New Popage

[ziggytrix]

As Catholics, we believe that the authority given to Peter did not end with his life, but was handed on to his successors.

Interesting that the use of scripture to back up his argument ended in the previous paragraph. Sorry dude, I grew up Church of Christ. We had elders and preachers, but everyone was a Brother. No fathers but THE Father. Anyway, it's all old belief, but I was raised to believe the Bible was the final authority, not any one man.

Originally Posted by Epehsians 1

18I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Jesus, not Peter.

Originally Posted by Ephesians 4

7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it[a] says: “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.”[b] 9(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions[c]? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

That the NIV translation, but there's no mention of a singular Chruch authority in the KJV either. I dunno, maybe there was a damn good reason the Catholic clergy before V2 didn't want laypersons reading the Bible...

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Yeah, I TOTALLY missed that! How could I not interpret that to mean the Pope is the only TRUE head of the only TRUE Church.

I also missed the part where he said "No man goes to the Father, but by me, but only after he clears it with Peter first."

"and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. "

Honestly, its the next line. I am not going to hold your hand and guide you the whole way.

Met fans (or secular humanists), no matter how good they are, are ALWAYS infatuated with the Yankees (the religious, particularly us nasty Christians).

FUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOU

Maybe some of us are sick and tired of hearing a bunch of people pat themselves on the back for blowing out Tampa Bay (funny how they always come up after the Yankees have a tough road stretch.)

[nothing4buddha]

obligatory short post that has nothing to do with topic.

[The One and Only...]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I thought there are only around 6 million Christrians, let alone a billion Catholics...

The point remains, but it's a technicality that's kinda bugging me.

[Guitar Woman]

How is one billion a fraction of 6 million?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

"and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. "

Yeah, that was basically what I was going to quote, which the article I linked already quoted, so whatever. I think now might be a good time to insert the "everybody can pick out pieces of scripture to suit their arguments" line.

Jesus clearly passed on a responsibility to Peter, or should I say Simon? And as the article indicates, I think the name change is a signifigant point. The other times you see it in the Bible are pretty signifigant.

FUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOU

Maybe some of us are sick and tired of hearing a bunch of people pat themselves on the back for blowing out Tampa Bay (funny how they always come up after the Yankees have a tough road stretch.)

I think you misunderstood me. I was ripping on Mets fans.

Originally Posted by Ziggy'

I dunno, maybe there was a damn good reason the Catholic clergy before V2 didn't want laypersons reading the Bible...

Well luckily we have Ziggy here to set us straight on this Bible thing. Maybe you should sit down with the Pope and all of the Cardinals and set them straight on this misguided notion they've had for all of these centuries.

[ItalianStereotype]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I thought there are only around 6 million Christrians, let alone a billion Catholics...

The point remains, but it's a technicality that's kinda bugging me.

well, about 86% of the US is a Christian. out of 270 million people, I'd say that's gonna come out to a lot more than 6 million right there.

[Dick Tayshone]

What I am curious about is how Christians tend to interpret the Bible to suit them. As far as I know the original scriptures was translated and re-interpreted over the ages by human beings. Do you want to tell me that this does not ensure subjectivity at the very least. Obviously those translations and interpretations had to be cleared by some or the other head of whatever church and surely he or she adds further subjectiveness. Furthermore, such translations and interpretations do not happen in a vacuum, but within the confines of what is the current state of politics and world influences.

What happened to the Christians in Germany during the Second World War when the Nazi’s ruled supreme? Did you hear any of their church leaders standing up and condemning Nazism as devilish and that the christians in Germany should rise and demolish this political belief (Nazism)? Outside Nazi Germany perhaps, but inside Nazi Germany? Not as far as I know.

In dealing with the Protestant Church, the Nazis found a willing supporter in Pastor Ludwig Muller. He was appointed by the Nazis to be the Evangelical Bishop of the German Reich in 1933. Soon after his appointment, Muller amended Christian teachings in line with Nazi ideas. Many thousands of Protestants who did not follow the new Christian teaching were sent to the concentration camps.

