Pope, King of the world?

[JacktheCatholic]

#13. "Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions."

Simon,

Please provide a source for this if you would.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[spiritman]

Was it written by the Pope? I have yet to see where it was...

Are you basing this on Simon's link? Or do you have additional information as yet not said?

I have posted the Bull as transcribed from 1925 and it fails to include this #13 line that the OP has presented. Seems kind of fishy...

I'm sure we will get a response from Simon. But in the interim do you believe the Pope is the King of the whole earth?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I'm sure we will get a response from Simon. But in the interim do you believe the Pope is a King of the whole earth?

To keep it simple and so you do not think I am avoiding the answer...

I do NOT think the Pope is the King of anything. Nor does the Catholic Church. The Pope is seen as the Steward of the King and His kingdom or more aptly stated, The Prime Minister (if you will).

If my recollection of a previous thread serves me then the #13 is a fabrication during the Protestant Reformation by those that would lie to discredit the RCC. But I could be wrong on it's source.

 

[spiritman]

To keep it simple and so you do not think I am avoiding the answer...

I do NOT think the Pope is the King of anything. Nor does the Catholic Church. The Pope is seen as the Steward of the King and His kingdom or more aptly stated, The Prime Minister (if you will).

If my recollection of a previous thread serves me then the #13 is a fabrication during the Protestant Reformation by those that would lie to discredit the RCC. But I could be wrong on it's source.

Thanks for your answer.

Would you do anything the Pope told you to do?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Thanks for your answer.

Would you do anything the Pope told you to do?

Only on matters of Faith, where the infallibility part comes in to play. But the Pope is still just a man even if he is the holder of the Keys and he is liable to judgment like all of us as well (probably more so).

But the teaching on Infallibility is widely misunderstood and we could have a whole thread on it alone and still many would not be any more understanding of it (I am afraid).

 

[spiritman]

Only on matters of Faith, where the infallibility part comes in to play. But the Pope is still just a man even if he is the holder of the Keys and he is liable to judgment like all of us as well (probably more so).

But the teaching on Infallibility is widely misunderstood and we could have a whole thread on it alone and still many would not be any more understanding of it (I am afraid).

Do you understand his infallibility?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Do you understand his infallibility?

In it's basic form, Yes.

You must first aknowledge that the Pope is not Infallible and that the Charism is what makes the teachings Infallible. So that the Infallibility is not of the man but of God.

It is a Catholic theology that the man who is the Pope and holds the Keys and that as chief shephard Jesus has endowed him with a Charism that will guide and protect him from making any doctrinal error.

The canonization of scriptures in the 4th century is an example of God guiding men infallibly.

 

[spiritman]

In it's basic form, Yes.

You must first aknowledge that the Pope is not Infallible and that the Charism is what makes the teachings Infallible. So that the Infallibility is not of the man but of God.

It is a Catholic theology that the man who is the Pope and holds the Keys and that as chief shephard Jesus has endowed him with a Charism that will guide and protect him from making any doctrinal error.

The canonization of scriptures in the 4th century is an example of God guiding men infallibly.

How do you determine when he is fallable or infallible in his teachings?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

How do you determine when he is fallable or infallible in his teachings?

It has to be written in a particular fashion. There is law on it but I do not recall all of it. There have also only been 3 times that the Pope has claimed this infallibility.

Immaculate Conception
Assumption

and what is the other?

Anyhow, I will let you know if I recall it. But in each case the Dogma was soemthing that had been taught since early times and was a teaching since early times and the whole Catholic Church was asking for it and the magisterium approved.

So it is not like this is something being used at will or whenever the Pope chooses. Again, it is guided by God and the Pope cannot do this unless God so allows it and guides it.

