pope is god on earth

[Redwolf]

What gives the pope the right to call himself god on earth?

Isn't that blasphemy?


http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/pope.html

2) Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) wrote: "We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God." (1 Book of Gregory 9 Decret. c.3)

[furay]

What gives the pope the right to call himself god on earth?

Certainly not the Body of Christ!

[Xavier]

Certainly not the Body of Christ!
I have my doubts that the Pope ever even said that... Google returns NO mention of a "Book of Gregory" in anything other than reprints of the same Anti-Catholic essay.

[Meh_Gerbil]

What gives the pope the right to call himself god on earth?

Isn't that blasphemy?


http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/pope.html

2) Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) wrote: "We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God." (1 Book of Gregory 9 Decret. c.3)

Well he's wrong.
I'm G_d's official representative on earth.

Only me.

Wow -- it's so easy to make the claim.

[furay]

I have my doubts that the Pope ever even said that... Google returns NO mention of a "Book of Gregory" in anything other than reprints of the same Anti-Catholic essay.
Just playing it safe. :smile:

[Xavier]

Just playing it safe. :smile:
:smile:

Your reply raises another question for another day... :hehe:

[Redwolf]

I have my doubts that the Pope ever even said that... Google returns NO mention of a "Book of Gregory" in anything other than reprints of the same Anti-Catholic essay.


I had my doubts, too, until I researched the matter and found it to be.....oh, phew!........true.


This Synod can be read, in this area, as an expression of full communion with and in the Universal Church, and with the Roman Pontiff His Holiness John Paul II "the sweet Christ on earth".

Vatican Source #5: Synodus Episcoporum 15 - 8.10.1999

[Redwolf]

Certainly not the Body of Christ!


The body of Christ?

http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/works-turretin19.htm

Truly, such vain displays of pride and arrogance make a mockery of the holy God when the Roman Pontiff is seen acting in the place of God, sitting in the temple of God as God, showing himself to be God. It seems incredible that anyone but an insane man should behave in such an unlikely manner, taking both the name and authority of God upon himself. Nevertheless, he has been revealed, discovered and exposed as one who comes as the representative of God with the power of God, claiming both titles and honors proper to God alone. These he ascribes to himself by his own authority and decree. And indeed, as far as his names are concerned, it cannot be denied that throughout the writings of the Pontiffs, the Pope is called God, as was already seen previously (Disput. III).

* 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."

Whence according to Canon Law, throughout we find these impious words, "Because the opinion of the Pope and the opinion of God is one opinion, there is but one tribunal between God and the Pope. And because no one has authority from God apart from that bestowed in the Pope, there is but one court of God and of the Pope, for the Pope judges as if he were God. Therefore, his opinion may be opposed by no one."

* (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."

-----------

I can hardly believe this one. Even if he should lead many people into hell with him.

That's bad!

[Hail Mary]

What gives the pope the right to call himself god on earth?

Isn't that blasphemy?


http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/pope.html

2) Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) wrote: "We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God." (1 Book of Gregory 9 Decret. c.3)

I would really like to see the original Latin for this quote, can you please find this before jumping to any more conclusions. I googled and the quote only appears on places such as Ian Paisley's site.

About the English translation, Catholics do believe the Pope holds a place on earth of the true God. (That's a 'place' were talking about) Christ himself appointed Peter to hold the place upon which his Church is founded. I don't really see anything wrong with the quote itself, the author is just confirming the Pope's place as Peter's successor.

[Redwolf]

I would really like to see the original Latin for this quote, can you please find this before jumping to any more conclusions. I googled and the quote only appears on places such as Ian Paisley's site.

About the English translation, Catholics do believe the Pope holds a place on earth of the true God. (That's a 'place' were talking about) Christ himself appointed Peter to hold the place upon which his Church is founded. I don't really see anything wrong with the quote itself, the author is just confirming the Pope's place as Peter's successor.


I cannot think of a single reason why I should find this quote in the original Latin, for you or anyone else.

An interesting clarification as to 'place', and in which 'place' is God the God? If I call myself 'god', then that is what I think I am. 'As if he were god on earth', means he thinks he is god on earth. Peter was not god on earth, nor was he a pope, nor was he the foundation upon which the church is built.

Christ was, for a time, physically/bodily God on earth, and upon leaving it, the Holy Spirit became the Paraklete and Christ's successor. And Christ is the foundation of the church, the Chief Cornerstone, the Rock of Ages.

You have no scriptural evidence for Peter's appointment ... 'upon this Rock will I built my church'......as I have mentioned, Jesus is the Rock upon which the church is built, Jesus was talking about himself. No man could carry that load.

As fabrications go, this fabrication is just one of all of them. Since none of your dogma/doctrine is based on scripture, and according to the council of Trent, the RCC does not need scripture and has declared 'sacred tradition' to override it.

To claim to be God on earth is blasphemy.

[Xavier]

I cannot think of a single reason why I should find this quote in the original Latin, for you or anyone else.

Because we think it is a LIE. We don't believe that the Pope EVER ACTUALLY SAID IT. We think that some Anti-Catholic just made it up so he could have something to argue with.

