Father?

[Mungo]

I see no one being unkind or not being polite to each other in here, but only discussing our indifference's. It is called the Roman Catholic Church named from Vatican City in Rome where the headquarters for the Catholic Church is found. Many Catholic Churches still call themselves Roman Catholic Church and even printed on the church building or billboards outside the church.

As I pointed out in my post, the title you might see on a church is because they are a Roman (or Latin) rite church. The Roman rite is only part of the whole Catholic Church led by Pope Francis. Therefore to use the term Roman Catholic Church to refer to the whole Catholic Church is incorrect. The general term Roman Catholic Church was a pejorative term of the "reformers" at the Reformation.

 

[Mungo]

Pontifex Maximus
"...it was not until the Empire split in two, with the Western Empire going to the pious, youthful Emperor Gratian (c. 360 AD) that the Pope was given the title Pontifex Maximus. Indeed, feeling that it was not right for he himself to carry that title (since he was, after all, not a Christian priest) the pious young Emperor bestowed it upon Pope Damasus I, who became the first Pope in history to hold the title "Pontifex Maximus."

Yet, this was only a legal title; and the Popes didn't pay much attention to it at the time, but continued to maintain that their authority came from the Apostle Peter and Peter alone. It was not until the Popes began to conflict with several heretical Eastern Emperors (who, by the way, never relinquished the title "Pontifex Maximus" in the Eastern Empire) that the Popes began asserting their legal authority under imperial law.
(Marc Boncore)

 

[for_his_glory]

Kissing a ring
In Medieval times, and earlier, the ring was not just an ornament but an identifier of the person. It was unique to a person and would be used to seal documents so that the person receiving them could be assured it was genuine. The ring symbolized the person’s office, and thus a document had the authority of the office holder. The Pope’s ring is known as the Fisherman’s Ring and symbolizes the Pope as a “fisher of men” The earliest mention of it is 1285 as being used to seal a Pope’s private correspondence.

Kissing the Pope’s ring is a sign of respect for the Pope and his office and acknowledging him as the successor of St. Peter. There are many ways that we show respect to a person and/or their office, bowing, standing if we are sitting, kissing on the cheek. In older times a person would walk backwards out of the room after speaking with a King or Queen so as not to turn their back on them. Kissing a ring is just one of these ways of showing respect, an ancient one.

I agree with the history, but I have a problem showing anyone respect in the sense of someone being higher as another as we are only a servant of God that kinda of respect needs to belong to God alone as Peter spoke in Acts 10:34-38.

 

[for_his_glory]

Pontifex Maximus
"...it was not until the Empire split in two, with the Western Empire going to the pious, youthful Emperor Gratian (c. 360 AD) that the Pope was given the title Pontifex Maximus. Indeed, feeling that it was not right for he himself to carry that title (since he was, after all, not a Christian priest) the pious young Emperor bestowed it upon Pope Damasus I, who became the first Pope in history to hold the title "Pontifex Maximus."

Yet, this was only a legal title; and the Popes didn't pay much attention to it at the time, but continued to maintain that their authority came from the Apostle Peter and Peter alone. It was not until the Popes began to conflict with several heretical Eastern Emperors (who, by the way, never relinquished the title "Pontifex Maximus" in the Eastern Empire) that the Popes began asserting their legal authority under imperial law.
(Marc Boncore)

You add to another question I have. If Peter, according to Catholic tradition, was the first Pope in Rome then why did they, according to tradition crucify him upside down on a cross which was suppose to be his own request in how he wanted crucified.

I could be wrong, but I can't find anywhere in scripture where Peter ever went to Rome. The only place that says he did is in the Catholic Encyclopedia and in the writings of the early church fathers that seem to place Peter in Rome. If it's not found in scripture or reseaching the history of Peter I can not accept this as fact.

 

[GodsGrace]

I knew you were not Catholic anymore as you have stated that a long time ago. The reason I tagged you into my post was to show you and @Mundo what I believe to be true compared to what you believe to be true. It matters that we disagree, but yet doesn't matter when I know I can not present what I would want to, but it would come against the ToS so that I will keep to myself.

