Pope, King of the world?

[spiritman]

Meaning... the Pope is not an impecible man and it is only when in the Chair of Peter that what is taught is infallible and this is because the charism the Pope has allows no error from the man because of the intercession and power of God (you have been told this numerous times).

Well that settles it. Only when he sits in the "Chair of Peter". What ever that's supposed to mean. When does he get to sit in the chair? Is that the chair where everyone comes to kneel before the "servant of servants"?

 

[Uphill Battle]

That sounds about right.

But then consider how priests have received a charism that can never be taken away or a baptized person receives a rebirth in spirit that cannot be undone and so on. The Holy Spirit works differently in all of us as Paul wrote, that we are all a part of the body with different charisms.

So it is easy to see how a person that has been given such a gift of the spirit can be protected in this.

there is vast difference between "God Can" and "God did."

 

[simonthezealot]

This encyclopedia that was written during the 17th and 18th century (in Latin) has come under attack from a few lines in the encyclopedia which i believed unjust liberties in their translation has occurred.

Yeah it must be a bad translation, afterall Rome does not now nor has it ever placed its bishop above all Christians, have they? Oh yeah thats right they infallibly did...In opposition to scripture in unam sanctum...But of course this catholic encyclopedia is being misunderstood---Looks like will have to bring in an infallible interpretter...

 

[simonthezealot]

And those listening and arguing may care and want to knwo the truth...


You forgot that one.

Good deal I wasn't sure whether I was suppose to give up hope on you or not...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well that settles it. Only when he sits in the "Chair of Peter". What ever that's supposed to mean. When does he get to sit in the chair? Is that the chair where everyone comes to kneel before the "servant of servants"?

Answer me this: "how did the Judains priests understand the 'Chair of Moses'?"

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yeah it must be a bad translation, afterall Rome does not now nor has it ever placed its bishop above all Christians, have they? Oh yeah thats right they infallibly did...In opposition to scripture in unam sanctum...But of course this catholic encyclopedia is being misunderstood---Looks like will have to bring in an infallible interpretter...

Regardless if it were an accurate translation it could still have have an error.

Did you read the link about the approvals given by the church to print and distribute writings? Do you know the approval that was given to the encyclopedia copy you are getting your transaltion from? Are there later translations to the one you quote from?

These are valid questions if we are to determine the level at which these writings are to be given and if it is acceptable to find an error.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Well that settles it. Only when he sits in the "Chair of Peter". What ever that's supposed to mean. When does he get to sit in the chair? Is that the chair where everyone comes to kneel before the "servant of servants"?

The term "Chair" (Cathedra) denotes authority:

Matthew 23:1-3: "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them."

This is a great passage because it demonstrates authority, and it also shows that even though scoundrels may have sat on the Chair of Moses, and even though we have had a few scoundrels on the Chair of Peter, Jesus still expects people to respect their authority, if not always the men themselves.

(Its not an actual chair <<rolls eyes>>)

 

[JacktheCatholic]

there is vast difference between "God Can" and "God did."

Are you an expert so you can tell us when God can and Gid did?

I would argue that you are not.

 

[spiritman]

The term "Chair" (Cathedra) denotes authority:

Matthew 23:1-3: "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them."

This is a great passage becauser it demonstrates authority, and it also shows that even though scoundrels may have sat on the Chair of Moses, and even though we have had a few scoundrels on the Chair of Peter, Jesus still expects people to respect their authority, if not always the men themselves.

(Its not an actual chair <<rolls eyes>>)

No kidding! But you see Jack said that "only when he is in the chair of Peter" does he begin to be infallible.

So how do you define when he's in or out of the chair?

 

[spiritman]

Answer me this: "how did the Judains priests understand the 'Chair of Moses'?"

Did they kneel before him and kiss his feet and ring? Did they also carry him around in a high chair?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Are you an expert so you can tell us when God can and Gid did?

I would argue that you are not.

And I would agree with you. I am not an expert that can tell us when and what God did, unless God himself told us he did.

I'm just refuting the "God can, so therefore God DID" line of argumentation you were using.

of course, us unwashed heathens have to remember our place... don't dare question the Lord's favorite.

 

[Standing Up]

They dress the same at least. LOL.

Well, not exactly. And no, it is not funny.

Ex. 26:31 And thou shalt make a vail [of] blue (Hebrew is tekeleth, violet), and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen of cunning work: with cherubims shall it be made:

Mt. 27:28 And they stripped him, and put on him (Jesus) a scarlet robe.

Mk. 15:17 And they clothed him (Jesus) with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his [head],

Lk. 23:11 And Herod with his men of war set him (Jesus) at nought, and mocked [him], and arrayed him in a gorgeous (white) robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

Jn. 19:5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple (purplish/violet) robe. And [Pilate] saith unto them, Behold the man!

The tabernacle of Moses spoke of Christ Jesus. The veil speaks to the Lord's flesh (Heb. 10:20-By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; )

You may look up in scripture who it is who wears not the whole (Rev. 17:4-And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: ).

