Was the original Catholic Church created by power hungry zealots?

redleghunter · Nov 12, 2018

Root of Jesse said:
The vision being Israel is really no different than her being Mary. The woman symbolizes the people of God, right? In the OT, that's Israel. In the NT, Mary, the mother of the Church (the people of God.).

I have not encountered Catholic scholarship which supports your view this is Mary. Sure some apologetics sites ignoring Catholic scholarship and yes many Marian devotion sites.

As already pointed out your own USCCB approved NABRE study notes say the woman is Israel and by extension the persecuted church.

132 [ 12:1 –6 ] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9 –10 ) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah ( Rev 12:5 ) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon ( Rev 12:6 , 13 –17 ); cf. Is 50:1 ; 66:7 ; Jer 50:12 . This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster.

Excerpt above from:

Fireside New American Bible Revised Edition E-Book THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE REVISED EDITION Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CONFRATERNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND THE UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

mark kennedy · Nov 13, 2018

Root of Jesse said:
Jesus is the head of the Church, we are the body of the Church, therefore, Mary is the mother of the Church.I never said Jesus didn't have...I said Mary didn't have...

Mary was the mother of Jesus, never is she refered to as the mother of the church, that's absurd.

1. The Meaning of Brother

Click to expand...

The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos) has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother.

Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not biological brothers but uncle and nephew:

“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8, NIV; see also 14:12).

Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children![/quote]

You are taking a New Testament word, that literally m eans from the same womb and projecting it on an aoT context. Now as farbas Jesus appearing to 500 there is something called a context you are obivious to.

[

2. Children of Mary?

Click to expand...

These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).

The absense of a specific phrase seems a very weak basis for such a major doctrine.

3. Other Women Named Mary

Click to expand...

James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus.

They were the children of Mary the mother of Jesus and oerpetual viginity is a relatively modern doctrine even if devotions to Mary are not.

After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes:

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).

Bot aeeing anything all that convincing or conclusive her. Just kind of a rationalization.

4. Consensus of the Early Church

Click to expand...

The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it may contain accurate historical traditions.

All very interesting, but hardly persuasive on a doctrinal level.

If you examine the text of Acts 15 carefully, you will see this is not the case. In verses six and seven, we see all of the apostles and elders gathered together and doing what? Disputing!

Notice, it is Peter who speaks first, in verses 7-11. After so much disputing in Antioch that St. Paul and Barnabas could not settle the difficulty:

And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them... "But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." And all the assembly kept silence...

"After much debate” here at the Council, Peter declares the truth and then—“the whole assembly fell silent” in verse 12. The issue was settled.

This speaks volumes.

Of course it does, the controversy had consumed them for some time. Paul says even Barnabas had been led astray. When Petrr spoke he spoke fir the Apostles, Paul would echo his statement in the letter to the Galation. Yes, they were silent because they were in agreement. Apart from the canon of Scripture I know of bo incident where the church was more resolute in their unanimous decision.

And notice as well: Peter uses the first person personal prounoun in the plural. "We believe..." Peter does not speak just for himself. He speaks for all.

However, there was still a pastoral issue. How are we going to bring about unity, in a pastoral sense, between the Jews and Gentiles? The Jewish Christians were worshiping in a Jewish manner which involved many Old Testament practices. St. Paul himself acknowledged the validity of this manner of worship, and participated in it himself in Acts 21:15-26. Many of these Jews wanted to make their rules the universal norm for everyone and even believed it necessary for salvation. The question: How do we unify the Gentile and Jewish Rites without compromising the truth? The Church could not say Gentiles had to keep what were peculiarly Old Testament practices in order to be saved, but the Church also wanted to respect some of the ancient practices of the Jews.

St. James stands up in Acts 15:13-23, and gives his pastoral opinion on the matter:

My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has [declared] how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name... It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter avoid [1] the pollution from idols, [2] unlawful marriage, [3] the meat of strangled animals, and [4] blood. Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas... This is the letter delivered by them: “The apostles and the presbyters, you brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings..."

