Popes are Redundant?

[Ringo84]

What need is there for a Pope?
We have Jesus Christ who interceeds for us.
We have the Holy Spirit who leads and guides us.
We have GOD in us for goodness sake.


I don't see a need, and I dont read of one in the Bible.

You?

I realize I'm very Baptist (or perhaps Protestant) about this, but I don't see the need for a Pope either. He or she is completely unnecessary.

I can speak directly to God anytime I like through prayer. I don't need any earthly person to speak to God "for" me; if God is interested in creating me, I don't see why He wouldn't be interested in talking to me.

I reject papal authority because I don't see the wisdom in believing a certain way "because the church says so", but that's me. No offense to my Catholic bretheren, of course!
Ringo

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I was going to start a thread on this as I didn't want to hijack this thread. But heck, if it is the Cardinals that elect the pope, why can't he be voted on by ALL the catholic membership.
Sure looks to me to be a lot of "extra baggage" in the heirarchy to me.

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church have two key jobs, advising the current pope and electing a new pope.

The cardinals as a body offer their advice to the pope in two ways:

-- Through their membership in Vatican congregations or other departments of the Roman Curia, the church's central administrative offices.

-- Through their membership in the College of Cardinals, which the pope can convoke to discuss substantive questions facing the church.

Cardinals who are resident in Rome meet more frequently to discuss the major decisions the pope is facing.

The College of Cardinals has three ranks:

-- Cardinal bishops, a group that includes only six Latin-rite cardinals, one of whom is elected dean of the College of Cardinals. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the current Pope Benedict XVI, was the dean at the time of his election. He was succeeded by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Vatican secretary of state.

-- Cardinal priests, most of whom are diocesan bishops, although some senior curial officials also hold the rank.

-- Cardinal deacons, most of whom are curial officials.

Cardinals wear a distinctive orange-tinged red cassock and biretta in solemn ceremonies. During ordinary liturgical rites they wear a red skullcap.

Pope Paul VI decreed that the College of Cardinals would have a maximum of 120 active members. Since 1970, those over 80 have not been counted as active.

Although the retired cardinals are not eligible to vote in a conclave to elect a new pope, they still are considered advisers to the pope, and they are invited to participate in the meetings of the College of Cardinals in preparation for a conclave.

 

[Rhamiel]

Ringo, do you also think the position of pastor is unnecessary? I don't like people telling me what to think and I do not "need some one to talk to God for me", those were your two reasons right? it really does not make a lot of sense, first of, "talking to God for me" is not part of the job of the Pope. secoundly it is never just "because the church says so" we use the Bible and traditions going back to the time of the apostles for everything the Church believes.

 

[Ringo84]

Ringo, do you also think the position of pastor is unnecessary? I don't like people telling me what to think and I do not "need some one to talk to God for me", those were your two reasons right? it really does not make a lot of sense, first of, "talking to God for me" is not part of the job of the Pope. secoundly it is never just "because the church says so" we use the Bible and traditions going back to the time of the apostles for everything the Church believes.

But isn't there a difference between the role of a pastor and the role of a pope? The pope makes official theological declarations for the denomination in general, while the pastor simply leads a church.

Nobody in the Baptist denomination hands down official edicts saying that Baptists are required to believe a a certain way about a given theological issue. I'm much more comfortable with a more autonomous system.
Ringo

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

But isn't there a difference between the role of a pastor and the role of a pope? The pope makes official theological declarations for the denomination in general, while the pastor simply leads a church.

Nobody in the Baptist denomination hands down official edicts saying that Baptists are required to believe a a certain way about a given theological issue. I'm much more comfortable with a more autonomous system.
Ringo

The holy pontiff can only make declarations for the whole of the church on matters that have already passed into general belief and usage.

 

[Ringo84]

The holy pontiff can only make declarations for the whole of the church on matters that have already passed into general belief and usage.

I don't mean to start a debate about theology. I simply don't understand the Catholic system because I grew up Baptist, and the Baptist system is completely different.

I'm not down on Catholics. Coming as I do from an Italian family on one side, there's some Catholicism in my roots. I just seek to better understand how the system works and why the system works that way. I don't actually have the theological framework to debate you about the relative merits of either the Protestant or Catholic ways of doing things.
Ringo

 

[ps139]

I was going to start a thread on this as I didn't want to hijack this thread. But heck, if it is the Cardinals that elect the pope, why can't he be voted on by ALL the catholic membership.
Sure looks to me to be a lot of "extra baggage" in the heirarchy to me.

Catholicism has never been a democracy, nor will it be.

 

[ps139]

But isn't there a difference between the role of a pastor and the role of a pope? The pope makes official theological declarations for the denomination in general, while the pastor simply leads a church.