[His child]

Christ was, for a time, physically/bodily God on earth, and upon leaving it, the Holy Spirit became the Paraklete and Christ's successor. And Christ is the foundation of the church, the Chief Cornerstone, the Rock of Ages.

You have no scriptural evidence for Peter's appointment ... 'upon this Rock will I built my church'......as I have mentioned, Jesus is the Rock upon which the church is built, Jesus was talking about himself. No man could carry that load.

As fabrications go, this fabrication is just one of all of them. Since none of your dogma/doctrine is based on scripture, and according to the council of Trent, the RCC does not need scripture and has declared 'sacred tradition' to override it.

To claim to be God on earth is blasphemy.

In discussing rock(s) from Scripture,

2 Samuel 22:29-31:

29"(A)For You are my lamp, O LORD;
And the LORD illumines my darkness.
30"(B)For by You I can [a]run upon a troop;
By my God I can leap over a wall.
31"(C)As for God, His way is blameless;
(D)The word of the LORD is tested;
(E)He is a shield to all who take refuge in Him.
32"(F)For who is God, besides the LORD?
(G)And who is a rock, besides our God?
33"(H)God is my strong fortress;
And He sets the blameless in His way.



Look at YHWH being the rock; Scipture itself puts it rather succintly!

Peter's Confession of Christ, Matthew 16

13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."

15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

I am not sure of what you are saying, but this is the knowledge that I have. Much like the mountain built without hands in Daniel's vision, Christ is the only rock that was built without hands, and was perfect enough to have anything built upon it. MHO.

As for the claim that Peter is "this" rock. The Greek words "petra" (feminine)and "petrōdes" or "petros" (masculine) are similar, from the same root word, but difference is questionable, if this is a basis of doctrine! The rock being discussed is Christ himself, with the revelation that Peter made in Matthew 16:16 was the foundation, the rock (the revelation that this answer came from YHWH Himself, given to Peter) that our catholic (not RC) was built upon.

I cannot think of a single reason why I should find this quote in the original Latin, for you or anyone else.

As to not looking up an original language, it is unfortunate many people don't accomplish this more often. That is how the original translation, the Vulgate, got so many things incorrect. Jerome did not have access to the original languages, so he did what he felt was best.

Ooops.

For clarity, and to make strong assertions without the most amount of information, means you are doing it from "what you feel." That is not, IMHO, the best way to gain truth and unity for believers to share.

I believe it is what we are called to do, so we are able to rightly divide the Word.

EDIT: Another thought just struck me. As Jesus is calling Peter by his Judean name (Simon barJona), then by Peter (Kepha), the word pun most people attribute to this does not transfer. Was Jesus speaking in Aramaic or koinē Greek?

In Acts 11, where others contended with him, and Galatians 2:11-16, where Paul rebukes him, there seems to be no difficulty in contending or rebuking. Is this the role of infallibility, or one who is to be infallible?

Just a thought ...

[Redwolf]

Because we think it is a LIE. We don't believe that the Pope EVER ACTUALLY SAID IT. We think that some Anti-Catholic just made it up so he could have something to argue with.



I cannot think of a single reason why I should find this material in Latin for you or anyone else. Not in Latin or, not in Hottentot.

The quoted sources are all catholic. I accept the LIE determination, for you have lied to yourselves on a number of occasions.

Every time you say ave maria, for example, you do indeed lie.

[Redwolf]

In discussing rock(s) from Scripture,

2 Samuel 22:29-31:

29"(A)For You are my lamp, O LORD;
And the LORD illumines my darkness.
30"(B)For by You I can [a]run upon a troop;
By my God I can leap over a wall.
31"(C)As for God, His way is blameless;
(D)The word of the LORD is tested;
(E)He is a shield to all who take refuge in Him.
32"(F)For who is God, besides the LORD?
(G)And who is a rock, besides our God?
33"(H)God is my strong fortress;
And He sets the blameless in His way.



Look at YHWH being the rock; Scipture itself puts it rather succintly!

Peter's Confession of Christ, Matthew 16

13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."

15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

I am not sure of what you are saying, but this is the knowledge that I have. Much like the mountain built without hands in Daniel's vision, Christ is the only rock that was built without hands, and was perfect enough to have anything built upon it. MHO.

As for the claim that Peter is "this" rock. The Greek words "petra" (feminine)and "petrōdes" or "petros" (masculine) are similar, from the same root word, but difference is questionable, if this is a basis of doctrine! The rock being discussed is Christ himself, with the revelation that Peter made in Matthew 16:16 was the foundation, the rock (the revelation that this answer came from YHWH Himself, given to Peter) that our catholic (not RC) was built upon.



As to not looking up an original language, it is unfortunate many people don't accomplish this more often. That is how the original translation, the Vulgate, got so many things incorrect. Jerome did not have access to the original languages, so he did what he felt was best.

Ooops.

For clarity, and to make strong assertions without the most amount of information, means you are doing it from "what you feel." That is not, IMHO, the best way to gain truth and unity for believers to share.