Two Key Points:

1. When James stands up to speak, the first thing he says after getting the attention of the Council is, “Symeon has related…” In other words, Peter has spoken… He repeats what Peter has already said definitively. Then, rather than speaking for all, St. James says, "It is my judgment..."

A little over 400 years after this proclamation by St. James, the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon would similarly declare, “Peter has spoken through Leo, the question is settled” after hearing a written declaration of St. Peter’s successor, Pope St. Leo the Great, read at that great Ecumenical Council. In AD 451, the issue was concerning the monophysite heresy and the nature of the God-man Jesus Christ. But both times, the same Principle was in effect. God spoke definitively through the authority He established on this earth to Shepherd his people.

2. When St. James gives his pastoral judgment, in verse 19, his judgment was that the Church ought to bind the Gentiles to four laws:

... abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.

But notice what happens immediately thereafter, in verses 22-28:

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas... with the following letter: “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling to your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us in assembly to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul… We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things…”

Three sub-points:

1. When Peter speaks in Acts 15:7-11, just as we saw in Acts 10-11:18, the question was settled. St. Peter’s authority is unique. He has the keys of the kingdom and as such speaks for Christ with or without the consent of the others (Matthew 16:15-19).

2. When James gives his pastoral judgment concerning how to deal with an extremely difficult situation, the apostles, elders and the whole church had to agree before an epistle could be written to be sent out to the troubled churches. Why? Because the other apostles’ authority is depicted in a collegial manner. Jesus gave Peter and all the apostles the authority to “bind and loose” in Matthew 18:15-18. Notice, it was all the apostles with Peter that acted in sending out the decree to the troubled churches. James and the apostles authority was exercised as a college. Only St. Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom. Only St. Peter acted alone in the context of all of the apostles at the Council.

3. Notice the nature of the letter sent out by the Church. When the Council of Jerusalem sends out the decree, the Church declares:

It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell. (Acts 15:28, NAB)

Who Was at the Helm in the Book of Acts? Peter? James? | Catholic Answers

Of corse I have no issue here, Peter spokebthe Apostles doctrine and none, Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant deny that justification by grace through faith is the gospel of Christ. Our differences are many, we dispute many matters of doctrine and will continue to pursue these issues, and should. Peter spoke definitively that day, the xhurch continues to echo his wirds and embrace the substance of his words on the most basic and universal level. Peter spoke, for the Apostles and for the church and while he was vut one man his words speak for us all. The Gentiles were purifying themselves by faith and we should bot lay on them a burden neither he nor his fathers could bear.

You will get no argument from me.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Root of Jesse · Nov 19, 2018

mark kennedy said:
Prophecy can be like that, it obviously alludes to the birth of Christ. Not all prophecy is predictive, prophetic oracles can also infer events in redemptive history. This one is just too detail specific, it's clearly predictive of a time half way thru the tribulation when Israel flees the Antichrist. Speak where the Scriptures speak and remain silent where they are silent.

What your doing is inferring something the Scriptures obviously are not saying, you've in as much as admitted it. Mary was very special, a woman to be admired. Venerated, prayed to and worshiped is orders of magnitude higher and even angels refuse worship. The issue is a biblical one and you are not offering a sound exposition here. A text without a context is a pretext.

And btw, my compliments on your gentlemanly demeanor, I always appreciate a civil tone.

You're welcome. We ARE speaking of God, and we're all Christians. I don't see a reason to denigrate and demean.

We believe that John wrote Revelation after the fall of Jerusalem, and that it is not necessarily predictive, in at least one sense. We further believe that Jesus transmitted messages to the seven churches that John was the bishop of. As you may know, there are many, many, many books interpreting Revelation from many, many, many points of view. I don't say they're all completely wrong, but every one of them is wrong about something. The one I believe to be the closest, that makes the most sense, shows what I've been saying about Mary.