 

[MrPolo]

Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art the father of princes and kings, the ruler of the world, the vicar on earth of Our Savior, Jesus Christ, to Whom is honor and glory for ever and ever

This is supposed to be the magisterial document that is validation of Ferraris' article 2?

One has to wonder.

You know, if the Church was all about Ferraris, maybe the Catholic Encyclopedia would not have called him a "laxist". And if it embraced Ferraris' suggestion that a Pope can change divine law, maybe the 1st Vatican Council would not have said:

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. (Vatican I, Session 3, chapter 4, #13-14)​

And Maybe the Church's constitution on Divine Revelation at Vatican II wouldn't have said this either:

the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church (i.e. the Magisterium which includes the Pope, cf. CCC#100), whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on (Dei Verbum, #10)​

I think it was a little reckless on your part to imply that the Catholic Church teaches that whoever is the Pope is a divine being. Shouldn't you come to me first before you try to tell everyone what is authentic Catholic teaching?

 

[MrPolo]

Delineation of Roman Catholicism (I think volume 3) I own a some of his work in hard copy but I believe it is available online as well...Written by
Rev.Charles Elliott D.D.

Off-topic, I know, but I kinda figured you and some of the other usual suspects on here were active in anti-Catholic research.

Quote from Elliott's book:

The writer of these pages...believes firmly, that the system of popery, as taught in the standards of the Church at Rome, as enforced by the clergy, and as believed and practised by the great body of Romanists, clergy and laity, is at variance with the pure religion taught in the Bible... (Dilineation of Roman Catholicism by Charles Elliott, p. 5)​

What a great source to learn about real Catholic teaching.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Did they kneel before him and kiss his feet and ring? Did they also carry him around in a high chair?

Good question and since it relates to my question to you, for which I am still awaiting an answer, you can include the answer then.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

And I would agree with you. I am not an expert that can tell us when and what God did, unless God himself told us he did.

I'm just refuting the "God can, so therefore God DID" line of argumentation you were using.

of course, us unwashed heathens have to remember our place... don't dare question the Lord's favorite.

I was only looking for your answer as to whether God could and from this I know that you too see God as ALL POWERFUL. That is answer enough.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This is supposed to be the magisterial document that is validation of Ferraris' article 2?

One has to wonder.

You know, if the Church was all about Ferraris, maybe the Catholic Encyclopedia would not have called him a "laxist". And if it embraced Ferraris' suggestion that a Pope can change divine law, maybe the 1st Vatican Council would not have said:

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
​

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. (Vatican I, Session 3, chapter 4, #13-14)
​

And Maybe the Church's constitution on Divine Revelation at Vatican II wouldn't have said this either:

the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church (i.e. the Magisterium which includes the Pope, cf. CCC#100), whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on (Dei Verbum, #10)
​

I think it was a little reckless on your part to imply that the Catholic Church teaches that whoever is the Pope is a divine being. Shouldn't you come to me first before you try to tell everyone what is authentic Catholic teaching?

Nice post

 

[Uphill Battle]

I was only looking for your answer as to whether God could and from this I know that you too see God as ALL POWERFUL. That is answer enough.

God COULD make it rain green jello and have puppies sprout from the garden like cabbage.

is that answer enough too? Is that answer enough to say "which means God makes it rain green jello?"

the utter foolishness of it all boggles the mind.

God could, so he did. Nonsense.

 

[Brennin]

False. The last statement, and Judgement on the matter was made by James, not Peter.





I have history and Protestant Scholars agreeing with me.

Eminent Protestant Bible scholars F.F. Bruce and James Dunn (neither has ever been accused of being an advocate of Catholicism, as far as I know -- Bruce calls himself a "Paulinist") give an account of Peter's role in the Jerusalem Council not inconsistent with mine:

According to Luke, a powerful plea by Peter was specially influential in the achieving of this resolution . . . James the Just, who summed up the sense of the meeting, took his cue from Peter's plea.

(F.F. Bruce, Peter, Stephen, James, and John, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979, 38)


Paul . . . made no attempt to throw his own weight around within the Jerusalem church (Acts 21; cf. 15.12f.)

The compromise, however, is not so much between Peter and Paul . . . as between James and Paul, with Peter in effect the median figure to whom both are subtly conformed (James -- see acts 15.13ff. . . . ). Is this not justifiably to be designated 'early catholic'?

(James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 2nd edition, 1990, 112, 356)

The Jerusalem Council is a fine example of the vacuity of the doctrine of papal supremacy. James led the council, not Peter, from whom the popes of Rome claim succession (with no justification.)

 

[Uphill Battle]

hmmm.... just had a a thought.


I've been told by Catholics in the past that God NEVER violates our free will.

is that an accurate statement?

following this, let's say that a Pope wakes up one morning, perhaps on the wrong side of the bed, perhaps he had a bit too much sleep, or not enough.

but he decides to teach something, that is in fact, an error.

but he can't, because of the Charism.

would that then, be a violation of his free will?