Tell me, is the Pope a thief?

[Hookeye]

I wonder why the Pope appears to be courting the left.

Is he trying to save them?

He seems to be playing nice, letting them get closer, as if some future dialogue is going to enlighten them.

The left is evil. I would prefer the Pope take a hard lined approach to them.

 

[Shadow8088]

Use you imagination

also known as "I don't want to have to cite specific information, I'd just rather spout off and not have to back it up"

 

[mbills2223]

Use you imagination

I'm trying...came up empty. Now what?

 

[rhino]

Ah, and my now legendary IGNORE list grows by one more.

When I said politics I meant US politics (left vs. Right)

Hmmm . . . okay. I agree it's unlikely he's trying to directly meddle in our political system, but the overlap in his personal (as expressed) socio-political and economic beliefs has significant overlap with those in America I'd label socialist-statists. I don't think there is any doubt that he has contempt for capitalism and sees it as a problem rather than the reality that capitalism has allowed more people to raise themselves out of genuine poverty than any other system has (or could). I think he would very much like Catholics and the rest of the US to move even farther socialism. That's misguided at the very best.

The new pope I'd compare him to barrack hussein Obama , but white! Worst pope I've seen in my life!

Well, I don't think the Pope is that league. I don't think the Pope is a puppet with someone like George Soros' hand up his a** pulling the strings that make him talk, for one thing. I also don't believe he is engaged or has any interest in self-aggrandizement. He's just willfully choosing some very bad ideas (i.e. socialism, anthropogenic global warming, etc.) and pushing them in an inappropriate venue. I'm sure he believes he's being compassionate, but he's wrong. Those ideas and policies are dehumanizing, disrespectful of the ultimate minority (the individual), and ultimately lead to slavery to the state. He's wrong, he'll never realize it much less admit, and he is doing a disservice to all by speaking of such things from his position, which allows him undue influence in that regard.

I wonder why the Pope appears to be courting the left.

Is he trying to save them?

He seems to be playing nice, letting them get closer, as if some future dialogue is going to enlighten them.

The left is evil. I would prefer the Pope take a hard lined approach to them.

I think it's just a matter of their philosophies having a lot of overlap. Their motives are completely different. I don't doubt that he has the best of intentions, but that's not good enough.

 

[Fargo]

Allow to me to clarify some points so as to be clear:

1. My comment may have come across as hateful, and in regards to the Catholic church as an organization it was so. Even so, I made an effort to avoid the even stronger admonishments given by notable theologians such as Spurgeon or Calvin in which the office of pope and the spawns of hell are closely tied. I attempted to soften the blow enough for conversation, but it is a very terrible sticking point and it can only be softened so far.

2. It is perfectly possible for the average Catholic to be a saved, born-again Christian despite claiming allegiance to the Catholic Church. Hatred is specifically directed not at the masses in this case but rather at the leaders and organizers who lead them astray. It is indeed that fine splitting which is so vile, as much like the Pharisees they have a form of godliness while denying the Spirit thereof.

3. Regarding Matthew 16:8, allow us to look at the context with a few more verses from that text:

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And 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. 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. " Matthew 16:13-18 (NASB)

Let us further clarify the original Greek from which this is translated: Peter in this case is (best I can spell it with an English keyboard) "Petros" that is, a pebble, boulder, or stone in the masculine form. The word "rock" immediately proceeding, however, is not Petros, but rather petra, or a ledge, cliff, large stone in the feminine form. In the context of the verses above, it is hardly reaching to determine that while Peter was indeed to be a boulder for the early church and a major leader in its formation, he was not to be the ledge on which all rested. That honor was reserved for the confession of Christ's Bride, the Church, which would bind all Christians: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

4. The office of pope, were it only a convenience to describe an elder,presbyter,bishop, whatever you want to call it who had risen to leadership prominence for a time would be perfectly acceptable. Peter, ironically, was indeed the apparent leader and spokesperson for the twelve or even the entire group of disciples who followed Christ during His earthly ministry. Calling him a "pope" because he was a major leadership figure in the church would not itself be blasphemous. The issue comes when the pope claims divine authority or mandate for his position and speaks as if for God when he in actuality lacks that divine mandate, as he does when speaking ex cathedra.

