Question 4 Catholics: What is going on in side the RCC with the Pope.

[RileyG]

The more accurate term than "Roman Catholic Church" in terms of what you are describing would be the "Latin Rite". The difficulty is that "Roman Catholic" can have a different number of meanings, both in popular parlance and even within the Catholic Church. It could just be a term for the Catholic Church as a whole (as a way to distinguish itself from other possible meanings or usages of catholic), it can be a term for specifically the Latin rite, or it can even be used only specifically for the Church in Rome. In general parlance in English, I would say "Roman Catholic" is interpreted to refer to the entire Catholic Church (those in communion with the Bishop of Rome a.k.a. the pope), including the other rites.

You're right. Although some Eastern Catholics would be offended if you referred to them as "Roman" Catholic because they do not use the Latin liturgy.

 

[Buzzard3]

We do not worship the Virgin Mary. We do not worship any Saints or images. We do not see the Pope as equal to God. We do not believe works can save us. These are nothing but anti-Catholic propaganda from those who know nothing about what the RCC teaches.

We've got to expect that the demonic powers of darkness will, at the very least, spew forth an avalanche of malicious lies and nonsense about God's one true Church. It goes with the territory.

 

[RileyG]

We've got to expect that the demonic powers of darkness will, the very least, spew forth an avalanche of malicious lies and nonsense about God's one true Church. It goes with the territory.

Amen.

 

[Buzzard3]

The more accurate term than "Roman Catholic Church" in terms of what you are describing would be the "Latin Rite". The difficulty is that "Roman Catholic" can have a different number of meanings, both in popular parlance and even within the Catholic Church. It could just be a term for the Catholic Church as a whole (as a way to distinguish itself from other possible meanings or usages of catholic), it can be a term for specifically the Latin rite, or it can even be used only specifically for the Church in Rome. In general parlance in English, I would say "Roman Catholic" is interpreted to refer to the entire Catholic Church (those in communion with the Bishop of Rome a.k.a. the pope), including the other rites.

I met a Maronite Catholic at Mass recently. He was born in Lebanon, but now lives in Sydney, Australia. Quite a few of them living in Sydney and Melbourne, apparently.

 

[RileyG]

I met a Maronite Catholic at Mass recently. He was born in Lebanon, but now lives in Sydney, Australia. Quite a few of them living in Sydney and Melbourne, apparently.

That's wonderful! Unfortunately, there isn't any Maronite Churches in my state. I would love to attend a Maronite Mass but it's about six hours away!

 

[Valletta]

We do not worship the Virgin Mary. We do not worship any Saints or images. We do not see the Pope as equal to God. We do not believe works can save us. These are nothing but anti-Catholic propaganda from those who know nothing about what the RCC teaches.

Some also know very well but intentionally misinform people about the Catholic Church.

 

[Buzzard3]

That's wonderful! Unfortunately, there isn't any Maronite Churches in my state.

Yes, he said the Maronite community in Australia is very devout. Lovely to hear.

I would love to attend a Maronite Mass

Same here. Those Eastern Catholics have some really beautiful traditions and churches.

but it's about six hours away!

That's a fair ol' hike. The nearest Maronite Church to me is in Sydney, about 3 hrs away. On the bucket list ...

 

[Buzzard3]

Some also know very well but intentionally misinform people about the Catholic Church.

I call them "the Sauls of Tarsus" - they attack Christ's Church with great zeal and think they're doing God’s will.

 

[Buzzard3]

Edited! Thanks for letting me know oops!

Too late, brother ... that little mistake will cost you a week in Purgatory

 

[RileyG]

Too.late, brother ... that little mistake will cost you a week in Purgatory

eeek, I know I'll spend a century there

 

[Buzzard3]

eeek, I know I'll spend a century there

Well, what's another week compared to a century?

But seriously, I don't think you'll spend anything like a century there. For starters, you wouldn't be on this site and this thread if you didn't love God and his Church.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Peter was first in Antioch and later as the Bishop in Rome. This is a historical fact.

you forgot, Pentecost. A delegation from Rome heard him preach and returned to Rome and founded the Church there.

 

[RileyG]

you forgot, Pentecost. A delegation from Rome heard him preach and returned to Rome and founded the Church there.

Yes, you're correct.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Yes, you're correct.

you guys forget that, often. I was shocked when I realized that you guys had the goods on that.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

In Numbers 14, on account of their disbelief and rebellion, God threatened to destroy all the Israelites (all except Moses, it would seem):

"And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs which I have wrought among them? I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.”