The same happened in the Catholic church. The influence of the catholic church and the pope in the trade of the ‘Black Ship’ between the east and the west in the early European history, is another example. The ‘Black ship’ was only allowed to operate and transport the riches of the world if a Cardinal was part of the passengers list. To keep an eye on the trading obviously and to take control of the part of the spoils that ‘belongs’ to the church, when the ship arrives in port. I am sure that the pope then had a perfect 'biblical' reason for doing the above?

[Helm]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Somebody's a fan of Horkheimer and Adorno!!

However, you could argue that it's more managable for a teeny, tiny brains to actually humanize that which we don't understand, no?

Dunno who Horkheimer and Adorno are. And I think the christian god is completely humanized in his 'ethical standard' of the 10 commandments anyway, so there's no need for a direct representative at all. Especially when that person starts having his own agenda as humans are like to do. In any case, god's people on earth all claim divine guidance anyway, so there's no need for an alpha male.

[Dole]

well, about 86% of the US is a Christian.

That explains a lot.

[Helm]

aren't there though, a bunch of christian cults in the us instead of everybody being catholic?

[Dole]

There are those Christian Scientist people...they believe God can only be worshipped in laboratory conditions.

[Helm]

I like the christian scientist people!

[Royal Tenenbaum]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

You're right, because Western economies certainly aren't relying on manufacturing or anything. Because if those factories closed down no billion dollar companies would be royaly fucked. Nope, its not like that at all.

Do they really manufacture anything we need? Would anyone care if they couldn't buy Nikes tomorrow? Or, shockingly, had to pay $15 more since the labour was North Amiercan? I highly doubt it.

The 1.1 billion Catholics for starters.

These 1.1 billion Catholics still don't care what the Pope says! People don't listen to the Pope's decrees.

I'm almost affraid of the coming answer, but what the fuck is "our" Westernb World?

"Our" Western (-b) world is the one we live in. It's our's because we live in it.

They don't just come out and say it. They research and debate and give reasons for their desiscions.

They research, they debate, they say stuff, and no one listens. You can go ask 10 Catholics to name 2 decrees that Pope John Paul II made, and I'd put damn good money that no more than one or two people actually could.

Except for the strict Catholics who do. But, I'm sure you have spojken and know all of them so well to get that kind of personal information.!

How do strict Catholics actually affect my life or the lives of the majority in the Western world? They do not! What the Pope says may affect them, but still, if he did/said "stupid shit" like my original response was too, they wouldn't listen to him.

In fact something like 53% of Catholics think you can still be a good Catholic after getting an abortion! A fucking abortion!

Source?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=29948

"Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic."

There you go.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Helm

Dunno who Horkheimer and Adorno are.

Damn, you basically quoted them verbatim. I would've figured you for a Dialectic of Enlightenment kind of guy. You might be down with it.

In any case, god's people on earth all claim divine guidance anyway, so there's no need for an alpha male.

I don't know that everybody claims divinie guidance, they simply pursue it through prayer and their actions. From a Roman Catholic perspective (getting back to the crux of this thread), the Pope is essentially considered our voice of direction and clarity in the pursuit of that divine grace and guidance. But that doesn't mean his "agenda" ever really dictates our opinions and beliefs.

First off, there are several layers to Papal infallibility, like when a Pope speaks ex cathedra, etc., I'm sure you know all of this. Secondly, any given pope will have (and has had) their own little issues. John Paul II was an aggressive opponent of capital punishment, and as you may recall, he had a few things to say about war, too.

But I think if you took a survey of American Catholics, you might find that they land somewhere else on those issues, to put it nicely.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Well luckily we have Ziggy here to set us straight on this Bible thing. Maybe you should sit down with the Pope and all of the Cardinals and set them straight on this misguided notion they've had for all of these centuries.