5. To provide example for a vile and blasphemous teaching which this pope and others have upheld for centuries, I give you the veneration of Mary the mother of Jesus. While I am aware that Catholicism would fervently deny the worship of Mary, at least in the sense that Christ is worshiped, the stature she is given is heinous enough in itself as well as darkly humorous. In particular the position of "Queen of Heaven" strikes a laughable chord as this was given to the female fertility goddess(es) such as Ishtar or Isis whose worship and imagery rather strongly resemble the veneration of Mary. The Catholic Church as an organization, and the popes in particular, have expanded upon her authority and power since the Council of Ephesus way back in the 4th century.

Furthermore, the "Hail Mary" prayer by its own use and existence denies Christ's own teachings regarding proper prayer. "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him." Matthew 6:7-8 (NASB)

The strong influence of pagan belief and ritual permeates much of Catholic doctrine under the veneer of Godly worship. That the office of pope continues to propagate such syncretism justifies my insistence that the office is blasphemous and vile.

What language is "petros" and what language were the original words spoken in? What language were the words originally written down in? If you bother to acknowledge the answer to those two questions, you see how that tired 17th century argument falls apart both linguistically and historically, especially when you consider that it is based off copies of a copy and not even the original translation.

Then again I don't know why I'm even bothering to discuss this with someone who begins by saying he is hateful of the Catholic faith.

 

[Alpo]

Actually Matthew 16 has a bit of controversy associated with it. During much of the first century, a number of Christian groups believed they existed in end times (Matthew 24). Hardly unimaginable in light of the death of the Savior, destruction of the Jewish Temple, Nero, Vespasian, etc..

Did Matthew truly write this or was this a later insertion based on oral testimony? Or was it the fact that it was now the 2nd Century and people who "heard" those words were now dead and gone and therefore the quote was either in error, falsely attributed or a basis upon which to bring structure to the growing groups of Christians across the Mediterranean? Your guess would be as good as mine. Since it was originally written in Aramaic and Cephus was used in Gallatians and Colossians numerous times, I would think that the attribution to Jesus is probably the correct one.

In Koine Greek petra and petros were synonyms, in Attic Greek not. But what of the original Aramaic? Cephas is from the Aramaic "Kepha" which means rock, not stone, not pebble. This observation by the fire and brimstone boys has been disproven by so many scholars that it's a wonder it even shows up on INGO. But we know that some still hold the Earth to be 6000 years old so go figure.

And the argument generally stops there. Why isn't the next sentence of dialogue read despite being within the same thought?

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 16:19 New Int'l Version

 

[foszoe]

5. To provide example for a vile and blasphemous teaching which this pope and others have upheld for centuries, I give you the veneration of Mary the mother of Jesus. While I am aware that Catholicism would fervently deny the worship of Mary, at least in the sense that Christ is worshiped, the stature she is given is heinous enough in itself as well as darkly humorous. In particular the position of "Queen of Heaven" strikes a laughable chord as this was given to the female fertility goddess(es) such as Ishtar or Isis whose worship and imagery rather strongly resemble the veneration of Mary. The Catholic Church as an organization, and the popes in particular, have expanded upon her authority and power since the Council of Ephesus way back in the 4th century.

Furthermore, the "Hail Mary" prayer by its own use and existence denies Christ's own teachings regarding proper prayer. "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him." Matthew 6:7-8 (NASB)

The strong influence of pagan belief and ritual permeates much of Catholic doctrine under the veneer of Godly worship. That the office of pope continues to propagate such syncretism justifies my insistence that the office is blasphemous and vile.

It is a biblical teaching to bless Mary. How do you fulfill this in your daily life?

You mention the 4th ecumenical council. Do you believe any of the church councils got it right?

Is Jesus fully God and fully human?

