Titles

[Deb7777]

Here is some historical backround one of the first titles, "Pontifex Maximus", that the early Popes used to exalt themselves as supreme rulers in Christendom, in much the same way that the Roman Emperors did in Pagan Rome. It gives strong evidence of how early in church history,that pagan Roman practices gradually crept into the church of Rome.

Encyclopedia Article

In Ancient Rome, the Pontifex Maximus was the high priest of the collegium of the Pontifices, the most august position in Roman religion, open only to a patrician, until 254 BC, when a plebeian first occupied this post. A distinctly religious office under the early Roman Republic, it gradually became politicized until, beginning with Augustus, it was subsumed into the Imperial office.
Today, Pontifex Maximus is one of the titles of the Bishop of Rome as Roman Catholic Pope. As a papal title, the English translation Supreme Pontiff is customary, reserving Pontifex Maximus for the former pagan Roman post.

At the end of the 6th century Gregory I was the first Pope to employ "Pontifex maximus" in a formal sense, in a broader program of asserting Roman primacy. It has remained one of the titles of the popes to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus

I don't have any problem with the title Pontifex Maximus. People also complain about Easter and Christmas and the paganism behind it. The title represents "Supreme Pontiff" that works for me. Here's an article , I'm sure there is many out there on the subject http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a104.htm and also here's a snippet from EWTN website:As regards the title <Pontifex Maximus>, especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome. Tertullian, as has already been said, uses the phrase of Pope Callistus. Though his words are ironical, they probably indicate that Catholics already applied it to the pope. But here too the terms were once less narrowly restricted in their use. <Pontifex summus> was used of the bishop of some notable see in relation to those of less importance. Hilary of Arles (d. 449) is so styled by Eucherius of Lyons (P. L., L, 773), and Lanfranc is termed "primas et pontifex summus" by his biographer, Milo Crispin (P. L., CL, 10). Pope Nicholas I is termed "summus pontifex et universalis papa" by his legate Arsenius (Hardouin, "Conc.", V, 280), and subsequent examples are common. After the eleventh century it appears to be only used of the popes. The phrase is now so entirely a papal title that a Bull in which it should be wanting would be reckoned unauthentic. Yet this designation also was once applied to others. Augustine (Ep. 217 a. d. Vitalem) entitles himself "servus Christi et per Ipsum servus servorum Ipsius". Desiderius of Cahors made use of it (Thomassin, "Ecclesiae nov. et vet. disc.", pt. I, I. I, c. iv, n. 4): so also did St. Boniface (740), the apostle of Germany (P. L., LXXIX, 700). The first of the popes to adopt it was seemingly Gregory I; he appears to have done co in contrast to the claim put forward by the Patriarch of Constantinople to the title of universal bishop (P. L., LXXV, 87). The restriction of the term to the pope alone began in the ninth century.

 

[ThreeAM]

And what does this have to do with your accusations of Pope's giving themselves the title of "Great"?

You are trying to make a text say something which is clearly does not. It says nothing about Leo giving himself the title.

Anything else?

So are you saying Leo objected to the title??

 

[ThreeAM]

This is kind of interesting. The above is a gold coin from pope John XXIII notice the title on it Pontifex Maximas. Below is a tribute penny from Tiberius caesar note the title on it PONTIF MAXIM . From www.biblelight.net

 

[Deb7777]

So are you saying Leo objected to the title??

Here's an example of the title "the great".
John Paul "The Great"

Since the death of John Paul II, a number of clergy at the Vatican have been referring to the late pontiff as "John Paul the Great"—only the fourth pope to be so acclaimed, and the first since the first millennium. His successor, Pope Benedict XVI, referred to him as "the great Pope John Paul II" in his first address from the loggia of St Peter's Church. Pope Benedict has continued to refer to John Paul II as "the Great." At the 2005 World Youth Day in Germany, Pope Benedict, speaking in Polish, John Paul's native language, said, "As the great Pope John Paul II would say: keep the flame of faith alive in your lives and your people." The Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera even called him "the Greatest." The South African Catholic newspaper,The Southern Cross, also called him "John Paul 2 The Great."
Scholars of canon law say that there is no official process for declaring a pope "Great"; the title establishes itself through popular, and continued, usage. The three popes who today commonly are known as "Great" are Leo I, who reigned from 440–461 and persuaded Attila the Hun to withdraw from Rome; Gregory I, 590–604, after whom the Gregorian Chant is named; and Nicholas I, 858–867, who also withstood a siege of Rome (in this case from Carolingian Christians, over a dispute regarding marriage annulment).
Historically, the title "the Great" has been given only to the first pope (or sovereign) in a line bearing a name. John Paul II would, by this criterion, be unlikely to be dubbed "the Great." However, there are exceptions. For example, Alexander the Great, was also Alexander III. The fact that, until John Paul II, no popes after the first, have received this title is likely more a function of the fact that so few popes have been acclaimed "the Great" at all, and as such this is not a title that is limited to only the first pope of a given name.~~***~~~ Several saints have the title "the great" after their name. Once again, no problem for me to use adjectives in describing Christian heroes. We sing the praises of Athletes, artists, and so on, so we sing the praises of Christians who did great things for Christ.