I believe it is what we are called to do, so we are able to rightly divide the Word.

EDIT: Another thought just struck me. As Jesus is calling Peter by his Judean name (Simon barJona), then by Peter (Kepha), the word pun most people attribute to this does not transfer. Was Jesus speaking in Aramaic or koinē Greek?

In Acts 11, where others contended with him, and Galatians 2:11-16, where Paul rebukes him, there seems to be no difficulty in contending or rebuking. Is this the role of infallibility, or one who is to be infallible?

Just a thought ...




(G)And who is a rock, besides our God?

Who is, indeed! Certainly not the rolling stone called Peter.
He would insure a rather wobbly foundation, based on his wobbly character.

[Jawa Man]

Because we think it is a LIE. We don't believe that the Pope EVER ACTUALLY SAID IT. We think that some Anti-Catholic just made it up so he could have something to argue with.

I cannot think of a single reason why I should find this material in Latin for you or anyone else. Not in Latin or, not in Hottentot.

The quoted sources are all catholic. I accept the LIE determination, for you have lied to yourselves on a number of occasions.

Every time you say ave maria, for example, you do indeed lie.

Xavier isn't even Catholic, redwolf...

[Redwolf]

Xavier isn't even Catholic, redwolf...


Thank you! It is kind of you to tell me.

[Hail Mary]

I cannot think of a single reason why I should find this quote in the original Latin, for you or anyone else.

Truth would be a good reason, wouldn't it? There is a lot of room for interpretation between Latin (or Italian) and the English you presented. If this isn't an official Vatican translation, I wouldn't trust your virtue to Ian Paisley and Jack Chick.

As for the quote, I didn't really see anything wrong with the English, certainly not the blasphemy you seem to be intent on finding. However, I have no idea if this was really something said by Innocent III, or if you just stumbled into an urban myth, or worse.

[His child]

Redwolf,

I think it is mandatory for you to give the best possible response to people (or, popele, as I tried to write)who are in a debate with you; it isnt't necessary, but I believe you will be blessed by not trying to make your point in pieces ... you don't need to.

You are defending a point that is Scripturally sound, and your position doesn't need to be flippant, evasive or "take out the stuff I don't like."

You are presenting sound basis for your reasoning; I understand it makes a short term rebuttal much harder to have emphasis ...

But, do we live in the short term? No! You are espousing a cause that lives through the ages!

I am curious ...



I cannot think of a single reason why I should find this material in Latin for you or anyone else. Not in Latin or, not in Hottentot

Helping a fellow believer, even one that doesn't think like you do, brings glory to our Savior, and therefore a glory that you share in. Tell me where I am being sophomoric, naive or stupid ... but I believe the words you present, which I believe have great value ... will overcome any missteps that will be taken by your respondents ...

I must be a bad debater, I guess. I appreciate all of the efforts being made by participants, even if they X?{}!<<> me off, 'cause they don't see my point(s)!

I appreciate your information that says their responses are ... biased. Help them learn ... or else, in this situation, I am learning the ropes of "jousting" in this forum, and have a far greater learning curve than I thought. Won't be the first time. HHobbes (in my own paraphrasing) says I am obtuse in my postings, that I am hard to understand. I am but ... His child (YHWH's) ... or an orphan (a absdrta)!

I just believe that our responses should be like our faith, His (YHWH, Yeshua's) response to people who need to believe the truth ... but, unfortunately, they have trusted in people, people who probably mean well.

Woe to those who trust in me, for I will disappoint them ... I am human, and watch me fall. Paul is my favorite response here ... the good that I would, I don't ... the evil that I wouldn't, I do.

Agape.

[BlackOpal12]

Moderators forgive me for my trespass - but I feel I must ask...
Redwolf, have you met Jude3b?
I think you two would really get along wonderfully.
Just my two cents.

[Thomas More]

I have my doubts that the Pope ever even said that... Google returns NO mention of a "Book of Gregory" in anything other than reprints of the same Anti-Catholic essay.


I can't find the reference either, it is clearly saying it is a Decretal from Innocent III in the Descretals of St Gregory. There are two letters Innocent had placed in that volume, written to and placed by noted canonist Huggucio the bishop of Ferrara but the reference is wrong the letters appear in Quanto, 7, X, IV, 19; c. In quadam, 8, X,III,41. I really do not know were it is trying to place them.

All of innocent III works are in P. L., CCXIV-CCXVIII. I beleive the one it might be referenceing is P. L., CCXVII, 967-1130 which is considered not to have been written by him at all.

[Redwolf]

I can't find the reference either, it is clearly saying it is a Decretal from Innocent III in the Descretals of St Gregory. There are two letters Innocent had placed in that volume, written to and placed by noted canonist Huggucio the bishop of Ferrara but the reference is wrong the letters appear in Quanto, 7, X, IV, 19; c. In quadam, 8, X,III,41. I really do not know were it is trying to place them.

All of innocent III works are in P. L., CCXIV-CCXVIII. I beleive the one it might be referenceing is P. L., CCXVII, 967-1130 which is considered not to have been written by him at all.


