Our New Pope Francis I!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Severiano wrote:
You should worry about your own definition of humility and how it would apply to certain people.[/quote]

I don’t have my own definition. The word has a meaning, and the fact is that the Pope is a simple man. Which leads to the likelihood that he’s a humble man.

Are you referring to Matthew 19:24, “And once again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through a needleâ??s eye, than for a man to enter the kingdom of heaven when he is rich.”

Yes, what about it?

This is called No true Scotsman. No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

You said if he washed the feet of lepers or something, then you’d say he’s humble…well besides going to another continent and washing actual lepers’ feet he’s washed every contemporary lepers’ feet there is (sick, AIDs victims, poor, pregnant single mother, &c.). Now you say he needs to do more than that. Being humble has less to do with what you do but how you think of yourself.

Jesus’ best friend Peter (as in St. Peter) was wealthy (he lived close to the Temple and was a businessman). Lazarus was well off, the Pharisees he hung out with had money. The tax collectors had money. Jesus didn’t buy his tomb (which was reserved for the wealthy), his friend Joseph of Arimathea (all around rich guy) did. Jesus set foot in 5 star conclave hotels of his day.

I understand

62

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
So the Pope is the Monarch or King of all Catholics?[/quote]

Well, if you’re going to speak spiritually, he is the Steward and Shepard, not the king.

Yes, Catholics agree. Never met a Catholic who worshiped the Pope.

Correct, but he has been given authority by God. So, his station in life is different than you and me.

Actually, this is false. Jesus is a Man, and he deserves worship. Actually, it is owed to him under the penalty of law (excommunication, mortal sin, &c.).

Of course not. Not sure where you got this. All I said was that he was a Monarch. You could say the same thing if I pointed out that Juan Carlos I was Monarch. There are plenty of kings. That doesn’t take away from the Kingship of Jesus.

63

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Awesome.

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-humility-stops-hotel-bags-112502058.html[/quote]

That is pretty awesome.[/quote]

No offence but I don’t see what’s so awesome. He paid a hotel bill that was required. Woop de doo? Unless there was something else to it?[/quote]

Not that the bill was paid, but that he paid the bill. He’s humble, he is the monarch of a country and the Vicar of Christ, he has plenty of people at his service, but instead he is acting like the Servant of Servants he is…by that I mean in doing a menial chore.[/quote]

Yes. Exactly.

Another thing is, he is Pope now, for the rest of his life, so it’s not like he’s working to impress anybody or achieve any higher position at this point. This is who he is, and acts like these speak volumes about his character. [/quote]

I admire the fact that he did it…shows humility.[/quote]

I don’t see it? He gave due what was due. That’s it.
[/quote]

When Christ showed ‘humility’ he was washing people’s feet. When the Pope goes and lives with and amongst the lepers/ prostitutes, homeless etc. Then I’ll give him credit for having some humility. Until then, he’s just a rich boy paying his 5 star/ diamond hotel bill just like all the rest of them. [/quote]

The Cardinal is notorious for living with the poor (he lives in an apartment rather than the Archbishop’s Palace (and ditched it in the time being)), washing the feet of prostitutes, AIDs victims, single mothers (where it is still common to shun single mothers), and the sick.

I don’t expect you to give him credit, but to detract from him being humble (recognizing the truth about himself) I’ll defend against that.[/quote]

I’ll give credit when I witness it, when it’s due. Hearing about him paying his bill at his 5 star resort isn’t convincing to me, though it was plenty of evidence to others that he’s got humility, integrity and genuine love for the lowest of the low/ least of his brothers. I’m still wondering, and I come with sarcasm because people and articles actually claim that he has humility for paying a bill. I called bullshit and I’m sticking to it on that one! Because you pay your bill does not mean you have humility!

As men with integrity, I think we owe it to ourselves to call bullshit when we see it. Just doing what I think is right, if I see or hear about the Pope actually doing something that involves humility, I’ll say I was wrong about him. Until then, he’s just another dude. [/quote]

And, I’ve been calling bullshit on you. You have still not explained how it is not humble for the monarch over 1.2 billion people to pay his own bill in person (along with making his own phone calls, washing the feet of sick children, AIDs victims, single mothers, &c.)

Let me ask you, what does humility mean? What is the definition?[/quote]

You should worry about your own definition of humility and how it would apply to certain people. You know that saying about how it’s harder for a rich man to make it to heaven?