Was or was not the Protestant Reformation in part about whether the common man had a right to read the Bible? I'm not just making this shit up, Kevin.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by ItalianStereotype

well, about 86% of the US is a Christian. out of 270 million people, I'd say that's gonna come out to a lot more than 6 million right there.

I see. Here's what I found on the subject, for those interested...

"As of 2005, Christianity is the world's most widely practiced religion, with 2.2 billion adherents (followed by Islam with 1.3 billion, Hinduism with 1.05 billion (150 million Yoga followers included), and the nonreligious with 774 million). Christianity has many branches, including 1.1 billion Roman Catholics, 510 million Protestants in a number of traditions, 216 million Orthodox, 84 million Anglicans, 158 million Independents (unaffiliated with the major streams of Christianity), and 31.7 million "marginals" (Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints (Mormons), etc.), these last being denominations which describe themselves as Christian but are not standardly recognized as such by other denominations due to their unorthodox teachings."

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

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Was or was not the Protestant Reformation in part about whether the common man had a right to read the Bible? I'm not just making this shit up, Kevin.

Right Ziggy, that's why you made that comment. You were simply enlightening us on the history of the Protestant Reformation.

[Helm]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

[
Damn, you basically quoted them verbatim. I would've figured you for a Dialectic of Enlightenment kind of guy. You might be down with it.

I googled that book and indeed it does seem like something I'd be interested in. Thanks for the tip.

But that doesn't mean his "agenda" ever really dictates our opinions and beliefs.

Not as word of law maybe, but it certainly holds a vast influence over a great number of faithful people, as this thread has discussed. Kind of splitting hairs here.

First off, there are several layers to Papal infallibility, like when a Pope speaks ex cathedra, etc., I'm sure you know all of this.

Not really, I don't, as the m.o of the catholic church never interested me one bit. I find all religions equally silly, and my interest in the social constructions based around them focuses more on the human aspect than it focuses on the specific workings of each church. So I read there's failsafes to the Pope being stupid. Good.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Right Ziggy, that's why you made that comment. You were simply enlightening us on the history of the Protestant Reformation.

OK, I'm willing to spell it out for you. The Biblical authorization for the position of Pope is nil. You can make a strong argument that Jesus made Peter King of the Church, but I have seen ZERO Biblical support for passing that title on after his inverted crucifixion. It was in the interest of the Pope and the Cardinals that people not see that the Bible didn't spell out the authority of the Pope and the Cardinals.

[Sethomas]

The point I find hilarious is that if there were no process of Apostolic Succession in the bible, then there would have been no Bishop Athanasius, and therefore there would have been no authority to compile the bible and it Scripture as we know it wouldn't even exist. Sure, Sola Scriptura makes TONS of sense.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

You can make a strong argument that Jesus made Peter King of the Church, but I have seen ZERO Biblical support for passing that title on after his inverted crucifixion.

First of all, why the fuck would you literally name someone as the foundation of your Church, and not intend for that to be caried on.

And regarding what you see and don't see in the Bible, I refer you to Seth's excellent point above.

It was in the interest of the Pope and the Cardinals that people not see that the Bible didn't spell out the authority of the Pope and the Cardinals.

And what about now? Since this conspiracy has gone on for so many centuries, and now we're in the age of easy access, why hasn't the Church been exploited for this horrible lie? Roman Catholics must just be really stupid and sheep like, right?

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

First of all, why the fuck would you literally name someone as the foundation of your Church, and not intend for that to be caried on.

Now it's my turn to tell you to calm down. There are a LOT of Christians who don't believe in the authority of the pope. Why not ask this question to every Protestant on the planet? Peter was unique, he was special. There is no chain of John the Baptists, no chain of Saul/Paul, and fuck, if there's someone who should have been deified as much as Peter, it's Paul.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. I think a lot more would have been said about it if Jesus were naming Peter the King of the Chruch, with a title to pass down. It kinda seems important to have just been glossed over.