Yes, of course, when there is fault, it is the fault of the translators, or it was never written by that person, but some evil who was out to discredit. Do you know that the muslims use the same argument? It's not in the koran and when you find it in the koran, it was translated incorrectly, in fact, koran cannot be translated at all. But I digress.





Father A. Pereira acknowledged: "It is quite certain that Popes have never disapproved or rejected this title "Lord God the Pope" for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome by Gregory XIII."

Writers on Canon Law say: "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." (Barclay Cap. XXVII p. 218 Cities Petrus Bertanous, Pius V)


“Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of Heaven and earth, and purgatory.” Prompta Bibliotheca, Feraris,Vol.VI,p.26, art. “Papa.”

Roman Catholic Canon Law stipulates through Pope Innocent III that the Roman pontiff is “the vicegerent upon earth, not a mere man, but of a very God;” in a gloss on the passage it is explained that this is because he is the vicegerent of Christ, who is “very God and very man.” Decretales Domini Gregorii translatione Episcoporum, (on the transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Devretales, col. 205

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" -Pope Leo XIII

The Bull Unam Sanctam... Issued by POPE BONIFACE VIII records:
“The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define and pronounce: to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every human creature necessary for salvation that which was spoken of Christ ‘thou has subdued all things under his feet’ may well seem verified in me... I have the authority of the King of Kings. I am all in all and above all, so that God himself and I, the vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do all that God can do.”

Enjoy!

[Paul]

About the English translation, Catholics do believe the Pope holds a place on earth of the true God. (That's a 'place' were talking about) Christ himself appointed Peter to hold the place upon which his Church is founded. I don't really see anything wrong with the quote itself, the author is just confirming the Pope's place as Peter's successor.

I fully agree.

Also it is not uncommon to in a slightly poetic way speak of the Pope in even stronger terms ... St Catherine of Sienna referred to him as "sweet Christ on earth" -- she didn't mean of course that the Pope and Christ were one and the same person ... that would mean all of those hundreds of popes would all be the same person and St Catherine didn't believe in reincarnation! Also, all priests are referred to in a similar way as "another Christ" -- in Latin "alter Christus." One pope even referred to St Francis of Assisi as "another Jesus Christ" -- even though he was never ordained a priest (some say he may have been ordained a deacon; others say he never received Holy Orders) ... in the letter by the pope on Francis, the pope is not of course meaning to say that St Francis of Assisi is one and the same person as Christ or that there is more than one Christ! And if you read the letter by the pope, that will be absolutely clear, if it wasn't clear already. Let me quote the letter to illustrate and hopefully it will also illustrate how all other criticisms are equally nonsense:

To the great Jubilee which was celebrated in Rome and is now extended to the whole world for the period of this year, which served to purify souls and called so many to a more perfect way of life, is now to be added, as a fulfillment of the fruits received or expected from the Holy Year, the solemn commemoration which Catholics everywhere are preparing to celebrate, the Seventh Centenary of the blessed passage of St. Francis of Assisi from his exile on earth to his heavenly home. Since Our immediate Predecessor has assigned this Saint, who was sent by Divine Providence for the reformation not only of the turbulent age in which he lived but of Christian society of all times, as the patron of "Catholic Action," it is only right that Our children who labor in this field according to Our commands should in union with the numerous Franciscan brotherhood call to mind and praise the works, the virtues, and the spirit of the Seraphic Patriarch. While doing this, they must reject that purely imaginary figure of the Saint conjured up by the defenders of modern error or by the followers of luxury and worldly comforts, and seek to bring Christians to the faithful imitation of the ideal of sanctity which he exemplified in himself and which he learned from the purity and simplicity of the doctrines of the Gospels.
2. It is Our desire that the religious and civic festivals to be held during this Centenary, as well as the conferences and sermons to be given, should aim at celebrating this anniversary with expressions of true devotion, without making the Seraphic Patriarch either totally different from other men or unlike the historical figure he actually was, but showing him a man gifted by nature and grace which admirably assisted him in reaching himself and in rendering easy for his neighbors the highest possible perfection. If some dare to compare one with another the heavenly heroes of sanctity destined by the Holy Ghost each to his own special mission among men-these comparisons, the fruit for the most part of party passions, are valueless and are at the same time an insult to God, the author of sanctity-it seems necessary for Us to affirm that there has never been anyone in whom the image of Jesus Christ and the evangelical manner of life shone forth more lifelike and strikingly than in St. Francis. He who called himself the "Herald of the Great King" was also rightly spoken of as "another Jesus Christ," appearing to his contemporaries and to future generations almost as if he were the Risen Christ. He has always lived as such in the eyes of men and so will continue to live for all future time. Nor is it marvelous that his early biographers, contemporaries of the Saint, in their accounts of his life and works, judged him to be of a nobility almost superior to human nature itself. Our Predecessors who dealt personally with Francis did not hesitate to recognize in him a providential help sent by God for the welfare of Christian peoples and of the Church.