We are good because you are my sister in Christ and that's all that matters even if we disagree

Amen to that.

 

[GodsGrace]

Being born again doesn't meant you are guaranteed to go to heaven. But this strays into OSAS which is banned so we had better leave it there. So no, I don't believe all Catholics go the heaven.

I don't really understand how it would stray into eternal salvation.
We don't have to discuss this...just tell me what you mean.
When baptized, O.Sin, according to Augustine, is removed. HE changed the original understanding of O.S., which I'm sorry about.

But the baby is not saved at that point unless he dies before the age of reason.

At the age of reason, the young adult must, by his own voluntary action, accept the teachings of the CC and the laws of Christ.

Is this your understanding?

It has nothing, at this point, to do with eternal security.

 

[GodsGrace]

So, we are to bow down and worship someone in respect of the office they hold and kiss their holy ring and call them "Holy Father"?

Let me ask you what makes the institution of the Roman Catholic church any different from any other denomination or even non-denominations?

Why are we not called to bow down and worship our appointed leaders in the church?

Why do Cardinals bow down an literally kiss the red papal shoes?

Why is Pope Francis the first ever Jesuit Pope when according to their laws a Pope can not come from the order of the Jesuits?

When scripture says to call no man your father upon the earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven, this does not mean to not call your own biological parents mom and dad. This means that anyone that is called by God as being equipped in the word of God and anointed and sealed by the Holy Spirit to be in charged of the church being the body of Christ under the leadership of Christ being the head of the church, not a Jesuit Priesthood, should not be held in higher esteem than our Father in heaven.

When the Pope calls himself "Holy Father" as being the supreme Pontifex Maximus and the Holy See that is the sovereign entity by international law in Vatican City and Priest, Cardinals and the congregation of the Roman Catholic church bow down and worship him this places the praise and worship upon a man and and takes it away from God.

I have to agree that kissing the Pope's ring is ridiculous. I don't believe this is done anymore.

Except for some little old ladies, I don't know anyone that worships the Pope, although many liked Pope John Paul a lot.

This is definitely one thing I don't like about the CC.

BTW, not too many like this Pope anymore.
Not only does he have heretical beliefs, but I believe it has gone all the way to apostacy. Many priests are speaking out against him.

God has His ways.

 

[Mungo]

I agree with the history, but I have a problem showing anyone respect in the sense of someone being higher as another as we are only a servant of God that kinda of respect needs to belong to God alone as Peter spoke in Acts 10:34-38.

The early Church had a hierarchy.
Most churches have a pastor or elder.
Jesus had his inner circle of Peter James and John, then the twelve, then other disciples.

 

[Mungo]

You add to another question I have. If Peter, according to Catholic tradition, was the first Pope in Rome then why did they, according to tradition crucify him upside down on a cross which was suppose to be his own request in how he wanted crucified.

I could be wrong, but I can't find anywhere in scripture where Peter ever went to Rome. The only place that says he did is in the Catholic Encyclopedia and in the writings of the early church fathers that seem to place Peter in Rome. If it's not found in scripture or reseaching the history of Peter I can not accept this as fact.

I think a reliance on scripture for every fact in life is unscriptural.

 

[Mungo]

I don't really understand how it would stray into eternal salvation.
We don't have to discuss this...just tell me what you mean.
When baptized, O.Sin, according to Augustine, is removed. HE changed the original understanding of O.S., which I'm sorry about.

But the baby is not saved at that point unless he dies before the age of reason.

At the age of reason, the young adult must, by his own voluntary action, accept the teachings of the CC and the laws of Christ.

Is this your understanding?

It has nothing, at this point, to do with eternal security.

Perhaps I misunderstood you but you seemed to be saying in post #81 that if you were born again you were guaranteed heaven.

 

[GodsGrace]

You add to another question I have. If Peter, according to Catholic tradition, was the first Pope in Rome then why did they, according to tradition crucify him upside down on a cross which was suppose to be his own request in how he wanted crucified.