There was a Pope that I found evidence in this. At least it was evidence to me. The Pope was around the 8th century and while he was bishop he had been pushing for a doctrine and even wrote and spoke frequently on it. I forget the chan ge but it was a big one. Abyhow this bishop became Pope and if it were true that it is the man deciding doctrine then this Pope had an opportunity to make a change that would have change much... but he did not. In fact there came a time for the Pope and Magisterium to decide on this change he so adehemntly wanted and he rejected it. That does not make sense to me unless something greater than the man was behind that Papal decision.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

How do you determine when he is fallable or infallible in his teachings?

It has to be written in a particular fashion. There is law on it but I do not recall all of it. There have also only been 3 times that the Pope has claimed this infallibility.

Immaculate Conception
Assumption

and what is the other?

Anyhow, I will let you know if I recall it. But in each case the Dogma was soemthing that had been taught since early times and was a teaching since early times and the whole Catholic Church was asking for it and the magisterium approved.

So it is not like this is something being used at will or whenever the Pope chooses. Again, it is guided by God and the Pope cannot do this unless God so allows it and guides it.

There was a Pope that I found evidence in this. At least it was evidence to me. The Pope was around the 8th century and while he was bishop he had been pushing for a doctrine and even wrote and spoke frequently on it. I forget the chan ge but it was a big one. Abyhow this bishop became Pope and if it were true that it is the man deciding doctrine then this Pope had an opportunity to make a change that would have change much... but he did not. In fact there came a time for the Pope and Magisterium to decide on this change he so adehemntly wanted and he rejected it. That does not make sense to me unless something greater than the man was behind that Papal decision.

 

[spiritman]

It has to be written in a particular fashion. There is law on it but I do not recall all of it. There have also only been 3 times that the Pope has claimed this infallibility.

Immaculate Conception
Assumption

and what is the other?

Anyhow, I will let you know if I recall it. But in each case the Dogma was soemthing that had been taught since early times and was a teaching since early times and the whole Catholic Church was asking for it and the magisterium approved.

So it is not like this is something being used at will or whenever the Pope chooses. Again, it is guided by God and the Pope cannot do this unless God so allows it and guides it.

There was a Pope that I found evidence in this. At least it was evidence to me. The Pope was around the 8th century and while he was bishop he had been pushing for a doctrine and even wrote and spoke frequently on it. I forget the chan ge but it was a big one. Abyhow this bishop became Pope and if it were true that it is the man deciding doctrine then this Pope had an opportunity to make a change that would have change much... but he did not. In fact there came a time for the Pope and Magisterium to decide on this change he so adehemntly wanted and he rejected it. That does not make sense to me unless something greater than the man was behind that Papal decision.

So he is fallable but at certain times he is infallible.

You indicated that he is not the King of anything but your catholic friend Tu Es Petrus does not agree with you. Which one of you is right?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Since there is proof of the Popes altering scripture, then I would presume that that is just another place that was CANonized.

I always hear the complaints and the scoffs - but never see anyone back this statement up.

Care to?

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Let's assume you never read the history of the Church...
Wait - this post's criticism shows you didn't.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program of Pope Bashing....

 

[WarriorAngel]

The title would be more appropriately named:

Pope the Steward of Jesus Kingdom

And as Steward - all living creatures that Christ died for - is under his protective arms.

So - wouldn't that be the world? Yes.

I mean - athiests deny Jesus - but that still doesn't negate the fact He died for them.
So anyone in the entire world can deny the Pope's Stewardship - still doesn't negate the fact he still has it.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So he is fallable but at certain times he is infallible.

You indicated that he is not the King of anything but your catholic friend Tu Es Petrus does not agree with you. Which one of you is right?

You mean this post?

I would have to read it in context. I've seen protestants say all kinds of whacky things that make sense to them

But I can say this: As keeper of the keys, his jurisdiction is over the entire Church, in heaven, on earth, and in Purgatory. And He does represent Christ the King. So if I really stretch it, I could say that I believe the statement, although I would have worded it differently myself.

No where does he say the Pope is King.