3. Notwithstanding the long time that has elapsed since the death of the Seraphic Father, the admiration for him, not only of Catholics but even of non-Catholics, continues amazingly to increase for the reason that his greatness appears to the minds of men with no less splendor today than it did long ago. We, too, most ardently pray for the strength of his virtues which have been so powerful, even at the present hour, in remedying the ills of society. In fact, his work of reform has permeated so deeply Christian peoples that besides re-establishing purity of faith and of morals it has resulted in this, that even the laws of justice and of evangelical charity now more profoundly inspire and guide social life itself.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p11ritex.htm

As you can see here, there is nothing in what the Pope says that suggests he thought that St Francis and Christ are one and the same person or that there are two Christs. It is only when one reads things, deliberately intent on or dispositively willing to trying to find something wrong with them, that nonsense arguments like this are brought up.

[Thomas More]

Yes, of course, when there is fault, it is the fault of the translators, or it was never written by that person, but some evil who was out to discredit. Do you know that the muslims use the same argument? It's not in the koran and when you find it in the koran, it was translated incorrectly, in fact, koran cannot be translated at all. But I digress.

I'm not the one quoteing sources that are made up. It clearly states it is somewere it is not, my latin is so rusty that the summization I gave from Innocents actual Decretal may not actually refer to it at all. Innocent III is a much hated Pope due to his direct intervention in politics and the Albigensian Crusade and became a huge target after his death. There were many treastes written against him as well as a good dose of German propaganda for his directly interfereing in the succesion of the HRE. If you would care to find the exact quote in his Decretal be my guest, but don't talk smack to me because your "source" is of such an excellent quality they cannot seem to correctly navigate a library.

[Redwolf]

I fully agree.

Also it is not uncommon to in a slightly poetic way speak of the Pope in even stronger terms ... St Catherine of Sienna referred to him as "sweet Christ on earth" -- she didn't mean of course that the Pope and Christ were one and the same person ... that would mean all of those hundreds of popes would all be the same person and St Catherine didn't believe in reincarnation! Also, all priests are referred to in a similar way as "another Christ" -- in Latin "alter Christus." One pope even referred to St Francis of Assisi as "another Jesus Christ" -- even though he was never ordained a priest (some say he may have been ordained a deacon; others say he never received Holy Orders) ... in the letter by the pope on Francis, the pope is not of course meaning to say that St Francis of Assisi is one and the same person as Christ or that there is more than one Christ! And if you read the letter by the pope, that will be absolutely clear, if it wasn't clear already. Let me quote the letter to illustrate and hopefully it will also illustrate how all other criticisms are equally nonsense:

To the great Jubilee which was celebrated in Rome and is now extended to the whole world for the period of this year, which served to purify souls and called so many to a more perfect way of life, is now to be added, as a fulfillment of the fruits received or expected from the Holy Year, the solemn commemoration which Catholics everywhere are preparing to celebrate, the Seventh Centenary of the blessed passage of St. Francis of Assisi from his exile on earth to his heavenly home. Since Our immediate Predecessor has assigned this Saint, who was sent by Divine Providence for the reformation not only of the turbulent age in which he lived but of Christian society of all times, as the patron of "Catholic Action," it is only right that Our children who labor in this field according to Our commands should in union with the numerous Franciscan brotherhood call to mind and praise the works, the virtues, and the spirit of the Seraphic Patriarch. While doing this, they must reject that purely imaginary figure of the Saint conjured up by the defenders of modern error or by the followers of luxury and worldly comforts, and seek to bring Christians to the faithful imitation of the ideal of sanctity which he exemplified in himself and which he learned from the purity and simplicity of the doctrines of the Gospels.
2. It is Our desire that the religious and civic festivals to be held during this Centenary, as well as the conferences and sermons to be given, should aim at celebrating this anniversary with expressions of true devotion, without making the Seraphic Patriarch either totally different from other men or unlike the historical figure he actually was, but showing him a man gifted by nature and grace which admirably assisted him in reaching himself and in rendering easy for his neighbors the highest possible perfection. If some dare to compare one with another the heavenly heroes of sanctity destined by the Holy Ghost each to his own special mission among men-these comparisons, the fruit for the most part of party passions, are valueless and are at the same time an insult to God, the author of sanctity-it seems necessary for Us to affirm that there has never been anyone in whom the image of Jesus Christ and the evangelical manner of life shone forth more lifelike and strikingly than in St. Francis. He who called himself the "Herald of the Great King" was also rightly spoken of as "another Jesus Christ," appearing to his contemporaries and to future generations almost as if he were the Risen Christ. He has always lived as such in the eyes of men and so will continue to live for all future time. Nor is it marvelous that his early biographers, contemporaries of the Saint, in their accounts of his life and works, judged him to be of a nobility almost superior to human nature itself. Our Predecessors who dealt personally with Francis did not hesitate to recognize in him a providential help sent by God for the welfare of Christian peoples and of the Church.