On Mary, we agree. Mary is a very special woman. She was chosen by the Father to give entrance to His only Son into the World. She was chosen by the Son, as well, and by the Holy Spirit. Of all the millions and millions of human beings, she was chosen. The devotion due to her is singular. It ranks below that given to God, in the three persons. Call it what you will, it's not worship, not the same as worshiping God. We do not worship angels. Period. Just as there is only one word in English for love, there are several kinds of love in Greek. Same thing with worship. There is 'honor', which we give to presidents, judges, CEOs, University Presidents, and honor that we give to Saints (because they lived exemplary lives and they have been revealed to us as certified in heaven.) Mary is a saint, but has singular honors, which are above Saints, and below God. And there is worship of God which is the highest.

I realize that some people seem to go above and beyond, but this is not the teaching of the Church. All I can go by is the teaching of the Church. People also venerate relics and such, but the Church never says we need to.
Regarding praying to people, do you realize that 'pray' means 'ask'? So we pray to the court to allow us to do XYZ. We pray to our parents to let us borrow the car. We pray to Mary to offer our prayers to her Son. So when we pray to saints, pray to angels, pray to Mary, they all point our prayers to God.

Root of Jesse · Nov 19, 2018

redleghunter said:
I think even your own Catechism calls the written Word of God just that. Inspired and infallible from God.

Right. The Bible is part of the Word of God. And all of God's Word is inspired and infallible. We just believe that God still speaks. We believe the Pope alone and the College of Bishops together with the Pope carry the charism of infallibility. What this means is that they cannot teach error. Every doctrine of the Church, though, while not explicit in Scripture, can be defined from Scripture. So, like a dictionary gives definitions, it takes context to show how it means what it means.

Eisegesis is taking a concept and reading it onto the text out of context thus creating a pretext.

Exegesis is concerned with drawing out the truth and meaning taking into account the context of the passage. Then testing it in an expository manner to confirm the consistency of the said truth and meaning.

Right, exactly. But just because you don't agree with how we interpret Scripture doesn't make it eisegesis.

Which leads us to.....

The sacrifice of the mass is not supported by the NT text and stated early church practice. It was a communal meal thus Communion where the Body of Christ came together to remember His death and resurrection. They came to sup with Christ the Head of the Church His Body.

Justin Martyr gives us one of our earliest descriptions of Christian worship in A.D. 150: And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles [i.e., the Gospels] or the writings of the prophets [i.e., the Old Testament] are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying “Amen”; and there is a distribution to each, and a partaking of the eucharisted things, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.5 So, we know from the earliest times it was the custom to read the Gospels (“the memoirs of the apostles”) at the Eucharistic celebration (now called Mass).

Bergsma, John. Stunned by Scripture: How the Bible Made Me Catholic (pp. 83-84). Our Sunday Visitor. Kindle Edition.

I thought we already visited this. The Apostles were not bishops and the bishops they ordained were not Apostles.

I misstated that the Apostles were bishops, but I never said the bishops were apostles. What I stated is that the bishops were successors of the apostles.

The only form of succession we see is the position of Judas replaced by Matthias by casting of lots. And Paul directly commissioned by the Risen Christ. Which even the 11 in allowing the lots to choose Matthias had set conditions in which any could qualify for Apostle of Jesus Christ. Below I post it again and in generations after no one met the criteria for the office of Apostle and thus there could not be a physical succession but one of word which is written.

Acts 1:

21Therefore it is necessary to select one of the men who have accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism until the day Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24And they prayed, “Lord, You know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two You have chosen 25to assume this ministry and apostleship, which Judas abandoned to go to his rightful place.” 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Yet in the Epistles of Paul, those to Timothy and Titus, we see Paul having appointed Timothy and Titus to succeed him and represent him. He also tells Titus to appoint others to succeed him.

What I did say is that the bishops derive their authority of the apostles, and priests derive their authority from the bishop.

Root of Jesse · Nov 19, 2018

redleghunter said:
I have not encountered Catholic scholarship which supports your view this is Mary. Sure some apologetics sites ignoring Catholic scholarship and yes many Marian devotion sites.

