Evidence for God from Science

So I think that it clear that the Pope's have abused their power, that they must therefore be fallible, and that they are chosen as recently demonstrated by the RCC. IS he taking the place of JESUS? What about other denominations, are they false?

Jbuza wrote:So I think that it clear that the Pope's have abused their power, that they must therefore be fallible, and that they are chosen as recently demonstrated by the RCC. IS he taking the place of JESUS? What about other denominations, are they false?

For Catholics who truly have their faith centered on Jesus where it needs to be, I believe the Pope plays his proper role in leading the church. Every organization of people needs a leader or some body of leadership. So if the Christian faith is kept in proper persective, then the Pope has a very legitimate and valid role to play. If the Pope and the Church stay focused on God, then I feel that we can trust that the entire leadership is in God's hands and will be guided accordingly.

Felgar wrote:

Jbuza wrote:So I think that it clear that the Pope's have abused their power, that they must therefore be fallible, and that they are chosen as recently demonstrated by the RCC. IS he taking the place of JESUS? What about other denominations, are they false?

For Catholics who truly have their faith centered on Jesus where it needs to be, I believe the Pope plays his proper role in leading the church. Every organization of people needs a leader or some body of leadership. So if the Christian faith is kept in proper persective, then the Pope has a very legitimate and valid role to play. If the Pope and the Church stay focused on God, then I feel that we can trust that the entire leadership is in God's hands and will be guided accordingly.

Amen.

Also I meant to point out that the church left by Jesus also had its leaders. The book of Acts in particular tells us how a number of very important decisions were made by one or more of the Apostles. They were made under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which is exactly the same way that the Pope should be making decisions also.

Jbuza wrote:So I think that it clear that the Pope's have abused their power, that they must therefore be fallible, and that they are chosen as recently demonstrated by the RCC. IS he taking the place of JESUS?

Yes to all the above.

What about other denominations, are they false?

Some of them, yes.

I think there is something that desperately needs to be explained. That is, the pope's infallibility. It rather amuses me when people think the Catholic Church believes the pope is infallible in everything he says and does. Pope John Paul II went to confession once a week. He must have had something to confess in order for it to be a valid confesion.

In order for a statement from the pope to be considered 'infallible,' it must meet the following conditions.
1. The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is, "from the chair" of Peter, which means in his position as chief teacher and shepherd of the Catholic Christians.
2. He must clearly define the doctrine as being a truth of faith.
3. It must be a definition concerning "faith or morals.' (Catholic and Christian; Alan Schreck)

And if any of you want biblical evidence for the papacy, I would be happy to supply it. I just don't have time at the moment to type it all out.

Veronica wrote:In order for a statement from the pope to be considered 'infallible,' it must meet the following conditions.

1. The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is, "from the chair" of Peter, which means in his position as chief teacher and shepherd of the Catholic Christians.
2. He must clearly define the doctrine as being a truth of faith.
3. It must be a definition concerning "faith or morals.' (Catholic and Christian; Alan Schreck)

Infallible dogma can be declared either by the pope (ex cathedra), or by oecumenical council (ex ecclesia).

Even the dogma from oecumenical councils do not have to be confirmed ex cathedra. The oecumenical councils enjoy the chrism of infallibility independent from the cathedra.

Where the Ordinary Magisterium teaches error, it is the responsibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium to correct the error proximate to the comission of the error (not a few hundred years later).

Where the Ordinary Magisterium teaches error and the Extraordinary Magisterium fails to correct the error until hundreds of years later, then we rightly doubt the teaching chrism of the Extraordinary Magesterium.

Fortigurn wrote:

Jbuza wrote:So I think that it clear that the Pope's have abused their power, that they must therefore be fallible, and that they are chosen as recently demonstrated by the RCC. IS he taking the place of JESUS?

Yes to all the above.

What happens if the God forbid, the anti-christ gets selected as pope? Is there another way the pope could come to power and be seen as a replacement for Jesus?

Felgar wrote:

Jbuza wrote:So I think that it clear that the Pope's have abused their power, that they must therefore be fallible, and that they are chosen as recently demonstrated by the RCC. IS he taking the place of JESUS? What about other denominations, are they false?