When I think about Humility for celebrity’s or athletes, the first guy that comes to my mind is Bo Jackson. If you remember him, he was an extreme talent, extremely strong, didn’t lift weights yet pulled off super human feats, and never showboated. He never caved into strong wealthy groups that attempted to manipulated him (like Tampa Bay Bucks). His celebrity came about because of his talent. He stayed loyal to his family, his home, his mother regardless of the attention. Compare him to say Deon Sanders and you see that he had a level of humility about his abilities and his celebrity that other guys couldn’t help but celebrate and boast. Other guys couldn’t help but be corrupted/ change as a result of the celebrity and money. Bo didn’t, he stayed the same guy.

For the Church, you have your model of humility in Christ. Would Christ be okay with guys rolling around in big red suits, so self important that it’s a general rule for people to bow down and kiss their silly ruby rings? Would Christ be okay with the ostentatious Churches and corruption within the Churches bank while people in the world go on hungry and sick? Your measuring stick is Christ for humility, it has to be.

I imagine Christ in my situation and I imagine he’d be a better man than myself. I get homeless people in my location now and then coughing their lungs out, and there IS TB amongst a good amount of homeless folks here. What I do is give them some relief from the cold, and now and then I’ll give two bucks so someone can get a cup of coffee or baked good from the 24 hr coffee shop down the road. If Christ were me, he’d open up his home and take care of these folks, give up his bed and sleep on the floor or couch, share his food, and of course cure their disease (he is God after all). Sacrifice is part of humility that I don’t see happening from the church, rather the flock sacrifices for the church, it has to do with not putting yourself in front of, or above others. The flock does this for the shepherd these days, it’s ass backwards.

The Church puts itself first, not it’s followers, or citizens of the planet which is really who the Church is supposed to look after (least of your brothers) doing, or not doing unto them is doing unto Christ.

If Christ would clean the feet of a leper, and sacrifice, that’s the standard I have for the leaders of the Church. I understand they are incapable of miracles, but they are capable of putting the people first, rather than the banks, or paying your bill at the 5 star resort which Christ probably wouldn’t even set foot in.
[/quote]

I agree with this. The vicar of Christ should not be living or treated like a king. Ever. Paying a bill is far from something special. I’m not trying to be mean or negative. Whether one believes in the papacy or not, the first pope (Peter to Catholics) or some other individual did not live a lavish lifestyle.

64

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
So the Pope is the Monarch or King of all Catholics?[/quote]

Well, if you’re going to speak spiritually, he is the Steward and Shepard, not the king.

Yes, Catholics agree. Never met a Catholic who worshiped the Pope.

Correct, but he has been given authority by God. So, his station in life is different than you and me.

Actually, this is false. Jesus is a Man, and he deserves worship. Actually, it is owed to him under the penalty of law (excommunication, mortal sin, &c.).

Of course not. Not sure where you got this. All I said was that he was a Monarch. You could say the same thing if I pointed out that Juan Carlos I was Monarch. There are plenty of kings. That doesn’t take away from the Kingship of Jesus.

[/quote]

The only reason Jesus is to be worshiped is because he is God. He is fully God and fully Man. If he was only man then everything we both believe would be crap. If the RCC worships Jesus because he is Man then there is a lot more wrong with the RCC than I thought.

The Pope has been given authority by man. He was voted in by a group of cardinals which are men, I know what you are going to say. Jesus told Peter, bla bla bla. The only Biblical Reference of the Apostles picking another apostle was Matthias (Acts 1:23-26), and we see God had a different idea. God chose Saul/Paul. I am making a comparison between the cardinals picking the Pope and the Apostles picking the apostle to replace Judas. Jesus chose all of the apostles, so why has he not chosen all the Popes? The Pope has no station above me. If the Catholics want to bow before a man then so be it, but me and my Evangelical brothers and sisters will resist the control of the Pope, because he is only a man. We only bow before the risen Savior Jesus Christ, who is our Priest. I can go directly to him.

On a side note: I was at a Roman Catholic Church yesterday for a choir contest that my daughter was apart of. One observation I made was, there was a Mass going on and all I heard coming from the room was Mary this and Mary that. Not once did I hear the name of Jesus spoken by the parishenors. Just an observation.