*further evidence that Sola Scriptura does not work.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

And as Steward - all living creatures that Christ died for - is under his protective arms.

So - wouldn't that be the world? Yes.

I mean - athiests deny Jesus - but that still doesn't negate the fact He died for them.
So anyone in the entire world can deny the Pope's Stewardship - still doesn't negate the fact he still has it.

Makes sense to me.

 

[simonthezealot]

Instead of dwelving into verse 25 please let me expand further on an interesting fact about isaiah 22:19-22

From my formal debate with POLO when he too attempted this weak argument!
My response to your claim regarding Isaiah 22…

The well-worn idea of arguing for a papacy by viewing Matt. 16 in light of Isa. 22, is flimsy at best and is something NO fathers prior to the 8th century ever even attempted to do, it‘s not mentioned in Matthew. Isaiah 22:22 cites “the house of David” clearly Messianic in nature.
Jesus himself, cites Isaiah 22:22 as I mentioned earlier in Rev. 3:7, “And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this.”
Jesus has, (present tense), the key (singular) of David.
He does not say that He gives this key away. Look at how our Lord introduces Himself in each of the letters; these images set Him apart from all creatures. We need to remove ourselves from such a twisting of scripture and stay with the plain meaning/reading of it?

Even if A Catholic insists on appealing toIsa 22 it would have to be a partial appeal, not a complete parallel, since a full alignment would not favor the claims of the church at Rome. God is who gives the key in Isa 22, so an exact parallel would put Jesus in the place of God, not in the place of the king. So, if Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king? Some church official with more authority than Peter? Again, what aboutIsa 22:25? Should we assume that Popes can "break off and fall", and that the keys of Matthew 16 can eventually pass to God Himself (Revelation 3:7) rather than to a human successor? If Catholics only want to make a general appeal toIsa 22, without making an exact parallel, then how can they claim that papal authority is implied by the parallel? Clearly, this is about a basic theme of authority NOT a papacy.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Maybe the reason you do not see an ECF mentioning Isaiah 22 is that it was common knowledge back then?

Makes sense to me.

BTW try to stay out of trouble because Chucky seems to be getting people upset. LOL

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Let me break this down...

From my formal debate with POLO when he too attempted this weak argument!
My response to your claim regarding Isaiah 22…

The well-worn idea of arguing for a papacy by viewing Matt. 16 in light of Isa. 22, is flimsy at best and is something NO fathers prior to the 8th century ever even attempted to do, it‘s not mentioned in Matthew. Isaiah 22:22 cites “the house of David” clearly Messianic in nature.

Jesus is the King prophecied to reign over the Davidic kingdom for ever. So CLEARLY we are discussing the House of David.

Jesus himself, cites Isaiah 22:22 as I mentioned earlier in Rev. 3:7,

“And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this.”

The keys of the kingdom of God are not different from the key of the House of David. This is confirmed in Matthew 16:19 and Revelation 3:7, Jesus is the One who controls them. In Judaism handing over the keys implies appointment of Full Authority. The word Keys is not being used literally and that makes perfect sense with Judaism and how they understood Keys.

Jesus has, (present tense), the key (singular) of David.
He does not say that He gives this key away. Look at how our Lord introduces Himself in each of the letters; these images set Him apart from all creatures. We need to remove ourselves from such a twisting of scripture and stay with the plain meaning/reading of it?

You should read Matthew 16 agian for Jesus does state he will give the Keys to Peter.

"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

Even if A Catholic insists on appealing to

Isa 22 it would have to be a partial appeal, not a complete parallel, since a full alignment would not favor the claims of the church at Rome. God is who gives the key in Isa 22, so an exact parallel would put Jesus in the place of God, not in the place of the king. So, if Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king?

Jesus being the King gives the Keys to Peter and thus it is God that gives this authority.

No partial parallel there.

Some church official with more authority than Peter?

As stated... Jesus the King.

Again, what about

Isa 22:25?