For Catholics who truly have their faith centered on Jesus where it needs to be, I believe the Pope plays his proper role in leading the church. Every organization of people needs a leader or some body of leadership. So if the Christian faith is kept in proper persective, then the Pope has a very legitimate and valid role to play. If the Pope and the Church stay focused on God, then I feel that we can trust that the entire leadership is in God's hands and will be guided accordingly.

I completley agree with this and am not trying to ditch the RCC. I happen to disagree with some of thier teaching, but I question some things in my own church also. Like you say the most importnat thing is to look to Jesus and our Father in heaven.

Jbuza wrote:What happens if the God forbid, the anti-christ gets selected as pope? Is there another way the pope could come to power and be seen as a replacement for Jesus?

Firstly, I don't believe the Bible speaks of the antiChrist. Secondly, the popes may not be seen as a replacement for Jesus, but they have certainly spoken and acted like it.

Fortigurn wrote:

Jbuza wrote:What happens if the God forbid, the anti-christ gets selected as pope? Is there another way the pope could come to power and be seen as a replacement for Jesus?

Firstly, I don't believe the Bible speaks of the antiChrist. Secondly, the popes may not be seen as a replacement for Jesus, but they have certainly spoken and acted like it.

That's true, but Revelations which I admit is difficult to interpret clearly talks about a beast that will come to power, that will be worshipped, will basically stamp all the subjects of the earth with the number of his image, and that he will blaspheme against all things Holy.

I am not trying to say that popes are necessarily bad people, but I don't see any evidence to support the kind of structure that has arisen around the RCC. I wish to not offend any RCC Brothers that I may have, so will simply say that their is a culture around the RCC that allows for a paticular man to become god.

I do agree that it will happen in God's time, and that the beast is going to clearly take the place of God in man's eyes, and I feel like pope already does that to a certian extent. So while there is no reason to assume that the beast will ever hold the position of "the holy father", this type of worship of a man that is worhsip that belongs to God alone creates a culture that prepares the world to worship a beast.

I hope God does a mighty work through the Elect and those called according to his purpose until that time, and that my friends at the RCC lead thousands of lost souls to Jesus and to an inheritance with the Creator, God.

Jbuza wrote:That's true, but Revelations which I admit is difficult to interpret clearly talks about a beast that will come to power, that will be worshipped, will basically stamp all the subjects of the earth with the number of his image, and that he will blaspheme against all things Holy.

I believe that has happened.

I am not trying to say that popes are necessarily bad people, but I don't see any evidence to support the kind of structure that has arisen around the RCC. I wish to not offend any RCC Brothers that I may have, so will simply say that their is a culture around the RCC that allows for a paticular man to become god.

I agree with you.

I do agree that it will happen in God's time, and that the beast is going to clearly take the place of God in man's eyes, and I feel like pope already does that to a certian extent. So while there is no reason to assume that the beast will ever hold the position of "the holy father", this type of worship of a man that is worhsip that belongs to God alone creates a culture that prepares the world to worship a beast.

I believe it already happened.

(... mental note to self: Dear Lord! Here we go again ...)

Eventually I have to get back to work but I would like to address some points in the hopes of clarifing our position (as Catholics) with respect to the Pope.

Fortigurn wrote:

Jbuza wrote:That's true, but Revelations which I admit is difficult to interpret clearly talks about a beast that will come to power, that will be worshipped, will basically stamp all the subjects of the earth with the number of his image, and that he will blaspheme against all things Holy.

I believe that has happened.

Can you ellaborate on that?

Fortigurn wrote:

I am not trying to say that popes are necessarily bad people, but I don't see any evidence to support the kind of structure that has arisen around the RCC. I wish to not offend any RCC Brothers that I may have, so will simply say that their is a culture around the RCC that allows for a paticular man to become god.

I agree with you.

The popes do not replace Jesus, they replace Peter. They are (along with Peter) the representatives of Jesus on earth, much the same way the owner of a company sends representatives to promote the company products, negotiate deals and sign contracts on his or her behalf.

Fortigurn wrote:

I do agree that it will happen in God's time, and that the beast is going to clearly take the place of God in man's eyes, and I feel like pope already does that to a certian extent. So while there is no reason to assume that the beast will ever hold the position of "the holy father", this type of worship of a man that is worhsip that belongs to God alone creates a culture that prepares the world to worship a beast.

I believe it already happened.