65

[quote]forbes wrote:
I agree with this. The vicar of Christ should not be living or treated like a king. Ever. Paying a bill is far from something special. I’m not trying to be mean or negative. Whether one believes in the papacy or not, the first pope (Peter to Catholics) or some other individual did not live a lavish lifestyle.[/quote]

Yes, Judas was upset about Mary pouring expensive ointment on Jesus’ feet, as well.

66

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The only reason Jesus is to be worshiped is because he is God. He is fully God and fully Man. If he was only man then everything we both believe would be crap. If the RCC worships Jesus because he is Man then there is a lot more wrong with the RCC than I thought.[/quote]

You just said a man shouldn’t be worshiped…Jesus is a man. You made up the stuff about worshiping Jesus because he is man. We worship Jesus, because he is Jesus. Jesus is both God and man. Admit that you’re wrong. Shows humility.

Correct again, Jesus was the man that gave authority, whom he received by the Heavenly Father.

Yes, but then you’re going to make zero sense again.

And, Matthias wasn’t an Apostle?

Yes, and Paul choose TImothy and made him a bishop. Actually all of the Apostles choose successors, and those successors choose successors.

Except that’s not what they are doing, Pope Francis was a Bishop before he became the Bishop of Rome.

When did I say the Pope has a station above you?

We’re only following the first followers of Christ. If you want to make up your own traditions, then you’re free to do so.

Where is that in the Bible?

Yes, Catholics only have one High Priest.

Where is that in the Bible?

That’s nice. What does this prove?

On a side note: I’d suggest you calm down and learn what Catholics believe. From your recent posts, it seems that you seem to be having an emotional anti-Catholic reaction in this thread, in which you don’t show any knowledge of Catholic doctrine or discipline.

67

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
I agree with this. The vicar of Christ should not be living or treated like a king. Ever. Paying a bill is far from something special. I’m not trying to be mean or negative. Whether one believes in the papacy or not, the first pope (Peter to Catholics) or some other individual did not live a lavish lifestyle.[/quote]

Yes, Judas was upset about Mary pouring expensive ointment on Jesus’ feet, as well.[/quote]

Jesus also cleansed the Temple of Herod. Make the connection about value and money, and squander, and greed Brother Chris. Has the Church become the market that Jesus said would upset his father? I answered this question to myself a loong time ago.

Judas fretting about expensive ointment is about not seeing that people are the valuable things, not the ointment. Is the ointment not meant for someones feet? Well, here’s God, who went through the trouble of making himself human (partially) so he can experience pains and the human condition, and you are fretting about using ointment? I think the lesson here is that Judas had his values so that money > people, even God.

The church is supposed to be strong for the weak, but all I see is a bunch of weak (the flock) protecting the Shepherd. It’s because the Shepherd turned in his walking stick and simple means to become a banker.

68

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Correct, but he has been given authority by God. So, his station in life is different than you and me.

Jesus is a Man, and he deserves worship.

[/quote]

I don’t know how to make all the quotes, but you always break up my words mid sentence to make a point out of context, but take away the rest of the sentence that makes the context relevent.

Above are your quotes.

You say that the Pope’s Station in life is different than you and me. The Pope’s station is the same as you and me. He is a man like you and me. We all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Roman Catholics might give him a different station, but you are putting him on a pedistal that he does not deserve. I watched a video of people greeting the Pope, and all of them bowed before him and kissed his ring. That is showing a lot of devotion and worship for a man if I ever saw one. The Pope never corrects them, but sits there and puts his hand on their head.

You said, " Jesus is a Man, and he deserves worship." Jesus is not just a man. If he was just a man, then everything that you and I believe is crap. Jesus is “Fully God, and Fully Man.” He is worshiped because he is God. Without the Fully God, then he is just a man like you me and the Pope. Matthias was voted in by the 11 apostles to be an apostle, but God Vetoed that pick, and was replaced by Paul, so Matthias was not an apostle. There were only 12 apostles and Jesus chose all 12.

You say, “I don’t understand the RCC traditions or teachings.” I say I may not know because every Roman Catholic I meet tells me different things. I will tell you I have read the Roman Catholic Catechism, so I have a very good understanding of what you believe. I just find it really funny that it took the Council of Trent in 1566 during the reformation to really establish the traditions of the RCC, and it has changed since then many times most recently under Pope John Paul II. Just because the RCC claims to be the first and only church does not make it right. This is why the Reformation happened. The pride of the RCC is mind boggling. We are the first so God loves us more. If you do not follow us then you do not know God. I will say the RCC is starting to realize that the Protestants, and Evangelicals know Jesus and will be going to heaven, but the RCC still despises us. Do I want the approval of the Pope? No.