And regarding what you see and don't see in the Bible, I refer you to Seth's excellent point above.

Chapter and verse please?

And what about now? Since this conspiracy has gone on for so many centuries, and now we're in the age of easy access, why hasn't the Church been exploited for this horrible lie? Roman Catholics must just be really stupid and sheep like, right?

You believe what you're taught, and you think it makes you a good person. Why should you question it? It doesn't make you stupid, it just makes you normal.

I suppose you think every Christian who doesn't believe in the authority of the pope is stupid and sheep like for believing what they were taught? I should hope not, so get the fuck off your moral high horse already.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

[quote]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Now it's my turn to tell you to calm down. There are a LOT of Christians who don't believe in the authority of the pope. Why not ask this question to every Protestant on the planet?

We do, and that argument goes on and on, but that's not really what the game you're playing is all about. For some reason, to get back to the core of this discussion, you seem to believe that the Catholic Church is losing out because they are the Catholic Church, and that must be why they're losing out to other Christian sects in places like South America and Africa. You jump from role to role, one minute arguing like a Baptist for the sanctity of the literal scripture, and then back over to the secularist who's merely arguing this point for "academic purposes," who merely thinks that the "whole lot of us" our convinced in our own righteousness.

So which way is it, Ziggy? You can't argue for the purity of the literal Word, and then dismiss stances the Church takes, which can be very clearly traced back to the scriptures....!

Peter was unique, he was special. There is no chain of John the Baptists, no chain of Saul/Paul, and fuck, if there's someone who should have been deified as much as Peter, it's Paul.

Very wrong. Granted, most writings about Paul are very hagiographic, I mean, the Church refers to him as a saint for a reason. However, the relationship between Jesus and Peter was very different, and I'll simply refer you back to the other thread on that matter.

Chapter and verse please?

No thanks. You seem pretty eager to denounce a Church you even admit to know very little about, so just look into it yourself. These threads have consumed enough time as it is.

You believe what you're taught, and you think it makes you a good person. Why should you question it? It doesn't make you stupid, it just makes you normal.

Thanks Dr. Phil, but you don't really know how I came about believing what I do, so maybe you should keep your speculation to yourself.

The point is you think Catholics are sheep who don't really read the Bible. I don't give a fuck if you think Christianity is shit, or if you think the papal succession is invalid. You're entitled to that opinion, but I take it very damn personally when you insult over 1 billion people because you searched some counter-points on the internet and think that those sections in Matthew don't cut it. This isn't about the pope, nor is it about who's right or wrong amongst the Christians. You don't really care about any of that, all you care to do is tear down that which you dislike. It's all "academic" I guess.

I suppose you think every Christian who doesn't believe in the authority of the pope is stupid and sheep like for believing what they were taught?

No.

I should hope not, so get the fuck off your moral high horse already.

Right back at ya.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

You jump from role to role, one minute arguing like a Baptist for the sanctity of the literal scripture, and then back over to the secularist who's merely arguing this point for "academic purposes,"

Can't I argue both roles? Even if I'm just playing Devil's Advocate? But the reason I argue like that is because one is who I was and the other is who I am now.

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

The point is you think Catholics are sheep who don't really read the Bible.

I think too many religious secretarians are fanatics who only pretend to respect the beliefs of others - right up to the point that someone tells them exactly how his belief differs from theirs. Consider this thread a case in point. In general I've found Catholics are less so, but I see the gloves come right off if you talk about the pope!

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

This isn't about the pope, nor is it about who's right or wrong amongst the Christians. You don't really care about any of that, all you care to do is tear down that which you dislike.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. This whole time I thought I was just expressing my beliefs! I mean, for fucks sake, do you think that I think I'm going to change your mind? Do you think that you're going to change mine? What the fuck could I possibly tear down? I could respond to a lot more of what you said, but I think this has gone on too long already. You just seem to be getting angrier and angrier, and regardless what you seem to think, that really wasn't my intention.