[/quote]

Popes are not worshiped in any way, shape or form. When members of my family and many of my friends met Pope John Paul II, they kissed his hand out of respect, they did not neal before him and professed their worship as if her were God. The pope worships the trinity like any other Christian. He knows he is NOT infallible as he goes to confession on a regular basis. As for the Catholic church and the pope's role, think of it like the United States Govenment. The Pope is the president but he is not a dictator. He has a cabinet and trusted advisors. There's also a Vatican council (a congress if you wish) the Pope relies on it for advice and scripture interpretations. It is a hierarchical organization (the priests come from the people, they become local bishops, some are appointed cardinals and, in turn the cardinals elect one of their own to be pope). Well, it is rather like a parlimentary goverment, if you wish, as the president is not elected directly by the people, but by their representatives.

That's it, plain and simple.

Byblos wrote:Eventually I have to get back to work but I would like to address some points in the hopes of clarifing our position (as Catholics) with respect to the Pope.

Your position one way or another is not going to change the history.

Can you ellaborate on that?

Yes:

* Irenaeus and Hippolytus predicted accurately the disintegration of the Roman empire into the iron and clay fragments almost 300 years before the destruction of 476 AD concluded that fragmentation

* Irenaeus and Hippolytus predicted accurately that the AntiChrist would emerge from within the Roman system as an apostate individual promoting an apostate religious system

* Hippolytus predicted accurately that imperial Rome would suffer a 'deadly wound', from which it would then recover, after which the man of sin would come to power

* Severus supported the same interpretation some 200 years afterwards, and Jerome insisted that it was coming to pass at the time of his writing, shortly after Severus

I could add:

* 300 Victorinus
* 306-373 Ephraem
* 315-386 Cyril
* 389 Chrysotom
* 340-397 Ambrose
* 354-430 Augustine
* 393-457 Theodoretus
* 520 Andreas
* c. 550 Primasius
* 604 Gregory I

All of them believed the same (with little variation). I believe that this occurred as they said it would.

I believe this happened:

'What the Apostle calls the Temple of God are the churches in which this impious wretch will occupy the first rank, the first place, striving to get himself accepted as God.'

Theodoretus, note on 2 Thessalonians 2, chapter 2, 393-457

I believe it happened when Greogry I said it was happening:

'The king of pride is near, and (awful to be said!) there is an army of priests in course of preparation for him, inasmuch as they who had been appointed to be leaders in humility enlist themselves under the neck of pride.'

What then, dearest brother, wilt thou say in that terrible scrutiny of the coming judgment, if thou covetest to be called in the world not only father, but even general father?'

For to assent to that atrocious title is nothing else than to lose the faith.'

Gregory I, Epistle XVIII, to John, Bishop of Constantinople, 540-604

'Is it not the case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious?

If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster.

Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.'

Gregory I, Epistle XXXIII, to Mauricius Augustus, 540-604

'But in this pride of his [John, the Bishop of Constantinople] what else is denoted than that the times of Antichrist are already near at hand?'

Gregory I, Epistle XXI, to Constantina Augusta, 540-604

When we add Daniel 7 to this (and the Early Fathers tied it in nicely), it's case closed.

The popes do not replace Jesus, they replace Peter. They are (along with Peter) the representatives of Jesus on earth, much the same way the owner of a company sends representatives to promote the company products, negotiate deals and sign contracts on his or her behalf.

If the pope is the replacement of Peter, why is he called the Vicar of Christ, not the Vicar of Peter? If the pope is the replacement of Peter, why is he called the Vice Regent of Christ, not the Vice Regent of Peter?

Popes are not worshiped in any way, shape or form. When members of my family and many of my friends met Pope John Paul II, they kissed his hand out of respect, they did not neal before him and professed their worship as if her were God.

I believe that the papacy has historically represented itself in a less than humble manner, and has created a very powerful impression in people's minds, quite deliberately.

This kind of thing:

'Glossa of Canon Law Extr. John 22 expressly calls the Pope our Lord God.

Pope Nicholas, as cited by Gratian (Dist. 69, chapter 7) says, “It is manifestly and satisfactorily shown that the Pope can neither be bound by the secular power nor loosed by it, since it is self-evident that God cannot be judged by men.”

'Stapleton (in Preface to Gregory, chap. 16, Princip. Doctrin.), names the Pope “the best, the greatest, and most supreme Spirit on earth.”