 

[canadiancatholic]

Is there no leader on earth you would call "great"? How about someone in your life that has done something above and beyond. Would you call them "good"? No difference as far as I can see!The titles given to the Pope have no bearing on anyone's salvation. If you can prove they do, then maybe this thread would have merit. Or maybe it's just another anti-catholic harlot of Babylon thread that seems to be prevailant around here. Maybe the forum should start up a section for anti-catholicism/harlot of Babylon. Maybe then GT could get to show a real outlook of Christianity. Just my Thoughts.
canadiancatholic

 

[Redwolf]

Who gave these titles to the pope?




Answer........MAN in his Arrogance!


NO MAN (Pope) should EVER , EVER, be thought of so highly......ONLY our Lord deserves such praise and worship. Popes are sinners just like all other mankind.

"ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD"!!!! This includes popes!

The RCC begs to differ with you.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] "It is error to believe that, if the Pope were a reprobate and an evil man and consequently a member of the devil, he has no power over the faithful." Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe, Session VIII, and Hus: Session XV; DNZ:621, 617, 588, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: "The Book of Obedience", Chapter 1: "There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope").

And here is why:

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] “Christ entrusted His office to the chief pontiff;... but all power in heaven and in earth has been given to Christ;... therefore the chief pontiff, who is His vicar, will have this power.” Corpus Juris, chap. 1, column 29, translated from a gloss on the words Porro Subesse Romano Pontiff.[/FONT]

 

[Redwolf]

have you noticed how every blues guitarist is known as the king of the blues?

I htought he was talking about Elvis.
LOL

 

[Redwolf]

while i agree that such praise for the Papacy (note that these titles are due to the Petrine succession, not bc of who any one Pope is) gets to be excessive, a few points must be made:
1. Titles for the Pope do not detract from the praise due to God.
2. No one denies that Popes are sinners.
3. To judge some of them as worse sinners should not be done. We are all sinners, and we dont know their hearts, nor the hearts of anyone else to compare them to.
4. They are indeed just men. BUT Jesus commanded us to be holy as the Father is holy. The office of the Papacy is a holy job, as it is dedicated to serving Christ (not that the person in it is necessarily holy).

So, would that make you holy mother?

As for pope's being worse sinners? Well, I am aware that sin does not come in degrees, except in your church, some pope's were exceedingly sinful.

In 1932, Pope Pius XI (1922-39) as well as condemning contraception, ordered German Catholics to drop their hostility towards Hitler. He also backed Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia.


Pope Benedict XIII (1394-1417) gave a dispensation to the twenty-nine-year-old Richard II of England to marry Isabella, the seven-year-old daughter of the King of France.​

​

Naughty, naughty!
​

The child-pope Benedict IX (who became Pope at the age of 12!) was bi-sexual, sodomised animals, ordered murders and dabbled in witchcraft and Satanism. He loved to throw wild, bi-sexual orgies. Benedict IX held the post of Pope in the years 1032-44, 1045 and 1047-48. He was described as "A demon from hell in the disguise of a priest...", and St Peter Damian said of him: "That wretch, from the beginning of his pontificate to the end of his life, feasted on immorality". Dante estimated that under Benedict IX the papacy reached an all-time low in immorality and debauchery. When he was 23 he survived an assassination attempt (strangling at the altar during Mass). Benedict went on to marry his cousin and sell the papacy to his godfather, Gregory VI.

 

[CaDan]

have you noticed how every blues guitarist is known as the king of the blues?

'Cept for the ones who are blind, of course.

 

[Redwolf]

Name one pope that gave himself the title of "Great"?

The idea of being 'supreme' comes from Scripture, Holy Tradition. the Ecumenical Councils and the Church fathers.

Whether he gave it to himself or it was given to him by fellow Catholics, he allowed it.
Gregory the Great in the seventh centure would fit the bill.

Will you share with us where in scripture it says the pope is supreme? Or anyone other than God?
Thank you.

 

[Redwolf]

And what does this have to do with your accusations of Pope's giving themselves the title of "Great"?

You are trying to make a text say something which is clearly does not. It says nothing about Leo giving himself the title.

Anything else?

He could have rejected it?
No?
He could have said something like ......'Nothing great about me', and he would have been right.