What about it?
It has nothing to do with the Keys and their authority.

Should we assume that Popes can "break off and fall", and that the keys of Matthew 16 can eventually pass to God Himself (Revelation 3:7) rather than to a human successor?

The Keys that are given to Peter in a dynastic fashion are not literally Keys and are but a sign of the authority that our King and Lord have bestowed on the man He has made Shephard over His church. The Keys still belong to Jesus and the Pope is but the holder of the Keys.

In this you can see that it makes perfect sense.

If Catholics only want to make a general appeal to

Isa 22, without making an exact parallel, then how can they claim that papal authority is implied by the parallel?

Why make an appeal when it is not necessary.
ECfs before the 8th century have spoken plainly about the Chair of Peter and that Peter was the Chief among the Aposltes (Chrysostom said as much).

Clearly, this is about a basic theme of authority NOT a papacy.

Papacy is the term for Father and the Pope is the Father figure for our Church. It is the authority of children responding to their father that we are Shepharded by the Pope because Jesus as King has given the Pope this authority through the Keys. So it is authority and that is as it should be.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I know you believe what you are saying Simon.

NO fathers prior to the 8th century ever even attempted to do, it‘s not mentioned in Matthew. Isaiah 22:22 cites “the house of David” clearly Messianic in nature.

BUT...
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101505.htm

Origen while still orthodox wrote about this very subject.

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail Matthew 16:18 left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness.

I read in the same way. It is not peculiar to his prophecy that the words of the book should be sealed, and should neither be read by him who does not know letters, because he is ignorant of letters, nor by him who is learned, because the book is sealed. This is true of every writing, for every written work needs the reason (Logos) which closed it to open it. He shall shut, and none shall open, Isaiah 22:22 and when He opens no one can cast doubt on the interpretation He brings. Hence it is said that He shall open and no man shall shut. I infer a similar lesson from the book spoken of in Ezekiel, in which was written lamentation, and a song, and woe. For the whole book is full of the woe of the lost, and the song of the saved, and the lamentation of those between these two. And John, too, when he speaks of his eating the one roll, Revelation 10:9-10 in which both front and back were written on, means the whole of Scripture, one book which is, at first, most sweet when one begins, as it were, to chew it, but bitter in the revelation of himself which it makes to the conscience of each one who knows it. I will add to the proof of this an apostolic saying which has been quite misunderstood by the disciples of Marcion, who, therefore, set the Gospels at naught. The Apostle says: Romans 2:16 According to my Gospel in Christ Jesus; he does not speak of Gospels in the plural, and, hence, they argue that as the Apostle only speaks of one Gospel in the singular, there was only one in existence. But they fail to see that, as He is one of whom all the evangelists write, so the Gospel, though written by several hands, is, in effect, one. And, in fact, the Gospel, though written by four, is one. From these considerations, then, we learn what the one book is, and what the many books, and what I am now concerned about is, not the quantity I may write, but the effect of what I say, lest, if I fail in this point, and set forth anything against the truth itself, even in one of my writings, I should prove to have transgressed the commandment, and to be a writer of many books. Yet I see the heterodox assailing the holy Church of God in these days, under the pretence of higher wisdom, and bringing forward works in many volumes in which they offer expositions of the evangelical and apostolic writings, and I fear that if I should be silent and should not put before our members the saving and true doctrines, these teachers might get a hold of curious souls, which, in the absence of wholesome nourishment, might go after food that is forbidden, and, in fact, unclean and horrible.


The lesson he was giving was that we cannot seperate the Bible from itself for it is but ONE book and it cannot be read as though it is many.
WHICH means the keys as related to what he said of Peter - means the entire Bible is not divided from itself as you Simon, are proposing.

BUT wait - there's more...