But Moses pleaded with God to not destroy the Israelities:

"But Moses said to the Lord ... 'Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray thee, according to the greatness of thy steadfast love, and according as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.'”

As a result of Moses' intercession, God relented, but promised that none of the rebellious Israeliteies would not live to see the Promised Land:​

"Then the Lord said, “I have pardoned, according to your word; but truly, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, none of the men who have seen my glory and my signs which I wrought in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have put me to the proof these ten times and have not hearkened to my voice, shall see the land which I swore to give to their fathers; and none of those who despised me shall see it."

There’s one sense in which it seems God is changing His mind, and there’s another sense in which the Bible says God never changes His mind because God is omniscient. He knows all things from the beginning, and He is immutable. He is unchanging. There’s no shadow of turning within Him. He knows what Moses is going to say to Him before Moses even opens his mouth to plead for these people. Then after Moses has actually said it, does God suddenly change His mind? He doesn’t have any more information than He had a moment before. Nothing has changed as far as God’s knowledge or His appraisal of the situation.

What in Moses’ words and actions would possibly have provoked God to change His mind? I think that what we have here is the mystery of providence whereby God ordains not only the ends of things that come to pass but also the means. God sets forth principles in the Bible where He gives threats of judgment to motivate His people to repentance. Sometimes He spells out specifically, “But if you repent, I will not carry out the threat.” He doesn’t always add that qualifier, but it’s there. I think this is one of those instances. It was tacitly understood that God threatened judgment upon these people, but if someone were to plead for them in a priestly way, He would give grace rather than justice. I think that’s at the heart of that mystery.

Is God confused, stumbling through all the different options—Should I do this? Should I not do that? Does He decide upon one course of action and then think, Well, maybe that’s not such a good idea after all, and change His mind? Obviously, God is omniscient; God is all wise. God is eternal in His perspective and in His full knowledge of everything. So we don’t change God’s mind. But prayer changes things. It changes us. And there are times in which God waits for us to ask for things because His plan is that we work with Him in the glorious process of bringing His will to pass here on earth.

 

[The Liturgist]

Unhappily he is a validly elected pope. Those who say he isn’t a real pope are fetching at straws. That because it’s easier to think that he isn’t really the pope than to confront the likelihood that he may be a bad pope.

We had a run of some really good popes. Benedict was really good. John Paul II was great. John Paul I wasn’t around long enough but he looks like he would have been very good. Paul VI tried hard. John XXIII was a good and holy man. Pius XII was a solid. Now we have Francis, a whole new paradigm, and he isn’t intellectually or temperamentally up to that level. You can’t always tell if he is being driven in his comments by dementia or ideology (maybe liberation theology or Peronism or ecologism) or just folksy thinking. He is doing damage in the process, having appointed a bunch of bad cardinals and bad bishops. He has not technically spouted any heresy as official teaching even though he has said such things unofficially many times. He has the prayers of Catholics all over the world, which is probably why he hasn’t been worse.

The big deal with the TLM is that it works as a vehicle for holiness and most who attend it are also learning their faith pretty well. It is one of the growing parts of the Catholic faith. And pope Francis seems to hate the TLM and would be happy to shut it down if he only could. He doesn’t like those people at all and they aren’t liking him too much either. Why does he hate them? I think they figured him out early on. Some of them rejected him as a fake pope, but by no means all. Some of them hold to the opinion that he is a bad pope that we must pray hard for, which is also my opinion even though I have rarely attended a TLM mass.

I have actually attended more TLM masses than Novus Ordo masses, which I greatly dislike. The Tridentine mass is solemn and elegant, and has a similar feeling to the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern churches.

 

[The Liturgist]

Oh you have to be kidding me.



Because Peter was guilty of a sin and Paul called him out.

St. Peter was definitely the first Bishop of the Church in Rome, and also Antioch, although the bishops of Rome did not style themselves Pope until the 6th century; the Alexandrian bishops having adopted this style 300 years earlier.

Historically, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the three most important centers of the early church were the three Petrine sees of Antioch, Rome and Alexandria (established by St. Mark the Evangelist, who was, among other things, a disciple of St. Peter). It is for this reason that these churches along with the church in the rebuilt city of Jerusalem has their ecclesiastical independence, or autocephaly, and primacy (but not supremacy) among churches in their geographical regions, affirmed at the Council of Nicaea in Canons VI and VII.