You will probably take all my points out of context.

If you take anything from what I am saying it is, No one needs the Roman Catholic Church to be saved or any church for that matter, all they need is Jesus Christ. The Good News is that Jesus came to Earth to pay for our sins. With his resurrection he defeated Death, and if you have Faith in Jesus, and accept him as your Lord and Savior He will forgive you of your sins, and you can be with him in Heaven for all eternity. There is nothing that Man or a Church can do for you to do that. Only Jesus.

69

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Jesus also cleansed the Temple of Herod. Make the connection about value and money, and squander, and greed Brother Chris.[/quote]

Please, make the connection for me because I don’t see it. How is people charging for sacrificial animals and the laity of the Church giving their shepherd gifts the same thing? It seems more like Judas’ situation than the money changer’s situation to me.

No. The Church doesn’t charge for sacrifices.

I’m glad.

Actually Jesus is fully human. 100%.

Sounds like you do to. The laity has given the Pope these gifts, it is for our benefit (the laity) to do so and yet you demand that those who receive the gift sell the gift and give it back to us? NO THANK YOU.

This doesn’t even make sense. What are you talking about?

70

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

You will probably take all my points out of context.[/quote]

Well, what can I say, there isn’t one coherent point in this thread, but many small arguments. Commonly known as the machine gun fallacy. That’s why I’ll answer only one or two.

Where is this in the Bible? You don’t need someone to baptize you? You don’t need someone to preach the Good News to you? You don’t need a bulwark and pillar to preach the truth? Interesting, very anti-biblical stance of you.

Sounds like you believe Jesus is disembodied (the Church is Jesus’ body) and left us orphaned (he told Peter to shepherd us). Plus, I don’t believe in salvation by works (if you just “have faith and accept,” very much sound like works to me).

I’m sorry, but I’m a Catholic Evangelist. I go around giving Gospel Presentations and asking the Golden Question “Will you follow Jesus Christ, and accept his as your Lord and Savior” or some variety of the question. I know the Good News. I preach it for a living. I already follow Jesus Christ, I’m a disciple of Jesus Christ, I have been baptized in his name, and I have been taught all that he has commanded. There is more to it than just becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ gave us sacraments, such as Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Matrimony, Holy Orders, Reconciliation, and Anointing of the Sick. He also gave us commandments that we have to follow, it’s called cooperating with Grace. Look it up, it is called the Great Commission. It doesn’t say, make Disciples of all Nations…the end. You have to be brought into the Church (through baptism) and live in the Church (by following all that Jesus has commanded). As there is no salvation outside of the Church.

71

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You have still not explained how it is not humble for the monarch over 1.2 billion people to pay his own bill in person [/quote]

So the Pope is the Monarch or King of all Catholics? Now we are getting somewhere. Only Jesus is the King, and the ONLY one deserved of worship. The Pope is a human just like you and me. No Man is deserved of worship. Ever.

Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess the Jesus Christ is Lord. The focus is on Jesus not the church or the church’s human king. [/quote]

The pope isn’t and never has been an object of worship. He is a servant of the church. His leadership is to lead people to Christ.

This exemplifies what I see most often when it comes to people criticizing Catholics. They take false information and present it as if were a fact. The point of the hierarchy is unification. To keep 1.2 billion people on the same page with regards to faith. You don’t have one leader telling you one thing and another tell you something completely different.

All this I feel goes back to trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. Many protestant leaders have been so consumed with trying to make the Catholic Church fit the definition of ‘the whore of Babylon’ that that they will cease on anything, whether true or not, to make it fit. The biggest problem with that, is that it’s plain anti-scriptural. Jesus himself said that the ‘gate of hell will not prevail against it’.
It does not stand to reason, that Jesus abandoned his church to hell while enlivening the new protestant denominations. In short, this mode of thinking calling Jesus a liar.

72

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
So the Pope is the Monarch or King of all Catholics?[/quote]

Well, if you’re going to speak spiritually, he is the Steward and Shepard, not the king.

Yes, Catholics agree. Never met a Catholic who worshiped the Pope.

Correct, but he has been given authority by God. So, his station in life is different than you and me.