Nobody in the Baptist denomination hands down official edicts saying that Baptists are required to believe a a certain way about a given theological issue. I'm much more comfortable with a more autonomous system.
Ringo

I think Rhamiel's point is that there are a lot of Baptist churches where the congregation follows what the pastor says. And if they don't like it, if they think it is incorrect, or unbiblical, they leave and find a new church. But those in the congregation agree with the pastor. Same principle is true of the Catholic Church and the pope. If someone doesn't like what he says, they are free to leave and find another church.

 

[ps139]

Just difference of opinion Gratia, (how rare here )
I personally would choose revelation from God over
theologians. But indeed, balance is key in everything.
And I do have a son in his fifth year
of college majoring in religion, bless his heart.
And I believe God sent Him there too, he hasnt
had to pay a cent.

But that's just speaking of druthers.
I do see the benefit of instruction as well.

But instruction PLUS revelation woah!!
NOW you're talking, huh?!

It takes spending time getting to know HIm,
thirsting after Him, reading His Words,
and mostly, obeying Him before one can
truly understand the superiority of this
method of revelation, where one can
hear it right from the author. To hear
His voice whispering in your ear.

Seems to me like you are equating "revelation" with your own reading of Scripture, and claiming that these "theologians" are wrong. It may be so, but some of them... I mean, we have writings from men who were discipled by the original apostles! and writings of their followers. People for whom Greek of the Bible was their native language! If they are all saying one thing, and me in my own reading am thinking another... I cannot just blow them off.

Yes, I believe God guides me, but He doesn't require me to reinvent the wheel.

 

[SpiritDriven]

Do you people relise what happened at the Cross ?

because if you did, you would relise that not only is the Pope redundant....everything we do or do not do, to make ourselves right with God...became redundant...at the Cross.

 

[sunlover1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunlover1
Just difference of opinion Gratia, (how rare here )
I personally would choose revelation from God over
theologians. But indeed, balance is key in everything.
And I do have a son in his fifth year
of college majoring in religion, bless his heart.
And I believe God sent Him there too, he hasnt
had to pay a cent.

But that's just speaking of druthers.
I do see the benefit of instruction as well.

But instruction PLUS revelation woah!!
NOW you're talking, huh?!

It takes spending time getting to know HIm,
thirsting after Him, reading His Words,
and mostly, obeying Him before one can
truly understand the superiority of this
method of revelation, where one can
hear it right from the author. To hear
His voice whispering in your ear.

Seems to me like you are equating "revelation" with your own reading of Scripture, and claiming that these "theologians" are wrong.

Hmm.
I didnt see that in my response, and that's not how I
believe.
Some might be 'right' on 'some' things, others on other
things?
How do I know?

It may be so, but some of them... I mean, we have writings from men who were discipled by the original apostles! and writings of their followers. People for whom Greek of the Bible was their native language! If they are all saying one thing, and me in my own reading am thinking another... I cannot just blow them off.

Yes, I believe God guides me, but He doesn't require me to reinvent the wheel

Hmm, i didnt reckon listening and hearing and studying
and using the sound mind he gave me was reinventing
anything, but rather just obeying the Father.

When you find that theologian who's got it right let us know
too btw.

Just kidding, but cant you see the dilemma of this reasoning?

If not, that's cool.

sunlover

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

Do you people relise what happened at the Cross ?

because if you did, you would relise that not only is the Pope redundant....everything we do or do not do, to make ourselves right with God...became redundant...at the Cross.

Yeah, Im sure everyone here is aware of the cross and this gets said over and over again.

What about the resurrection (and...incarnation, baptism, transfiguration, suffering, death, ascension), because without this, nothing matters, you know?

Its not about adding to the cross or making ourselves right, but about needing to participate in the cross...if thats makes sense??

 

[ps139]

Do you people relise what happened at the Cross ?

because if you did, you would relise that not only is the Pope redundant....everything we do or do not do, to make ourselves right with God...became redundant...at the Cross.

What are you talking about? You obviously have no idea what the office of the pope does. You might think you know, but you do not.

Newsflash - We do NOT go through the pope as our mediator or intercessor to GOD. He is not like the high priest of the Jews, in that regard, the only one allowed into the Holy of Holies

I'm so sick of this. I used to post on CF forever, and I have been away for about a year, and it is the same nonsense over and over again. People who do not have a clue about another churches doctrine making posts to criticize it... when they do not understand it! It is infuriating. I don't know where you get these ideas of the pope, but it's completely off base.