As already pointed out your own USCCB approved NABRE study notes say the woman is Israel and by extension the persecuted church.

132 [ 12:1 –6 ] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9 –10 ) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah ( Rev 12:5 ) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon ( Rev 12:6 , 13 –17 ); cf. Is 50:1 ; 66:7 ; Jer 50:12 . This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster.

Excerpt above from:

Fireside New American Bible Revised Edition E-Book THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE REVISED EDITION Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CONFRATERNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND THE UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

It only makes sense.
Jesus is the head of the Church, Mary is His mother, therefore Mary is mother of the Church.
Pope Francis very recently declared that a new obligatory memorial is to be celebrated in honor of our Blessed Mother under the title: Mary, Mother of the Church (Mater Ecclesiae). Fittingly, this memorial will take place on the Monday following Pentecost Sunday. The decree was signed on February 11th (the Memorial of Our Lady of Lourdes) and released this past Saturday, March 3rd, 2018, by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Of course, Mary was there at the start of the Church: when Jesus entrusted the beloved disciple to Her at the foot of the Cross (cf John 19:25-27) and in the Cenacle, when the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles, and all those gathered with them, at Pentecost (Acts 1:14).

This title of Our Lady, has its origins in early Church Fathers: St. Ambrose in the 4th century, whose Mariology Fr. Hugo Rahner rediscovered and brought to light, St. Augustine, “[who said] that Mary is the mother of the members of Christ, because with charity she cooperated in the rebirth of the faithful into the Church, while Pope St. Leo the Great said that the birth of the Head is also the birth of the body, thus indicating that Mary is at once Mother of Christ, the Son of God, and mother of the members of his Mystical Body, which is the Church” [from Pope Francis’ decree]. The Holy Father also explains how:

“in the course of the centuries, Christian piety has honoured Mary with various titles, in many ways equivalent, such as Mother of Disciples, of the Faithful, of Believers, of all those who are reborn in Christ; and also as “Mother of the Church” as is used in the texts of spiritual authors as well as in the Magisterium of Popes Benedict XIV and Leo XIII.”

In recent history, we’ve seen the Holy Spirit at work to bring this title for His spouse, the Blessed Virgin Mary, to the full consciousness of the Church. The Papal Magisterium, no doubt inspired by the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, cooperated with this! And, when the Papal Magisterium, through the years, puts emphasis on something, you better believe it’s important.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: The Catechism devotes paragraph 6 “Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church” (and subsequent subparagraphs) of Article 9 “I Believe in the Holy Catholic Church”, to her motherhood with regard to the Church as well: wholly united to her Son, in her Assumption, and also in the order of grace.

The Gryphon · Nov 26, 2018

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Root of Jesse · Nov 26, 2018

The Gryphon said:
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

No one has absolute power, though, especially to we Christians. It is true that power corrupts, though, especially those who crave power. When one doesn't crave it, but accepts it as God's will, though, as our Pope does for the last 400 years or so, it will not corrupt. Those popes who were corrupt were seeking earthly power. Many popes do not seek it at all.

SolomonVII · Nov 26, 2018

The Catholic Church in Rome, and the Eastern Orthodox in Constantinople were politically powerful entities for centuries. Rome's bishopric backed into that position rather coincidentally with the fall of the Roman Empire to barbarians, and the papacy remaining the only remaining institution in Rome to take up governance. Eastern Orthodoxy became an official sanctioned Orthodoxy as a result of aligning with the Empire and becoming the official religion of the Empire in the early centuries of Christianity
With the fall of Constantinople, and the rise of Protestant national governments, and Protestant individualism, theocracy is no longer relevant to Christian discussions. Protestants did win that battle. It is all history now. Theocracy no longer exists in the Christian world, and most Christians think that this is a good thing. Even by other Orthodox, Russia new church/state alliance under Putin is regarded with extreme suspicion.