Actually, this is false. Jesus is a Man, and he deserves worship. Actually, it is owed to him under the penalty of law (excommunication, mortal sin, &c.).

Of course not. Not sure where you got this. All I said was that he was a Monarch. You could say the same thing if I pointed out that Juan Carlos I was Monarch. There are plenty of kings. That doesn’t take away from the Kingship of Jesus.

[/quote]

The only reason Jesus is to be worshiped is because he is God. He is fully God and fully Man. If he was only man then everything we both believe would be crap. If the RCC worships Jesus because he is Man then there is a lot more wrong with the RCC than I thought.

The Pope has been given authority by man. He was voted in by a group of cardinals which are men, I know what you are going to say. Jesus told Peter, bla bla bla. The only Biblical Reference of the Apostles picking another apostle was Matthias (Acts 1:23-26), and we see God had a different idea. God chose Saul/Paul. I am making a comparison between the cardinals picking the Pope and the Apostles picking the apostle to replace Judas. Jesus chose all of the apostles, so why has he not chosen all the Popes? The Pope has no station above me. If the Catholics want to bow before a man then so be it, but me and my Evangelical brothers and sisters will resist the control of the Pope, because he is only a man. We only bow before the risen Savior Jesus Christ, who is our Priest. I can go directly to him.
[/quote]
The apostles chose many people and appointed them to many positions in the Church in Acts. The epistle of Timothy was dedicated to finding and appointing overseers, or bishops to the church.
The word piskopos is translated as either bishop or overseer. So the selection of priests, bishops and deacons is very much scriptural.

[quote]

On a side note: I was at a Roman Catholic Church yesterday for a choir contest that my daughter was apart of. One observation I made was, there was a Mass going on and all I heard coming from the room was Mary this and Mary that. Not once did I hear the name of Jesus spoken by the parishenors. Just an observation. [/quote]

You observation is poor. We honor Mary because Jesus honored her. Anybody Jesus deems worthy of honor, is worthy of honor.
Now again, this is scriptural as well for in the Magnificat, Mary says this:
“For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;”
And so it is. To not do so would be to go against what scripture says.

I would not dishonor the mother of Jesus. If you don’t like her, then keep silent. To think Jesus is not protective of His mother is to make a grave error in thought.

I think it’s important for any Christian to consider Mary. Why did God choose her? Why was she the one to raise the son of the living God, risking her life, reputation, everything only to then watch her Son be tortured and killed. Mary’s role in our salvation is only second to Jesus himself. That is not something to disregard. If Jesus found her worthy of honor, who are we to say she is not? Without Mary’s obedience to God, there is no salvation for us.

73

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Jesus also cleansed the Temple of Herod. Make the connection about value and money, and squander, and greed Brother Chris.[/quote]

Please, make the connection for me because I don’t see it. How is people charging for sacrificial animals and the laity of the Church giving their shepherd gifts the same thing? It seems more like Judas’ situation than the money changer’s situation to me.

No. The Church doesn’t charge for sacrifices.

I’m glad.

Actually Jesus is fully human. 100%.

Sounds like you do to. The laity has given the Pope these gifts, it is for our benefit (the laity) to do so and yet you demand that those who receive the gift sell the gift and give it back to us? NO THANK YOU.

This doesn’t even make sense. What are you talking about?
[/quote]

Seems like you are very selective with what you have acknowledged as fact throughout the years and always listened to the excuses. As far as the Church turning into a market place, just open your eyes. :slight_smile:

Christ was not human in the same sense we are human. He was God, or the son of God in a more special way that we are sons and daughters/ children/ the flock of God. Christ was God as well, he was able to cure diseases, turn water into wine and the everyday miracle, on top of knowledge of God, NOT FAITH. Yet, he was human in your book the same way we are? Again, open your eyes.

The laity give so that the leadership of the Church can use the donations for just causes. Doesn’t happen with nearly enough of the proportion of value the church holds onto. Here’s 100 bucks, give it to the wisest man so that he may spend it on the problems of the world. How did that money get spent? I guess we shouldn’t be concerned, the corrupt bank is taking care of it just fine. Don’t worry about it, the Church and the pope are infallible. :slight_smile: Like I said, how are you okay with these fancy men running around being worshiped while people starve, are sick with curable ailments? Judas was pissed because the ointment was wasted, but the ointment is intended to be used for gods work, love, not horded and used to stroke greed. You don’t seem to get that lesson.