Does Jesus have kept the commandment to Honor his mother?

Should we be disrespectful towards her?

Is Mary to be called the Mother of God or the mother of a man??

Isn't the key word, vain not repetition in your scripture citation?

Does Jesus tell his disciples to pray in a repetitive formula?

Do you believe it is wrong to practice the Lord's prayer daily?

If you pray the Lord's prayer do you use the version from Matthew or Luke?

I personally have never heard the Lukan version prayed in a group setting, why do you think that is?

 

[PistolBob]

Allow to me to clarify some points so as to be clear

Didn't bother to read all of it. I will just ask you to do one thing....go read the preface in your KJV...especially the parts that refer to the Latin Vulgate.

Have a great Sunday Rock. BTW...do you have a large collection of Chick Tracts?

 

[Fargo]

Didn't bother to read all of it. I will just ask you to do one thing....go read the preface in your KJV...especially the parts that refer to the Latin Vulgate.

Have a great Sunday Rock. BTW...do you have a large collection of Chick Tracts?

I love the little chick cartoon pamphlets. So unintentionally funny.

 

[Spear Dane]

If the Pope is a thief then so is every other 'man of God' that stood on a pulpit. I really don't even get the basis for this question. Modern Popes are far from having it easy.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Ok, as suggested I've researched the liberation theology. It may not have started that way, but it's definitely metastasized into pretty much what I referred to. I maintain that the only effective way to lift all these people out of poverty is to give them a good capitalism and teach them proper care and feeding.

 

[Leo]

I maintain that the only effective way to lift all these people out of poverty is to give them a good capitalism and teach them proper care and feeding.

+1

In addition, the only way capitalism really works is when the participants have enough moral charactor to deal fairly and not conspire in corruption with leaders to cheat.

Christianity can build good moral fiber, men of good moral fiber do right, doing right builds a society, and the economy. No shortcuts. Taking money from the productive and pouring it over poverty is never a solution. Investing in real mentorship, (not run by the government) is the solution.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Is he a thief? Well he did steal this baby. And he laughed as he did it.

 

[Mark 1911]

If you expect the pope to conform to any particular party line you will be disappointed, that's not his job or his mission. He challenges both sides in some form or fashion. Remember that during Jesus' public ministry, many made the mistake of thinking that Jesus would be a political liberator, a powerful king, that the Messiah would be the one to free them from Roman occupation. And when Jesus died before their dreams were realized, they immediately concluded that he was a failure and a sham. But that was not the kind of liberation that Jesus came to establish.

 

[mbills2223]

If you expect the pope to conform to any particular party line you will be disappointed, that's not his job or his mission. He challenges both sides in some form or fashion. Remember that during Jesus' public ministry, many made the mistake of thinking that Jesus would be a political liberator, a powerful king, that the Messiah would be the one to free them from Roman occupation. And when Jesus died before their dreams were realized, they immediately concluded that he was a failure and a sham. But that was not the kind of liberation that Jesus came to establish.

Well said Mark.

 

[Fargo]

Well said Mark.

+1

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you expect the pope to conform to any particular party line you will be disappointed, that's not his job or his mission. He challenges both sides in some form or fashion. Remember that during Jesus' public ministry, many made the mistake of thinking that Jesus would be a political liberator, a powerful king, that the Messiah would be the one to free them from Roman occupation. And when Jesus died before their dreams were realized, they immediately concluded that he was a failure and a sham. But that was not the kind of liberation that Jesus came to establish.

 

[rambone]

The true cornerstone of the church

3. Regarding Matthew 16:8, allow us to look at the context with a few more verses from that text:

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And 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. 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. " Matthew 16:13-18 (NASB)

Let us further clarify the original Greek from which this is translated: Peter in this case is (best I can spell it with an English keyboard) "Petros" that is, a pebble, boulder, or stone in the masculine form. The word "rock" immediately proceeding, however, is not Petros, but rather petra, or a ledge, cliff, large stone in the feminine form. In the context of the verses above, it is hardly reaching to determine that while Peter was indeed to be a boulder for the early church and a major leader in its formation, he was not to be the ledge on which all rested. That honor was reserved for the confession of Christ's Bride, the Church, which would bind all Christians: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

What language is "petros" and what language were the original words spoken in? What language were the words originally written down in? If you bother to acknowledge the answer to those two questions, you see how that tired 17th century argument falls apart both linguistically and historically, especially when you consider that it is based off copies of a copy and not even the original translation.

The entire papacy seems to revolve around the hermeneutics of this one single passage. There is a lot at stake in getting the meaning correct.

ROS expressed the linguistic problem, which based on the Greek text leaves distinction between petra and petros. Fargo, if the text is unreliable, "based on copies of a copy," don't you find it problematic to base so much doctrine off of that one potentially mistranslated line?

There are lots of further weaknesses in the Catholic argument that Peter was made into the rock foundation of the church:

1. For one thing, the cornerstone had already been laid! The Lord declares in the OT what his church is built on: "a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation" (Isaiah 28:16). There is only one tested and sure foundation, and that is God's precious son, Jesus Christ. This would be consistent with what Jesus said in Matthew 16, that the boulder that the church was built on is the truth that "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus simply acknowledged that Peter spoke the truth -- the truth that is the foundation of Christianity.

2. If Peter is the infallible cornerstone of the church, isn't it strange that Jesus harshly rebukes him -- literally a few verses later? Jesus says to Peter: "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man" (Matthew 16:21-23).

3. There is no concurring scriptural evidence that Peter was a superior to the other apostles. If Peter were the pope, we would expect that little bit of information to be present in, say, Acts of the Apostles or one of Peter's letters or Paul's letters. But nowhere is Peter referred to as the infallible pope or #1 Apostle. In fact, Peter has to be publicly rebuked by Paul for mistreating Christians who were former Gentiles! (Galatians 2:11-14) Paul says that Peter "stood condemned!"

4. The apostles did not suffer from any confusion about the cornerstone of the Church. Peter declared Jesus Christ the cornerstone of the church, not himself (Acts 4:8-12). Paul concurred that Christ is the cornerstone, not Peter (Ephesians 2:19-20).

5. The church doesn't need a "Vicar of Christ" because Jesus Christ is alive! He maintains all authority in Heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18), remains with us always (Matthew 28:20), remains our high priest (Hebrews 4:14-16), and maintains the position of sole intercessor (1 Timothy 2:5). To introduce the pope as a substitute for Christ on earth is unfounded, superfluous, and blasphemous. And all based on a badly interpreted verse.

 

[Fargo]

The entire papacy seems to revolve around the hermeneutics of this one single passage. There is a lot at stake in getting the meaning correct.

ROS expressed the linguistic problem, which based on the Greek text leaves distinction between petra and petros. Fargo, if the text is unreliable, "based on copies of a copy," don't you find it problematic to base so much doctrine off of that one potentially mistranslated line?

I have zero problem with accepting that Gospel in the Greek translation as that is the only one that survives. What I do have a problem with is an attempt to completely rewrite it via linguistic games based off a particular Greek dialect when we are at least two, if not 3, languages down the road from the language the words were spoken in.

Its kinda like when the SCOTUS discovers that the constitution means something completely new hundreds of years after it was written; except in this case we are talking about over a millennium and the inspired word of God.

Further, that passage is far from the only one supporting Peter as the head of the Church. It is just the most explicit.

Almost every Epistle in the New Testament makes it clear there is a hierarchy with the Church. Heck, the Epistles were generally exercises of that authority.

 

[Alpo]

Cut to the chase, Rambone. There weren't any protestants around in the first few centuries of the faith. Yes, there were various sects and if you want to debate the meaning of the gnostic gospels, that's quite a different matter. Then there were the Marcion's who held that only Mark and Paul's Epistles were relevant. No OT at all.

I would also observe that the reason you infer that Peter wasn't the "rock" within the epistles is because of the opinion Paul had of himself. Quite a bit of self-promotion.