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 53 (Jerome)

5. In the apocalypse a book is shown sealed with seven seals, Revelation 5:1 which if you deliver to one that is learned saying, Read this, he will answer you, I cannot, for it is sealed. Isaiah 29:11 How many there are today who fancy themselves learned, yet the scriptures are a sealed book to them, and one which they cannot open save through Him who has the key of David, he that opens and no man shuts; and shuts and no man opens. Revelation 3:7 In the Acts of the Apostles the holy eunuch (or rather man for so the scripture calls him Acts 8:27) when reading Isaiah he is asked by Philip Do you understand what you read?, makes answer:— How can I except some man should guide me? Acts 8:30-31 To digress for a moment to myself, I am neither holier nor more diligent than this eunuch, who came from Ethiopia, that is from the ends of the world, to the Temple leaving behind him a queen's palace, and was so great a lover of the Law and of divine knowledge that he read the holy scriptures even in his chariot. Yet although he had the book in his hand and took into his mind the words of the Lord, nay even had them on his tongue and uttered them with his lips, he still knew not Him, whom— not knowing— he worshipped in the book. Then Philip came and showed him Jesus, who was concealed beneath the letter. Wondrous excellence of the teacher! In the same hour the eunuch believed and was baptized; he became one of the faithful and a saint. He was no longer a pupil but a master; and he found more in the church's font there in the wilderness than he had ever done in the gilded temple of the synagogue.

SO it is not possible for those outside the Teachers of the Church to 'open the book' for they hold the book - but they cannot open the book - save they have the keys.

WHO holds those keys that all the Apostles are one with?

The apostles James, Peter, John, and Jude, have published seven epistles at once spiritual and to the point, short and long, short that is in words but lengthy in substance so that there are few indeed who do not find themselves in the dark when they read them. The apocalypse of John has as many mysteries as words. In saying this I have said less than the book deserves. All praise of it is inadequate; manifold meanings lie hid in its every word.

AND Tertullian when he was yet orthodox.

CHURCH FATHERS: On Modesty (Tertullian)

If the apostles understood these (figurative meanings of the Law) better, of course they were more careful (with regard to them than even apostolic men). But I will descend even to this point of contest now, making a separation between the doctrine of apostles and their power.

Discipline governs a man, power sets a seal upon him; apart from the fact that power is the Spirit, but the Spirit is God. What, moreover, used (the Spirit) to teach? That there must be no communicating with the works of darkness. Observe what He bids. Who, moreover, was able to forgive sins? This is His alone prerogative: for who remits sins but God alone? and, of course, (who but He can remit) mortal sins, such as have been committed against Himself, and against His temple? For, as far as you are concerned, such as are chargeable with offence against you personally, you are commanded, in the person of Peter, to forgive even seventy times sevenfold. And so, if it were agreed that even the blessed apostles had granted any such indulgence (to any crime) the pardon of which (comes) from God, not from man, it would be competent (for them) to have done so, not in the exercise of discipline, but of power.

...will continue this so i can fit it all.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Continued...

I now inquire into your opinion, (to see) from what source you usurp this right to the Church.
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? On you, He says, will I build My Church; and, I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and, Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound, not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you, and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ's baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are loosed the sins that were beforetime bound; and those which have not been loosed are bound, in accordance with true salvation; and Ananias he bound with the bond of death, and the weak in his feet he absolved from his defect of health. Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law, Peter was the first of all to be endued with the Spirit, and, after making preface touching the calling of the nations, to say, And now why are you tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to support? But however, through the grace of Jesus we believe that we shall be saved in the same way as they. This sentence both loosed those parts of the law which were abandoned, and bound those which were reserved. Hence the power of loosing and of binding committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers; and if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother sinning against him even seventy times sevenfold, of course He would have commanded him to bind— that is, to retain — nothing subsequently, unless perchance such (sins) as one may have committed against the Lord, not against a brother. For the forgiveness of (sins) committed in the case of a man is a prejudgment against the remission of sins against God.

AND I could continue...because there are so many writings on Peter...

But I think you possibly get the point.