74

[quote] 4-But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, 5-“Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” 6-He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. 7-Jesus said, “Leave her alone, so that she may keep itc for the day of my burial. 8-For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”[/quote] John 12

75

Now I am getting double teamed. I just shared the Good News of Jesus and now getting beat up. I was used to that on the offensive line, and also when I was a center on the basketball team. Now two Roman Catholics going into two different directions, and now I will have to address them both.

This is what I am talking about. I have heard 4 different answers from 4 different Roman Catholics. 2 on this website, and 2 in the real world one included is a priest at the local Roman Catholic Church. Jesus is the head of the Church and I agree with that. We his people are the church. Jesus did not leave the church because the Roman Catholic Church is not the only Church on this planet. The Church is ALL believers in Christ. Could the Roman Catholic Church have left Christ? That is a speculation a lot of people could make based on making the Tradition of RCC equal with the Holy Scriptures. Paul said that the sword of Truth was the Holy Word, so the Traditions of the RCC that deviate from the Holy Scriptures are wrong. Did God leave the Jews, and then just move to the Roman Catholic Church? I would say that he did not. Jesus is still a Jew and the word was first for the Jew, and then for the Gentile. All I am saying is that the Church does not only include the Roman Catholic Church as many Roman Catholics believe. And if you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only church, then if “there is no salvation outside of the Church” then you just lied to me on another thread. You stated that the Roman Catholic Church does not decide who is saved, if you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only church then “salvation only comes from the Roman Catholic Church.”

Jesus did not leave us orphaned, but you could say that Jesus is in heaven, and if he is Human as you say then he can not be omnipotent. I will say that the Holy Spirit, or as the RCC says, Holy Ghost, is with us here today to guide the church.

Lets get into works. An acceptance of Jesus as your Lord and Savior is not work, unless accepting the most precious gift for all humanity that was freely given is a work or chore then I will accept that. Sacraments on the other hand are works. Do not get me wrong, I am all for the Sacraments such as Baptism, Communion (I call it the Lord’s Supper, and I do not believe in Transubstantiation), Anointing the Sick, and other things are good for a good Christian Life, and all Christians should try to do those things, BUT they are not necessary to be saved or as Jesus said, “Born Again.”

At Pat, I never came up with the idea of worship. Brother Chris called the Pope a Monarch, and through out history of this Planet, all Monarchs demand homage or what some would say, “worship.” The “whore of babylon” comment I have no clue what you are talking about, but if in reference to Revelation, then it should not matter to the RCC because they have stopped looking at the Book of Revelation because it should be removed from the cannon. At least that is what you said to a Jehovas Witness on this site a couple of years ago.

@Pat, I agree that the selection of Pastors (you call them Priest), elders, and deacons are very scriptural. The selection of the Pope and Cardinals (some are archbishops) are not. Pastors and priests are really not selected by the church so to speak. They are called by God to preach the Word or shepherd the flock, you might say oversee the church.

@Pat, it is one thing to Honor Mary, it is another thing to make her something that she is not. I am not against Mary, but why ask a dead person to pray for you? In Revelation is talks about how the Dead in Christ will rise to meet him in the air. Who are the Dead in Christ? I say they are all Christians who are currently dead. If I am correct then Mary is one of those Dead in Christ, so she is dead and her body has decomposed, and her Spirit is waiting for Jesus to return so she and all other Dead in Christ can meet him in the air. I have stated this before, but the RCC will not strike it down. There is a movement inside the RCC to deify Mary. Many Catholics here have said they would reject the RCC if Mary was ever deified. Would you reject the RCC Pat if Mary was deified? A tradition is nothing more than an idea that is talked about for many generations and then it becomes law in the church. The Eternal Virgin Mary was not made tradition until recently. It was talked about for several hundred years, but not made RCC tradition, please forgive me I am doing this from memory, and included in the catechism either in 1992 or the one in 1907 (I think). I have brought this up before, but why is the traditional Nativity scene of both Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals show just Joseph, Mary, the Baby Jesus, 3 Wisemen, and Shepherds. If Joseph already had children would they not have also had to travel with their Father (Joseph) to Bethleham for the census as order by Cesar? I know the Nativity Scene is not Biblical, but the Holy Scriptures only talk about Joseph, and Mary traveling to Bethleham for the Census. No Joseph children traveling with them. I guess they were with his ex-wife.

