema."
• "If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. -- let him be anathema" (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1823, 1825).

~Emperor Aurelian

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Pope <~ click.

Read the quotes of the ecf's as well...