3. Notwithstanding the long time that has elapsed since the death of the Seraphic Father, the admiration for him, not only of Catholics but even of non-Catholics, continues amazingly to increase for the reason that his greatness appears to the minds of men with no less splendor today than it did long ago. We, too, most ardently pray for the strength of his virtues which have been so powerful, even at the present hour, in remedying the ills of society. In fact, his work of reform has permeated so deeply Christian peoples that besides re-establishing purity of faith and of morals it has resulted in this, that even the laws of justice and of evangelical charity now more profoundly inspire and guide social life itself.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p11ritex.htm

As you can see here, there is nothing in what the Pope says that suggests he thought that St Francis and Christ are one and the same person or that there are two Christs. It is only when one reads things, deliberately intent on or dispositively willing to trying to find something wrong with them, that nonsense arguments like this are brought up.



Thank you for the hard work you have put into your reply, I appreciate the effort.


Is this your canon law or not?
Writers on Canon Law say: "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." (Barclay Cap. XXVII p. 218 Cities Petrus Bertanous, Pius V)

There is more here than poetic license, it is a haughty declaration, impudent and blasphemous.


"We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God....dissolves, not by human but rather by divine authority....I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do...Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ." Decretales Domini Gregori ix Translatione Episcoporum, (on the Transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Decretales, col. 205 (while Innocent III was Pope).

"Therefore the decision of the Pope and the decision of God constitute one decision....Since, therefore, an appeal is always made from an inferior judge to a superior, just as no one is greater than himself, so no appeal holds when made from the Pope to God, because there is one consistory of the Pope himself and of God Himself." Augustinus Triumphus, in Summa de Potestate Ecclesiastica, 1483, questio 6. Latin.


Even if the Pope is in Error or Were Evil, He Still Holds Power Over All Christ's Faithful!

"...whether it be possible for him (the Pope) to err or not, is to be obeyed by all the faithful." St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, pt. 5, (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").


"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").


"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: "They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!" But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him." St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (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").


"It is error to believe that, if the Pope were wicked and reprobate, then he is of the devil and is not head of the Church Militant..." Pope Martin V, Inter Cunctas et in Eminentis, DNZ:646, (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").


Supreme Papal Authority Comes From the Law of the Caesars

"...superior papal authority and dominion is derived from the law of the Caesars." Lucius Ferraris, in "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica", Volume V, article on "Papa, Article II", titled "Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility", #19, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

"...the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man." Pope Nicholas I, quoted in History of the Councils, vol. IX, Dist.: 96, Can 7, "Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para", by Labbe and Cossart.



"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh." Catholic National, July, 1895.


You see, I'm not buying it.

[Hail Mary]

Helping a fellow believer, even one that doesn't think like you do, brings glory to our Savior, and therefore a glory that you share in. Tell me where I am being sophomoric, naive or stupid ... but I believe the words you present, which I believe have great value ... will overcome any missteps that will be taken by your respondents ...

I must be a bad debater, I guess. I appreciate all of the efforts being made by participants, even if they X?{}!<<> me off, 'cause they don't see my point(s)!

If you want to debate Peter as the Rock upon which Christ founded his Church, that would be good in another thread. (Just let me know) I think you're an excellent debater, you keep your posts courteous and kind while still effectively making your points. That combination is a rare gift in theological discussions.

[Paul]

Thank you for the hard work you have put into your reply, I appreciate the effort.

Is this your canon law or not?
Writers on Canon Law say: "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." (Barclay Cap. XXVII p. 218 Cities Petrus Bertanous, Pius V)

I would not agree with the statement that the Pope and God are the same.

I have not seen this statement before and I do not understand how exactly you are attributing or citing it. For instance you say that "writers on Canon Law" make that statement but do not (for me anyway) clearly identify who those writers are. If you could give me the actual names of the "writers on Canon Law" who make that statement, I would appreciate it (I ask, not to score debating points, but so that if possible I can investigate the matter). Also your citation is confusing for me. Are you citing a particular book? Is the author of the book supposed to be "Barclay" -- what is his full name? Is the title of the book supposed to be "Cities Petrus Bertanous"? Why is there a "Pius V" at the end of your citation is that part of the title of the book? Please clarify this for me (again I'm not trying to score debating points, but seeking to investigate this matter if possible).

Also is this a translation of what was originally written by the author and who has done this translation? (is it you that have done this translation?). In what language was this originally written and do you know how it was written in that language (if you do please reproduce so that I can see if the translation is accurate, if I happen to be familiar with the language)

"We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law.

This statement would be referring to positive human law, probably specifically positive ecclesiastical law. In Catholic philosophy and theology, law is categorized into several categories (some of these overlap and they all relate to one another in some way):

1. Eternal law. This is basically the general "law" by which God relates to creation, his governing providence, his ordering of all things to the end for which he made them. It is a general philosophical concept.

2. Natural law. This is the law which is not established by any external act but is a consequence of how things in their created natures are constituted and the ends for which they were made and the relations among them and with God which constitute how they are meant to be. So for example the law that one is not to murder or the law that one is to worship God would be examples of natural laws.