Sorry this was so long, but I had to address 2 individuals.

It is amazing how the RCC picks and chooses what part of the Bible they will use and what parts they will not use. This is where I question the RCC about Tradition over Scripture. I know Brother Christ the Scripture is part of tradition.

76

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

At Pat, I never came up with the idea of worship. Brother Chris called the Pope a Monarch, and through out history of this Planet, all Monarchs demand homage or what some would say, “worship.” The “whore of babylon” comment I have no clue what you are talking about, but if in reference to Revelation, then it should not matter to the RCC because they have stopped looking at the Book of Revelation because it should be removed from the cannon. At least that is what you said to a Jehovas Witness on this site a couple of years ago.
[/quote]
With regards to Revelation, that’s my own personal opinion. And it still stands. I don’t see any real intrisic value to it, perhaps the blinds will be lifted off my eyes one day and I will get it, but I don’t pretend to. And all the analysis I have read about it, Protestant, Catholic or otherwise, I just think miss the mark.
My reference there is that it is common in the Protestant community to refer to the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon, which I believe many Protestants believe is the truth. Needless to say it’s wholly offensive and way off the mark. For nobody can proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord, but through the Holy Spirit, and we do. By that fact alone, you can proclaim an entity that holds that truth as dogma to be a tool of satan when it is only by the Holy Spirit that the claim can be made.

Techinically, the highest order in the church is Bishop. It’s really just levels of Bishop-dom, if you will of which the apostles were also.

What is she made, that she is not? She is the Mother of God, we just happen to take that chosen role very seriously.

She is not dead. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. It would be like say Abraham and Moses were dead.

See, that’s one of my issues with Revelation, I would disagree with that interpretation. There is no reason to believe that Mary is ‘dead’. The interplay between spiritual and physical death in Revelations does only well to confuse us as to the nature of what happens in the hear-after. The hear-after is not subject to Earthly time. So the time frames listed for an by the hear-after can only reasonably be metaphorical. That which sits outside the universe is not subject to it’s rules.

That’s a very tiny whack job movement who have no power or influence in the church. They can want what they want. But that violates the dogma of the church and will not happen. The question is not relevant as it goes way outside the scope of the teachings of the church. There are people who want the church to bless gay marriage too, that’s not ever going to happen either. There are whack jobs everywhere, you cannot make that exclusive to the RCC. When I say that movement is tiny, it’s like microscopic in the scope of the church, it cannot and will not happen. You cannot judge the core entity by the lunatic fringe. That would be like condemning all Baptists because of Westboro.

I think what you are referring to is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Which states in a nutshell that for Jesus to be brought forth without sin, his Mother must also have been free from it since he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. It stems from the happenings at Lourdes, and Lourdes has been attributed to many miracles, but I don’t see the point of getting into that. It’s impossible to discuss miracles unless we are aparty to the same one. I usually leave the miracle discussions out of it. People didn’t believe Jesus’s miracles either, even when they happened in their face. And then accused him of being satan for doing miracles. I get why Jesus was not happy about performing signs all the time. In the end, they have little value because it doesn’t really help people with their faith even if they experience one themselves. If they don’t get ‘it’ in the first place, a sign, wonder or miracle will make little difference.

[quote]
It is amazing how the RCC picks and chooses what part of the Bible they will use and what parts they will not use. This is where I question the RCC about Tradition over Scripture. I know Brother Christ the Scripture is part of tradition. [/quote]

That’s a harsh accusation. It’s one I can make against ANY other Christian sect. This is a case of the spec and the log. How can you make that pronouncement about Catholicism, without looking how the discipline you practice does the exact same thing you are accusing the Catholic Church of? If you need help recognizing it, I will cheerfully point all the selective scripture reading of your pick of Protestant sects. Do you really want to go there?
I think you really just don’t understand what the church actually says or it’s stance on many things. You make the accusation that it’s going to deify Mary, as if it had the authority to define who God is, without looking at the fact that the whole notion is exponentially ridiculous. It’s one thing to have a devotion to Jesus’s mother as a guiding light to her Son. It’s a whole other to make her God. Mary was the only person in the Bible Jesus ever took an order from. That, along with the fact that she was chosen over all to Mother the Son of God grants her a special theological place. I think Protestants over look to often how profound it is to be chosen to the the mother of the living God. God must of thought she was pretty special, therefore I do to. It’s no small thing, but the greatest thing save for Christ himself. Of all the people and characters of the Bible, her importance to salvation history is only second to Christ. She brought God into the world, raised him, nurtured him, cleaned his butt, bandaged his scrapes, nurtured him in faith in his youth, and then she got to watch Him be rejected by everyone and be crucified while she was there, powerless to do anything. Do you not think she would have traded places with him in a heart beat? Don’t under estimate the power of ‘Mama’. He loved and adored his mother. If God sees fit to do that, who am I to say that she is not to be honored.
Never mess with a man’s Mom. Damn sure don’t mess with God’s Mom.