The Gryphon · Nov 26, 2018

It is up to each individual to decide if some of the following was speaking of Jesus or a human Pope.

Papal Claims to Authority

Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility.
(Quoadea quoeconcernunt papae dignitatem, auctoritatem, seu potestatem, et infallibilitatem.)

#1. "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God."
(#1. "Papa tantae est dignitatis et cesitudinis, ut non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus, et Dei vicarius.")

#13. "Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions."
(#13. Hinc Papa triplici corona coronatur tanquam rex coeli, terre et infernoram.")

#18. "As to papal authority, the Pope is as it were God on earth, Sole sovereign of all the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having a plentitude of unbroken power, entrusted by the omnipotent God to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms."

(#18. "Deveniendo ad Papae auctoritatem, Papa est quasi Deus in terra unicaus Christifidelium princeps, regum omnium rex maximus, plenitudinem potestatis continens, cui terreni simul, ac coelestis imperii gubernacula ab omnipotenti Deo credita sunt.")

John XXIII wearing the triregno crown
presented to him in 1959.

#30. "The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws."
(#30. "Papa tantae est auctoritatis et potestatis, ut possit quoque leges divinas modificare, declarare, vel interpretari, ad num.")

Source: Lucius Ferraris, “Papa,” art. 2, in his Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica. (“Handy Library”), Vol. 5, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition, column 1823, Latin.

Here are the relevant scanned pages from Ferraris' Prompta Bibliotheca for those who would like to see the original Latin text of the above quotes.

These papal claims, to include the presumed authority to modify the divine laws of God, were specifically prophesied in the book of Daniel:

Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: (of the most High) and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

It is a remarkable fact that the first instance upon record in which the bishop of Rome attempted to rule the Christian church was by AN EDICT IN BEHALF OF SUNDAY. It had been the custom of all the churches to celebrate the passover, but with this difference: that while the eastern churches observed it upon the fourteenth day of the first month, no matter what day of the week this might be, the western churches kept it upon the Sunday following that day; or rather, upon the Sunday following Good Friday. Victor, bishop of Rome, in the year 196,36 took upon him to impose the Roman custom upon all the churches; that is, to compel them to observe the passover upon Sunday. "This bold attempt," says Bower, "we may call the first essay of papal usurpation."37 And Dowling terms it the "earliest instance of Romish assumption."38

36 Bower`s History of the Popes, vol. 1. pp. 18, 19;
Rose's Neander, pp. 188-190;
Dowling`s History of Romanism, book 1, chap. 2. sec. 9.
37 History of the Popes, vol. 1. p. 18.
38 History of Romanism, heading of page 32.

Source: History of the Sabbath and First Day of the Week, by J.N. Andrews, Chapter 16, Origin of First-Day Observance, copyright 1998, TEACH Services, Inc., ISBN 1-57258-107-7, page 276.

Pius XII coronation
with the 1877 tiara of Pius IX

In the coronation of all popes — including Pius XII, on March 12, 1939 — the tiara is placed on the candidate’s head with the words:

“Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ.”*

If this phraseology had not been sanctified by long usage, it would not have been coined in this generation to express the relation of the pope to the political and social order; but it would not have been created in the first place if it had not meant then what it says — “Ruler of the world.”

Source: Paul Hutchinson and Winfred E. Garrison, 20 Centuries of Christianity: A Concise History (1st ed.), p. 120. © 1959 by Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York.

SolomonVII · Nov 26, 2018

I think what most sincere Christians are trying to do these days, are to try to remain relevant in an increasingly pluralistic and heterodox world, where a free market of ideas decides the people's choice, and the wisdom and truth of Christianity does not have the same marketing appeal as sleek answers that speak more to young people's passions, or do not give the same claims of power as theocratic Islam does to those who submit to it.

The Gryphon · Nov 26, 2018

SolomonVII said:
I think what most sincere Christians are trying to do these days, are to try to remain relevant in an increasingly pluralistic and heterodox world, where a free market of ideas decides the people's choice, and the wisdom and truth of Christianity does not have the same marketing appeal as sleek answers that speak more to young people's passions, or do not give the same claims of power as theocratic Islam does to those who submit to it.