3. Positive law. This is law which has been established by some external act -- whether by God (such as with the Mosiac Law or Christ's command that all be baptized) or by man given authority by God (such as the State when there are laws that govern things like speed limits or the Church when there are laws governing things like fasting regulations). A natural law can be reiterated in positive form (such as in most of the Ten Commandments or in State laws against murder) but the term "positive law" is usually used exclusive of the natural law.

4. Divine law. This is law which God himself has established in a direct way -- either by how he has constituted things in their created natures in the natural law or by positive law that He himself legislates. So divine law includes both the natural law and positive divine law. So all natural laws are divine laws, but not all divine laws are natural laws.

5. Human law. This is law which man has established with God's authority -- whether by the Church or State. So this would be an instance of positive law. In the case of the Church, this is referred to as "ecclesiastical law." Sometimes of course a divine law is reiterated in human law. When one is dealing with a law which is merely ecclesiastical and not also divine law it is common to refer it to as simply "ecclesiastical law" or sometimes "merely ecclesiastical law."

Now that the concepts are laid out I can explain the Catholic position. The Catholic position is that the Pope has full and supreme authority over non-divine, merely ecclesiasitcal laws. So for example, the Pope has full authority to dispense, change, create or elimininate fasting regulations which pertain to the life of the Church. The Pope has zero authority however to change in any way divine law. So for example, the Pope has no authority to change Christ's command to be baptized (a positive divine law) or to change the natural law (all natural law is divine law) against murder or lying.

So the statement you quoted is speaking only of human law, probably specifically ecclesiastical law. Just as in secular circles it is common to use the term "law" when we are speaking exclusively of human secular law (law that is passed by the State), so also it may be common to use the term "law" when we are speaking exclusively of human law or specifically ecclesiastical law.

Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God.

All this is saying is that when the Pope excommunicates someone, it has the weight of God's authority behind it "whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." It's not saying the Pope is God as any reasonable reading of the statement would show. In scripture it says that ALL authority is derived from God. So not only the authority of the Church, but also the authority of the State and even things like the authority of parents or the authority of the husband comes from God. One is authorized to rule (keeping in mind what the true meaning of rule is as explained by Jesus in the Gospels) only insofar as the Author of all that is and the King of all has authorized one to so rule.

For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God

This just means that the Pope sometimes acts with authority given to him by God -- just as parents sometimes act with authority given to them by God and just as the State acts with authorrity given to them by God. Again, this is explicitly taught in scripture (i.e. that all authority is derived from God's authority)

I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God,

"All" is referring to the Pope's subjects (just as using the same word similarly of a secular king or queen would refer to his or her subjects). The Pope is the vicar of Christ. Christ is God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The Pope is therefore, the vicar of God, the vicar of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God the Son.

hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do...

It's hard for me to tell what is meant here because the ellipses is not providing the needed context (I note that you used ellipses not just here but also above as well). Could you provide the full text without the eillipses please?

Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ."

If this statement is saying that the Pope has authority to dispense from divine law, then it would be a wrong statement. But it looks to me like it is saying that the Pope has the authority to dispense with all merely ecclesiastical laws or perhaps all merely human laws and that this authority comes from the precepts of Christ -- i.e. it is an authority that Christ has, by precept, established.

"Therefore the decision of the Pope and the decision of God constitute one decision....Since, therefore, an appeal is always made from an inferior judge to a superior, just as no one is greater than himself, so no appeal holds when made from the Pope to God, because there is one consistory of the Pope himself and of God Himself." Augustinus Triumphus, in Summa de Potestate Ecclesiastica, 1483, questio 6. Latin.

Well, all this seems to be saying is that the pope's judgment is final as far as this wayfaring life is concerned. It is a judgment that must generally be accepted and it is no good or of any use or any excuse to when faced with the pope's judgement to say, "I appeal the judgment to God Almighty and thus refuse to obey the judgment until God Almighty has heard my appeal." You can't say that because God established the pope as the final human authority on this earth for this wayfaring life -- so even if the pope makes a mistake, there's nothing you can do about it. This doesn't mean that there will not be a final Last Judgment, in which God Himself directly judges the world and brings to light both all the evil that was done and all the good that was done. It also doesn't mean that what's called the Particular Judgment will not be given by God Himself directly and without any mediation of any pope. The "judgements" referred to in this statement are legal, juridical judgements. It's not talking about salvation or heaven or hell or anything like that.

Even if the Pope is in Error or Were Evil, He Still Holds Power Over All Christ's Faithful!

He holds authority, yes. Christ taught that those who sit on the chair of Moses are to obeyed in all things even though at the same time in the same lesson he warned that we should not follow their example. Christ Himself says there that they are to obeyed even if they are evil. I can cite the chapter and verse if you are unfamiliar with this Gospel passage.

"...whether it be possible for him (the Pope) to err or not, is to be obeyed by all the faithful." St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, pt. 5, (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").

I don't think you realize that St Bellarmine is the same St Bellarmine who also argued that if the Pope were to become a heretic, that he would cease to be Pope. So, I don't think you are taking the trouble to learn about St Bellarmine. It looks to me, though I could be wrong, that you are just trying to find as much ammunition as possible in your efforts to try to prove the Catholic wrong.