P. Blond. (1.3., To a Restored Rome) said, “All leaders of the world honor and worship the Pope as the highest God.”'

Francis Turretin, 'The 7th Disputation - Whether It Can Be Proven The Pope of Rome is AntiChrist', chapter 26, 1664

'(Augustin. Triump. question 6, 1; Tiber. Deci., vol.3, respon.14, numer.57; Menoch. cons.51, numer.13), “The Pope has divine status. Whatever he approves or disapproves, all must approve or disapprove.”

(Gloss. Dist.19), “No one should question the Pope, even if he should lead innumerable people headlong into hell with him.”

(Dist.40), “The Pope holds all mortals subject to himself. Every human creature is under obedience to him.

Extra. De Major. C. Unam sanctam, and innumerable similar statements which would be too tedious to mention.'

Francis Turretin, 'The 7th Disputation - Whether It Can Be Proven The Pope of Rome is AntiChrist', chapter 26, 1664

'Sitting in the Temple of God, that is, speaking ex cathedra as Vice-Christ, the Pope has, in the most unequivocal manner, claimed to be god.

To this daring pitch of ambition and blasphemy has he carried the parallelism or imitation. The true Christ is god, therefore the Vice-Christ must claim to be God also. In the canon law the pope is called God. (Decretum Gregorii XIII. Destinc 96, Can 7.)

Again he is called "Lord and God" (Decretales Gregorii IX., Tit. 7.) And again Innocent says in the decretals, speaking of the Pope, “God because he is God's vicar.“'

J A Wylie, 'The Papacy is the AntiChrist', chapter 15, page 45, 1888

'We hold the place of Almighty God on earth.'

Pope Leo XIII, 'Apostolic Letter', June 20th, 1894

'The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under veil of flesh.'

The Catholic National, July 1895

There's a pretty clear message there.

The pope worships the trinity like any other Christian. He knows he is NOT infallible as he goes to confession on a regular basis.

I've addressed infallibility already (se above).

As for the Catholic church and the pope's role, think of it like the United States Govenment. The Pope is the president but he is not a dictator. He has a cabinet and trusted advisors. There's also a Vatican council (a congress if you wish) the Pope relies on it for advice and scripture interpretations. It is a hierarchical organization (the priests come from the people, they become local bishops, some are appointed cardinals and, in turn the cardinals elect one of their own to be pope). Well, it is rather like a parlimentary goverment, if you wish, as the president is not elected directly by the people, but by their representatives.

The pope is actually the head of the Catholic Church, and all are subject to his decrees. He has the authority to speak ex cathedra and infallibly pronounce dogma without the involvement of the Collegiate, and without the consent of the Church.

I think you'll find that Vatican I (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, July 18, 1870), is pretty clear on the role of the papacy.

Let's not even get started on the Decretals of Gratian, and the 'Donation of Constantine'.

Byblos wrote:Popes are not worshiped in any way, shape or form. When members of my family and many of my friends met Pope John Paul II, they kissed his hand out of respect, they did not neal before him and professed their worship as if her were God. The pope worships the trinity like any other Christian. He knows he is NOT infallible as he goes to confession on a regular basis. As for the Catholic church and the pope's role, think of it like the United States Govenment. The Pope is the president but he is not a dictator. He has a cabinet and trusted advisors. There's also a Vatican council (a congress if you wish) the Pope relies on it for advice and scripture interpretations. It is a hierarchical organization (the priests come from the people, they become local bishops, some are appointed cardinals and, in turn the cardinals elect one of their own to be pope). Well, it is rather like a parlimentary goverment, if you wish, as the president is not elected directly by the people, but by their representatives.

That's it, plain and simple.

I understand. Don't the catholics confess their sins to the Priests, and they confess right up on the line, until the catholics beleive that the pope goes before God Himself and confesses the sins of the good catholics to God? Peter denied Christ, Peter was motivated by the devil, Jesus rebuked Peter as the devil because of his motivation shortly after he praised him for saying something from God. I think the example of Peter is a good example why one shouldn't follow a pope, or beleive that they speak for God. They might be and they might not be. The Holy Bible doesn't show me that I need anyone but Jesus to come before God on my behalf. IT also teaches to beware of New teachings.