Is this what made him great?

Though married men in those early days were allowed to enter the priesthood, they were required to live celibate lives. Pope Leo I (440-61) decreed that married clergy were to treat their wives "as sisters." Few if any Catholics realize that as late as the reign of Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) it was accepted for priests to be married and supposedly live in celibacy with their wives.

 

[Redwolf]

Is there no leader on earth you would call "great"? How about someone in your life that has done something above and beyond. Would you call them "good"? No difference as far as I can see!The titles given to the Pope have no bearing on anyone's salvation. If you can prove they do, then maybe this thread would have merit. Or maybe it's just another anti-catholic harlot of Babylon thread that seems to be prevailant around here. Maybe the forum should start up a section for anti-catholicism/harlot of Babylon. Maybe then GT could get to show a real outlook of Christianity. Just my Thoughts.
canadiancatholic

I'm so sorry you feel offended. If you agree with these titles and what other things the pope is called/calls himself, then you are far and ahead.

If the pope's title have no bearing on other people's salvation, they most certainly do on his.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

The problem with discussions like these is that Catholics take them no more seriously than Jack Chick tracts.

Unfortunately, even Chick and Boettner and Hislop and others have the occasional insight which is both valid and significant. But what's happened is that the caricaturish nature of their presentation, and the fact that they sometimes devolve into silliness has allowed the RCC and it's apologists to dismiss them entirely.

But the question you're asking is a good one.

The titles and powers arrogated by the Bishop of Rome are completely incongruous with the humility and homelessness of the Apostles they claim to succeed and the Savior they claim to serve.

Matt. 20:20-28
Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. And he said to her, "What do you want?" She said to him, "Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom." Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?" They said to him, "We are able." He said to them, "You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father." And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

There is a story told about Stalin.

Once he wanted to illustrate his control over people. He had his lieutenants all in a room and he took a live chicken and plucked it of every feather. The chicken squawked and screamed in pain.

Stalin said to his men, "Now watch". He put the chicken on the floor and walked into the next room. The chicken followed him. He walked back into the room with the Comissars, the chicken followed him.

Wherever he went, the chicken followed him.

Finally he picked the chicken back up and wrung it's poor neck.

"Thus" Stalin told the men, "are the peasants of Russia. You can control them only with cruelty. It's all they understand."

Similarly, Christians who have been made free in Christ will permit menstealers to re-enslave them. They will seek out the most arrogant and controlling of masters to serve rather than the gentle Christ who calls them to be no longer slaves but co-heirs with him.

This is what happens when people don't understand the liberty they have in Him. All they know is slavery and rather than glorying in their freedom, they would seek a new master.

 

[Oblio]

and the fact that they sometimes devolve into silliness

Sometimes ?

Similarly, Christians who have been made free in Christ will permit menstealers to re-enslave them. They will seek out the most arrogant and controlling of masters to serve rather than the gentle Christ who calls them to be no longer slaves but co-heirs with him.

This is what happens when people don't understand the liberty they have in Him. All they know is slavery and rather than glorying in their freedom, they would seek a new master.

So you are comparing the Pope to Stalin ??

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

So you are comparing the Pope to Stalin ??

I was talking more about the nature of man, even redeemed man, than the nature of the Papacy.

I'm sure you're just chomping at the bit for another opportunity to report me to the mods, so go ahead.

 

[Oblio]

I was talking more about the nature of man, even redeemed man, than the nature of the Papacy.

I'm sure you're just chomping at the bit for another opportunity to report me to the mods, so go ahead.

Uh, I think you are mistaken, both here and in the past.

 

[Redwolf]

The titles and powers arrogated by the Bishop of Rome are completely incongruous with the humility and homelessness of the Apostles they claim to succeed and the Savior they claim to serve.

The titles and powers of the pope are evident in how he displays his person and the way he lives. Garish and immodest.
His titles are the same.
I understood when I began this thread that no Catholic would acknowledge these excesses in public. They have been acknowledged to me in private many times.
"Why do you stay in the church then?"
"Because I'll go to hell if I leave!"

All Catholics here will acknowledge this pronouncement.

They will most certainly also see a difference between the lifestyle of the pope and that of Christ and HIS apostles.

 

[Redwolf]

Sometimes ?





So you are comparing the Pope to Stalin ??

The pope is just one person. The papacy is tainted with blood and the wailings of the martyered.
Surely you must have heard of it?

 

[Redwolf]

Uh, I think you are mistaken, both here and in the past.

I find it routine to be reported when issues expose unpleasant truth.

 

[Oblio]

They have been acknowledged to me in private many times.

This again

By the same plethora (of one) of gay father raping priests over on Group W bench I suppose ?