 

[Ringo84]

I think Rhamiel's point is that there are a lot of Baptist churches where the congregation follows what the pastor says. And if they don't like it, if they think it is incorrect, or unbiblical, they leave and find a new church. But those in the congregation agree with the pastor. Same principle is true of the Catholic Church and the pope. If someone doesn't like what he says, they are free to leave and find another church.

I understand. However, I don't understand why the dissenters would have to leave.

Church is a democracy; not a dictatorship. A pastor may have more theological training than his or her congregation (theoretically), but that doesn't mean that they are the final arbiter of proper Bible interpretation. Pastors can be wrong. Because of that, pastors should lead the church but should also be subject to the congregation - just as the President is subject to the people he or she represents.
Ringo

 

[ps139]

I understand. However, I don't understand why the dissenters would have to leave.

Church is a democracy; not a dictatorship. A pastor may have more theological training than his or her congregation (theoretically), but that doesn't mean that they are the final arbiter of proper Bible interpretation. Pastors can be wrong. Because of that, pastors should lead the church but should also be subject to the congregation - just as the President is subject to the people he or she represents.
Ringo

Church isn't a democracy.... what if the people decide that the Trinity is a false doctrine? Wouldn't be the first time it happened.

 

[Ringo84]

Church isn't a democracy.... what if the people decide that the Trinity is a false doctrine? Wouldn't be the first time it happened.

It is a democracy. The pastor is not the final arbiter of good theology because a pastor can be wrong.

The congregation deciding that the trinity doesn't exist is an extreme example. Even if it has happened before, I doubt it happens that often.

Look at our political system as an example. A similar argument would be "what if, through democracy, we elect a Nazi into office?" Well, since Nazis are hopefully a minority in this country and since we have controls in place in our government, that will likely not happen.

In the same way, I believe that a democratic church that is properly controlled through "checks and balances" will not allow for such an extreme position to be taken.
Ringo

 

[a_ntv]

It is a democracy. The pastor is not the final arbiter of good theology because a pastor can be wrong.

The congregation deciding that the trinity doesn't exist is an extreme example. Even if it has happened before, I doubt it happens that often.

Look at our political system as an example. A similar argument would be "what if, through democracy, we elect a Nazi into office?" Well, since Nazis are hopefully a minority in this country and since we have controls in place in our government, that will likely not happen.

In the same way, I believe that a democratic church that is properly controlled through "checks and balances" will not allow for such an extreme position to be taken.
Ringo

Well, also in the catholic parishes the members of the parish can check and control the life of the parish, the balance sheets, the activities, even the pastoral program: in my parish there are the election of lay parish parish council every 3 years.

But noone can vote about the doctrine: Jesus is the Truth, so the Truth is only ONE, and we cannot decide by vote which is the Truth.

 

[ps139]

It is a democracy. The pastor is not the final arbiter of good theology because a pastor can be wrong.

The congregation deciding that the trinity doesn't exist is an extreme example. Even if it has happened before, I doubt it happens that often.

Look at our political system as an example. A similar argument would be "what if, through democracy, we elect a Nazi into office?" Well, since Nazis are hopefully a minority in this country and since we have controls in place in our government, that will likely not happen.

In the same way, I believe that a democratic church that is properly controlled through "checks and balances" will not allow for such an extreme position to be taken.
Ringo

You make good points Ringo... I just think that any church as a democracy is a dangerous line to walk. It happened with the Pentecostals... when there was a movement that for baptisms, people should be baptized in the name of Jesus alone. So some people said, what about the Father and the Holy Spirit? So a lot of them decided that the Father and the Holy Spirit and Jesus were not 3 persons of the Triune God, but rather names for "roles" that the one person of God would act in. That group split off from main Pentecostals and are called the Oneness Pentecostals, and do not believe in a Trinitarian God, they deny the Trinity. All by democracy.
The thing about democracy is that the people have the power to make change. In politics it is the best system, but when it comes to matters of Eternal Truth.... no one has the power or should think they have the power to change that.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Well, also in the catholic parishes the members of the parish can check and control the life of the parish, the balance sheets, the activities, even the pastoral program: in my parish there are the election of lay parish parish council every 3 years.

But noone can vote about the doctrine: Jesus is the Truth, so the Truth is only ONE, and we cannot decide by vote which is the Truth.

I dont think I met any protestants (yet) who will argue about Jesus being the way the Truth or the life.

There may be other doctrines they refuse to accept, though thats true everywhere.

 

[Rhamiel]

I really do not see the distinction between a pastor and a Pope, the pastor is a christian leader on the local leval, the Pope is the christian leader on a world wide leval.
Do you think the Holy Ghost worked through men to make the Bible free of error? well I think the Holy Ghost still works through the Bishops keeping the Church free of error