I see it as trying to obey G_d and not man; holding fast to the Word of Life because that is what Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) IS. John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” If you become neither hot nor cold you are lukewarm, remember the Lukewarm "Christian" Laodicea Church - Revelation 3:14-22

King James Bible
Revelation 3:14-22 14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. 20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 21To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Remember Christians what Jesus said:
Matthew 10:33
“But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”

ml5363 · Dec 9, 2018

HTacianas said:
It is evident from the longstanding practices and teachings of the Church.[/QUOTE

Just because something has been done for centuries, does not make it right.

ml5363 · Dec 9, 2018

redleghunter said:
Huh?

talking about all the watered down versions of Bibles that are popular these days

ml5363 · Dec 9, 2018

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
So which Church is it today?

Any church that sticks to the doctrine of a nt church

Concord1968 · Dec 10, 2018

ml5363 said:
talking about all the watered down versions of Bibles that are popular these days

Actually the poster the "huh" was directed to was talking about the Apocrypha, NOT KJV Onlyism.

Root of Jesse · Dec 10, 2018

eleos1954 said:
Are there any verses where Jesus prayed to anyone other than God the Father?

Jesus, being part of the Trinity, wouldn't need to. Besides, until Jesus re-entered heaven, there was no one else there to pray to.

eleos1954 · Dec 10, 2018

Root of Jesse said:
Jesus, being part of the Trinity, wouldn't need to. Besides, until Jesus re-entered heaven, there was no one else there to pray to.

Jesus did pray to His Father in heaven several times. In the OT many many many prayers .... who were they praying to?

Root of Jesse · Dec 10, 2018

eleos1954 said:
Jesus did pray to His Father in heaven several times. In the OT many many many prayers .... who were they praying to?

Praying to God. The Trinity was the only being in heaven until Christ opened Heaven to all saints. So now heaven is populated with The Trinity, The Queen of Heaven, Mary, and the Saints. We may pray to all of them, Mary and the Saints point us to the Trinity anyway. Mary and the Saints act as a prism focusing our prayers to heaven.

Root of Jesse · Dec 10, 2018

ml5363 said:
talking about all the watered down versions of Bibles that are popular these days

I agree, especially those that leave out the Deuterocanonical books.

Root of Jesse · Dec 10, 2018

The Gryphon said:
It is up to each individual to decide if some of the following was speaking of Jesus or a human Pope.

Papal Claims to Authority

Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility.
(Quoadea quoeconcernunt papae dignitatem, auctoritatem, seu potestatem, et infallibilitatem.)

#1. "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God."
(#1. "Papa tantae est dignitatis et cesitudinis, ut non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus, et Dei vicarius.")

#13. "Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions."
(#13. Hinc Papa triplici corona coronatur tanquam rex coeli, terre et infernoram.")

#18. "As to papal authority, the Pope is as it were God on earth, Sole sovereign of all the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having a plentitude of unbroken power, entrusted by the omnipotent God to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms."

(#18. "Deveniendo ad Papae auctoritatem, Papa est quasi Deus in terra unicaus Christifidelium princeps, regum omnium rex maximus, plenitudinem potestatis continens, cui terreni simul, ac coelestis imperii gubernacula ab omnipotenti Deo credita sunt.")

John XXIII wearing the triregno crown
presented to him in 1959.

#30. "The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws."
(#30. "Papa tantae est auctoritatis et potestatis, ut possit quoque leges divinas modificare, declarare, vel interpretari, ad num.")

Source: Lucius Ferraris, “Papa,” art. 2, in his Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica. (“Handy Library”), Vol. 5, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition, column 1823, Latin.

Here are the relevant scanned pages from Ferraris' Prompta Bibliotheca for those who would like to see the original Latin text of the above quotes.