77

Pope Francis shuns grand apartment for two room apartment. I deeply admire this man’s moral conviction and abundant humility. Incredible.

78

[quote]pat wrote:
Do you not think she would have traded places with him in a heart beat? [/quote]

Pat, I really enjoy your responses. You actually answer my questions.

The above quote I would say she wouldn’t have. She knew why he was doing what he was doing. She knew if He wanted to bring down angels from heaven he would do it.

This is my opinion but I would think Mary would dislike all the attention she gets from the RCC. She would say, “Why are you asking me to talk to my son. You don’t need me. You can do it yourself. He is right over there. Go talk to him.”

Also to say Mary is without sin is also hard to believe. The Bible says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” Jesus was fully man and fully God. The fully God allowed him to resist temptation. Mary is 100% human so she does not have the ability to resist temptation. I honor Mary, but I do not make here more than what she is. She is human in need of a Savior just like you or I. He being a sinner or her having sex with Joseph does not make her less of a blessed woman. It is not necessary to make her sinless and an eternal virgin. She was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, and was a virgin when she gave birth to him. That is all that was necessary for a virgin birth.

It seems a lot of people on this site believe that sin passes from the man’s sperm to the woman’s egg. Well if that is true then Mary got her father’s sperm when it connected to her mother’s egg. I find my last two sentences funny, so sorry if I really went out there for them.

79

Very nice gesture by the Pope this Holy Thursday. Seems to be the real deal at least by gesture, I’m happy to be wrong about this guy, invoking a little Jesus is what I’ve been hoping for and he served me right where it counts.

Humility, if there is a display of it that is possible I think it happened, and I’m so far convinced that Pope Francis is a humble man, I say so with a smile on my face.

80

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Do you not think she would have traded places with him in a heart beat? [/quote]

Pat, I really enjoy your responses. You actually answer my questions.
[/quote]
Appreciate that D, I do actually enjoy these conversations.

Well of course ultimately I don’t know, but I know the passion of mothers and how they are willing to take the bullet for their children. And certainly know she would share in Christ’s suffering. And as a father, I would take the ‘cross’ from my child if I could and a mother would even more so. For Simeon said:
"And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is appointed nfor the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”
So she too suffered mightily from the events taking place. Knowing His place and who he is did not spare her the agony of watching her Son being abandoned by his closest friends, mocked scoffed, tortured and killed. No mother can endure that, even if they know that it is for the Glory of God and the savior of man.

Her gentle leadership to Christ is her ‘job’. I am not certain she rejects the attention in so long as it is appropriately placed. She is a motherly advocate, a gentle hand in extracting God’s mercy on those who don’t deserve it necessarily. But in the scriptures it says:
“My zsoul magnifies the Lord,
47 band my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for dhe has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.”
So her veneration was predicted in scripture. It would have been a little different if it had said that ‘all generations would remember’, or ‘know’, or ‘acknowledge’, but it says that all generations will call her blessed. I know of no person in the Bible who says that the will be called ‘Blessed’ by ‘All’ generations. That sets her apart scripturally from any other character in the Bible.

Well, I don’t really have a scripture backing for that other than what Luke says, that she was blessed among women and full of grace.

[quote]

It seems a lot of people on this site believe that sin passes from the man’s sperm to the woman’s egg. Well if that is true then Mary got her father’s sperm when it connected to her mother’s egg. I find my last two sentences funny, so sorry if I really went out there for them.[/quote]
Well, I don’t think original sin is well understood. I don’t understand it really all that well myself. I don’t believe it has anything to our flesh per se. It’s a condition for sin for which we are culpable. It’s something I should spend more time with. It’s not something I have done a great deal of research on.