"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh." Catholic National, July, 1895.

Learn about the Christian incarnational and sacramental world view and you will better understand what was meant. If you are unwilling to learn about it, then nothing I say is going to convince you.

[Hail Mary]

Is this your canon law or not?
Writers on Canon Law say: "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." (Barclay Cap. XXVII p. 218 Cities Petrus Bertanous, Pius V)

There is more here than poetic license, it is a haughty declaration, impudent and blasphemous.

Redwolf,

If you're going to throw around charges of blasphemy, I would think you should be absolutely certain that you have unimpeachable sources. Right?

The above quote is NOT from Canon Law, or from writers on Canon Law, or any official Vatican text at all. It was written in an English newspaper (the Church Review) in 1895 which reported to quote from a talk given by Cardinal Sarto, then Archbishop of Venice. This was disputed by Sarto, who produced the original manuscript containing the quote as:

"The Pope represents Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, i.e., the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on earth and in heaven."

[Redwolf]

[QUOTE=Paul]I would not agree with the statement that the Pope and God are the same.



Well, all this seems to be saying is that the pope's judgment is final as far as this wayfaring life is concerned.

==============


The pope has no authority to act in God's stead, to act as God, to determine to occupy God's place on earth (the Holy Spirit's job), to dispense as God, to assume to know what God wants outside of scripture......he does all that, he does it and has no compunction doing it, nor does he have compunction to call himself or be called, LORD GOD POPE, or sweet Christ on earth and not just be sweet Catherine, but as recently as JPII.

The pope does not qualify to tell God's children how to worship, when to whorship, where to worship, nor does he have the right to substitute 'sacred tradition' for scripture, of which none is found in scripture, he has no right to add or take away from God's word, nor add to it.


And the RCC does so freely.

It is within your interest to refute the pope's titles, it does not make them go away.

[Jude3b]

What gives the pope the right to call himself god on earth?

Isn't that blasphemy?


http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/pope.html

2) Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) wrote: "We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God." (1 Book of Gregory 9 Decret. c.3)


Dear Redwolf:

The official reason given by the Roman Catholic religion is this:

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (Page 234, #882 of the Roman Catholic Catechism).

Is that blasphemy? In my opinion yes. Why? Well God's Word reveals that someone else already fills that position:

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..." (John 16:13).

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever." (John 14:16).

The pope of Romanism has clearly attempted to assume a position reserved for the Holy Spirit. Yes, I would indeed label that blasphemy!

[Joe Gofish]

What gives the pope the right to call himself god on earth?

Isn't that blasphemy?


http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/pope.html

2) Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) wrote: "We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God." (1 Book of Gregory 9 Decret. c.3)
More garbage from anti-catholic bigots but some thing to think about as you are talking about the Pope,There are a number of things which I can point out. I will give a few very quick hits for now; if you are interested in any of these more deeply, ask and you shall receive (the pope

When Christ is risen, others arrive at the tomb first, but everybody waits for Peter so that he may enter the tomb first (John 20)
Peter is indicated as the representative of the Apostles by the angel in Mark 16:7
Peter, in his role of leadership, calls for the replacement of Judas (Acts 1)
Peter is mentioned 191 times in the NT - 60% of all the times any desciple is mentioned. This is important. In the US, we have many leaders, from governors to senators to secrataries of state and defense and so forth. In foreign countries, which of these is mentioned most? The President, because he is the leader and he is the figurehead and he is the person everyone is familiar with. Peter was mentioned most because he, as the leader, was the Apostle most familiar to those who would be reading the gospel.
After his conversion, Paul made it a point to see Peter specifically. As a new Apostle, he wished to/needed to "check in" with the leader
There are many more I could point to. Additionally, the changing of the name from Simon to Peter is a HUGE piece of evidence, one that most people don't realize the importance of. It deserves its own post and will get one.

[Jude3b]

If the pope is Christ's substitute on earth, there should be many similarities in their lives, are there?

First- While on earth, Jesus never controlled great weath. The pope is the CEO of one of the weathiest coporation in the world.

Second- Most people eventually rejected and hated Jesus because He told the truth. The pope is worshipped and adored by millions worldwide.

Third- Jesus dressed like a common man. The pope, on the other hand, is never seen in anything but the best regal apparel.

Fourth- Jesus tirelessly served the multitudes, while the pope travels the world on his private jet, meeting with world leaders from every nation.

Fifth- Jesus lived in simple surroundings, but the pope view opulence at every turn.

Sixth- The pope gladly welcomes the praise of men, but Jesus directed all worship to the Father.

[spl_cadet]

Zombies Are Forbidden, Stop With The Necro!!!!!!!!

[Jude3b]

Why does the Bible insist that Jesus is the head of the church, if He isn't?

Roman Catholicism tells us that their pope is the head of the church.

According to God's Word, the pope is not the head of the church! "...Christ is the head of the church..." (Eph. 5:23)