These papal claims, to include the presumed authority to modify the divine laws of God, were specifically prophesied in the book of Daniel:

Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: (of the most High) and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

It is a remarkable fact that the first instance upon record in which the bishop of Rome attempted to rule the Christian church was by AN EDICT IN BEHALF OF SUNDAY. It had been the custom of all the churches to celebrate the passover, but with this difference: that while the eastern churches observed it upon the fourteenth day of the first month, no matter what day of the week this might be, the western churches kept it upon the Sunday following that day; or rather, upon the Sunday following Good Friday. Victor, bishop of Rome, in the year 196,36 took upon him to impose the Roman custom upon all the churches; that is, to compel them to observe the passover upon Sunday. "This bold attempt," says Bower, "we may call the first essay of papal usurpation."37 And Dowling terms it the "earliest instance of Romish assumption."38

36 Bower`s History of the Popes, vol. 1. pp. 18, 19;
Rose's Neander, pp. 188-190;
Dowling`s History of Romanism, book 1, chap. 2. sec. 9.
37 History of the Popes, vol. 1. p. 18.
38 History of Romanism, heading of page 32.

Source: History of the Sabbath and First Day of the Week, by J.N. Andrews, Chapter 16, Origin of First-Day Observance, copyright 1998, TEACH Services, Inc., ISBN 1-57258-107-7, page 276.

Pius XII coronation
with the 1877 tiara of Pius IX

In the coronation of all popes — including Pius XII, on March 12, 1939 — the tiara is placed on the candidate’s head with the words:

“Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ.”*

If this phraseology had not been sanctified by long usage, it would not have been coined in this generation to express the relation of the pope to the political and social order; but it would not have been created in the first place if it had not meant then what it says — “Ruler of the world.”

Source: Paul Hutchinson and Winfred E. Garrison, 20 Centuries of Christianity: A Concise History (1st ed.), p. 120. © 1959 by Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York.

Nice chop and paste. Well, let me answer you: (also chopped and pasted from EWTN.com"
Since the advent of Protestantism there have been a large number of false, misleading, or misrepresented quotes regarding the pope in Protestant circles. This is what you are encountering.

It is *not* Catholic teaching that the pope is God. Period. The pope is a man, and the Church acknowledges this.

When confronted with the types of quotes you have been seeing, take note of which ones are from non-Magisterial sources (i.e., things that neither a pope nor an ecumenical council said). These quotes--if they are even genuine--have no authority.

For example, one of the quotes is attributed to a gentleman addressing the pope *at* the Fifth Lateran Council. Even if this happened, that doesn't make it Church teaching. It's just something some guy said to the pope. For it to be Church teaching it would have to have been taken up by the Council and included in its decrees as a matter of Catholic teaching, which it wasn't. You can look at the text of this council for yourself here.

Note also the quotes that have no sources or improperly cited sources. One cannot allow unsourced or improperly sourced quotes to challenge one's faith. If quotes such as the one attributed above to Leo XIII were to be taken seriously, the minimum that would be necessary would be a way of looking up when and where he supposedly said it. Only with a source can one determine (a) if the quote is genuine and (b) if it is being taken out of context or otherwise misrepresented.

One also must allow for the flexibility of language in evaluating alleged quotes. As you point out, the term "lord" means many things, only one of which is "God." In general, it is simply a term for a ruler, and the pope does rule the Church on Christ's behalf. In fact, every bishop rules his diocese, and it is customary in many places to refer to bishops as "my lord," which is what Monsignor (at title common for bishops in Europe) means, as is Mari (a title used for them in Jesus' native language, Aramaic). The fact that the pope is holy (sacred, consecrated) is because he is a Church lord rather than a secular lord. It is because he holds a sacred office, just as the priests of the Old Testament held sacred offices and were "holy to the Lord" according to Scripture.

Was the original Catholic Church created by power hungry zealots?

Thank You Jesus!

Natura non facit saltum

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Well-Known Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

LCMS Lutheran

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

God is Love

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency