Well, for the past few weeks, one of the top stories dominating the news has been the passing of pope John Paul II and the now newly elected pope Benedict XVII. Now, before I go into with what I'm going to say, let me start out by saying this: I believe we are all made by the hand of God. I believe we all have a preordained destiny designed by God. I believe that while down here on earth, we make our choices of whether or not we actually *want* anything to even do with God by choosing to accept Him or reject Him.
Now, as far as the pope himself goes, he also has a destiny designed by God. But, is the pope the 'vicar of Christ'? Is he the 'Holy Father'? Is he infallible when he reads and interprets scripture? No. No. And - no.
The pope is no 'vicar of Christ'. He is no substitute nor is he a continuation of Christ. However, the Holy Spirit *is* Christ. He is the comforter and the mediator on our behalf to Christ. Which is the reason why don't need any man for a job that the Holy Spirit can clearly handle on His own.
The pope is no 'Holy Father' either. The only ones who are Holy are God the Father, God the Son, and God the *Holy* Spirit. I also believe that God's Word is Holy as well. Besides, Rev. 15:4 clearly states that only the Lord is Holy. In Isaiah 42:8 God says "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.".
Now, as for the "infallible" part. Without trying to sound disrespectful or flippant....do they really expect me to believe that a whole group of about one hundred *fallible* men get together in a conclave to elect another fallible man into the position of pope where he suddenly becomes *in*fallible when interpreting scripture? Ok, I just read what I wrote
and I must say, that idea sounds just as ridiculous reading it as it did when I wrote it. Maybe they believe that the Holy Spirit comes over the pope and makes this happen? Ok, let's go with that. Let's say that the Spirit does *indeed* make the pope infallible when reading scripture. Well then, why doesn't the Spirit do the same for me, Muddy, Skywalker, Cwilli or any other Christian out there? The answer is that the Holy Spirit *doesn't* do that because NO ONE IS INFALLIBLE! The Bible clearly states that - ALL have sinned (Romans 3:23) - so no one is perfect in anything. Besides, I believe we receive convictions from the Holy Spirit for at least 3 reasons: 1) to convict us when we do wrong. 2) To convict our heart and spirit to take action in certain ways and areas within our lives and/or the lives of others. 3) To convict us when reading the scriptures of how to interpret and apply God's Word to our lives. So basically, if the pope were indeed infallible with scripture, we wouldn't need the Spirit, Himself, to tell us as individuals how to interpret them for our own lives because we would have the pope to do it for us.
I could go on and on but I've carried on more than I care to anyway and this is MUCH longer than I anticipated. Sorry. Well, now that I've *completely* blasphemed against the Roman Catholic Church (though, I'm pretty certain I can live with that fact), I'll rap it up by saying that John Paul II did very well seem to be "the people's pope" in the way that he reached out to people in such a way that (according to the Catholic Church) had really never been done before. As for me, I never wished him any ill will nor do I wish the new pope the same, nor am I the judge
of their hearts - only God can be. I just find it interesting that the Roman Catholics fashion the position of the pope in the way to copy who they believed Peter the apostle to be (in their belief - the first pope).....however, ironically, Peter was quite the opposite. I leave you with Peter's quote to a man by the name Cornelius ....."And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." Acts 10:25-26
Totally agree.
I find it weird that Catholics can find any similarity between what they read in the New Testament and what they see in their Church. totally bizarre
Posted by: Colin at April 25, 2005 07:34 AMMuddy wrote:
"I just find it interesting that the Roman Catholics fashion the position of the pope in the way to copy who they believed Peter the apostle to be (in their belief - the first pope).....however, ironically, Peter was quite the opposite."
I'm interested in hearing you elaborate upon this.
"I leave you with Peter's quote to a man by the name Cornelius ....."And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." Acts 10:25-26"
This is very likely what JPII would have done as well.
"Muddy wrote:"
Well, first off: *Muddy* only came up with the title for my post as I was stumped for one myself. I was the one who wrote the post itself so that would be *mrs.* muddy to you.:-)
"I'm interested in hearing you elaborate upon this."
Well, pardon my seemingly stupidity (or perhaps it's just the feverish head cold that I'm fighting this week) but I'm not sure exactly what you wish me to elaborate on. It's just been my understanding recently that Roman Catholics (if not all catholics) believe that Peter was the first pope and whoever has the position of the pope is known as the "Holy Father" and that he will be infalible when it comes to reading scripture.
Well, like the verse stated that I quoted: "...But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.". This doesn't just show the fact that Peter knew he was not worthy of such (or any) worship from Cornelius (or from anyone else), but that Peter clearly understood that he was just a mere mortal and that no one is of a perfect nature...no matter the situation.
Not to mention the fact that in Matt 23:9 it states"...call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.". Now, obviously, I don't believe Jesus was talking about a biological or adoptive father but I believe he was talking about a 'title of honor' so to speak. At least that's the best I've been able to come up with so far when I looked it up in my "Strong's Dictionary". However, I'm still studying it myself. Anyway, Jesus prohibits the usage of "father" to anyone on earth but yet that's what the pope is called.
"This is very likely what JPII would have done as well."
Maybe...but doesn't the pope have a ring that people bend down to kiss (maybe I've been misinformed on that)? Is that more out of respect or to acknowledge the high authority the church has given them? I ask because I truely don't know....I can only speculate.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at April 29, 2005 02:54 PM