Also the Church of Cyprus has always been autocephalous, aside from parishes built there by Latin Catholics during the Crusades, after the schism had separated the Eastern Orthodox from the Roman church, due to the Roman Catholics excommunicating us for refusing to accept papal supremacy. This however likely has more to do with its relative isolation, since it is only reachable by sailing in the Eastern Mediterranean, than to any particular historical distinction.

 

[The Liturgist]

There’s one sense in which it seems God is changing His mind, and there’s another sense in which the Bible says God never changes His mind because God is omniscient. He knows all things from the beginning, and He is immutable. He is unchanging. There’s no shadow of turning within Him. He knows what Moses is going to say to Him before Moses even opens his mouth to plead for these people. Then after Moses has actually said it, does God suddenly change His mind? He doesn’t have any more information than He had a moment before. Nothing has changed as far as God’s knowledge or His appraisal of the situation.

What in Moses’ words and actions would possibly have provoked God to change His mind? I think that what we have here is the mystery of providence whereby God ordains not only the ends of things that come to pass but also the means. God sets forth principles in the Bible where He gives threats of judgment to motivate His people to repentance. Sometimes He spells out specifically, “But if you repent, I will not carry out the threat.” He doesn’t always add that qualifier, but it’s there. I think this is one of those instances. It was tacitly understood that God threatened judgment upon these people, but if someone were to plead for them in a priestly way, He would give grace rather than justice. I think that’s at the heart of that mystery.

Is God confused, stumbling through all the different options—Should I do this? Should I not do that? Does He decide upon one course of action and then think, Well, maybe that’s not such a good idea after all, and change His mind? Obviously, God is omniscient; God is all wise. God is eternal in His perspective and in His full knowledge of everything. So we don’t change God’s mind. But prayer changes things. It changes us. And there are times in which God waits for us to ask for things because His plan is that we work with Him in the glorious process of bringing His will to pass here on earth.

One major Christological error you are engaging in is monothelitism, and possibly some form of Nestorianism, insofar as you appear to be denying that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine, and in His full humanity and divinity has a human will and a divine will, or perhaps the Oriental Orthodox might say his will is fully theandric, without, in either case, change, confusion, separation or division, just like the relationship between His humanity and divinity. At any rate, your Christology does not account for the incarnational aspect of our Lord adequately, since it appears you have discounted the possibility of communicatio idiomatum.

What is more, by the logic you present, which is also hyper-deterministic, you are effectively denying the efficacy of prayer. The fact of God’s omniscience does not override his omnipotence, meaning that he has the power to give us free will despite also having the power to know what the outcome is going to be. Thus, our prayers, and the prayers of others we ask to pray on our behalf, which can include the Blessed Virgin Mary, are efficacious, as Christ our True God promised.

 

[RileyG]

I have actually attended more TLM masses than Novus Ordo masses, which I greatly dislike. The Tridentine mass is solemn and elegant, and has a similar feeling to the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern churches.

The ordinary form can be beautiful if done correctly. Ad orientem, Roman Canon, chanting, some parts in Latin, incense. Thankful to live in an area where parishes that do it beautifully.

I adore the TLM and only attended about five times. I wish I could go to that parish more.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

One major Christological error you are engaging in is monothelitism, and possibly some form of Nestorianism, insofar as you appear to be denying that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine, and in His full humanity and divinity has a human will and a divine will, or perhaps the Oriental Orthodox might say his will is fully theandric, without, in either case, change, confusion, separation or division, just like the relationship between His humanity and divinity. At any rate, your Christology does not account for the incarnational aspect of our Lord adequately, since it appears you have discounted the possibility of communicatio idiomatum.

What is more, by the logic you present, which is also hyper-deterministic, you are effectively denying the efficacy of prayer. The fact of God’s omniscience does not override his omnipotence, meaning that he has the power to give us free will despite also having the power to know what the outcome is going to be. Thus, our prayers, and the prayers of others we ask to pray on our behalf, which can include the Blessed Virgin Mary, are efficacious, as Christ our True God promised.

I am aware that Christ is truly God and truly man, but I do not know what point you are trying to make. Btw He was not yet man in the time of Moses.

Jesus is the High Priest in Heaven, interceeding for His people. He is the only mediator between man and God, no need to pray to anyone else. Prayers belong to God alone.

I do not pray to God to change His mind, I consider that a sin. I pray to Him because I want a personal relationship with Him, to speak to Him, to praise Him, to find out His will in my life. Yes I do ask Him of things, nevertheless His will be done, not mine. Who am I even to pray to Him, I'm unworthy. But the Son reconciled me to God, and in Him I can pray.

If you pray to change God's mind, go ahead, but I am not going to do that as His will is perfect.