I could be wrong, but I can't find anywhere in scripture where Peter ever went to Rome. The only place that says he did is in the Catholic Encyclopedia and in the writings of the early church fathers that seem to place Peter in Rome. If it's not found in scripture or reseaching the history of Peter I can not accept this as fact.

Hi FHG,
We cannot depend on scripture for everything that happened in history. The N.T. was written about Jesus...not to give a historical account of everyone involved..i.e. the Apostles.

St. Peter's is named for Peter. It is believed that he is buried under the basilica. One could accept this or not; it's not important to me either - but history does state that Peter travelled to Rome and is the reason Rome was looked to for guidance at the beginning of the Apostolic time, after Jesus ascended and some years had passed.

Catholic tradition wants to say Peter was the first Pope,,,this is not historically correct, and they know it, but they want to give him this title. I've gone through the history other times and hate to repeat again.

The first Catholic Pope was not names as such until about the 600's.

 

[GodsGrace]

Perhaps I misunderstood you but you seemed to be saying in post #81 that if you were born again you were guaranteed heaven.

I do agree with that. I won't go back and read my post again since there is no misunderstanding.

If one is born again at the time of death, he indeed is going to be with God.

 

[Mungo]

If one is born again at the time of death, he indeed is going to be with God.

Agreed

 

[Mungo]

Catholic tradition wants to say Peter was the first Pope,,,this is not historically correct, and they know it, but they want to give him this title. I've gone through the history other times and hate to repeat again.

The first Catholic Pope was not names as such until about the 600's.

I've heard all sorts of dates for when the title 'Pope' was used, But they are irrelevant because the title Pope is merely a title of the office at some point in time.
It's the office that is important not the title.
Peter was appointed as leader of the apostles and of his Church by Jesus. That is the office and as the successor of Peter, the Pope hold the office.

If you want me to go through the scriptures I will do so.

 

[GodsGrace]

I've heard all sorts of dates for when the title 'Pope' was used, But they are irrelevant because the title Pope is merely a title of the office at some point in time.
It's the office that is important not the title.
Peter was appointed as leader of the apostles and of his Church by Jesus. That is the office and as the successor of Peter, the Pope hold the office.

If you want me to go through the scriptures I will do so.

As you yourself have stated....
not all history is found in scripture.

Also, I find it unimportant whether or not Jesus made Peter the head of the church...And on this rock...it could be understood that the rock is Peter or the rock is Jesus: Depends on which theologian one is speaking to.

What I DO find important is that Jesus gave the keys to Peter...
keys represent authority.

 

[for_his_glory]

Hi FHG,
We cannot depend on scripture for everything that happened in history. The N.T. was written about Jesus...not to give a historical account of everyone involved..i.e. the Apostles.

St. Peter's is named for Peter. It is believed that he is buried under the basilica. One could accept this or not; it's not important to me either - but history does state that Peter travelled to Rome and is the reason Rome was looked to for guidance at the beginning of the Apostolic time, after Jesus ascended and some years had passed.

Catholic tradition wants to say Peter was the first Pope,,,this is not historically correct, and they know it, but they want to give him this title. I've gone through the history other times and hate to repeat again.

The first Catholic Pope was not names as such until about the 600's.

I've also researched this outside of scripture like I do many things and the only place I found anything about this was from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Now Paul on the other hand did help to establish Christian Churches in Rome as he went there to preach.

 

[JohnDB]

IMHO...
God sets up leaders or deposes them...(Daniel)

So...the Pope is obviously set in place by God. There have been Popes that haven't lasted more than a day...others a couple weeks.

But God has also set up other Christian leaders. Their effectiveness and success can only be ascribed as being of God. (Billy Graham and others coming to mind)

The Reformation happened. It's undeniable that God had inspired those involved with it as well. The results, while not in the Catholic Church's best interests, were in the common man's.

So...
I'm kinda lost as to why this matters.

 

[for_his_glory]

I think a reliance on scripture for every fact in life is unscriptural.

Scripture is silent on some facts and that is why it is so important to study history and also the various cultures found in the Bible.

 

[for_his_glory]

IMHO...
God sets up leaders or deposes them...(Daniel)

So...the Pope is obviously set in place by God. There have been Popes that haven't lasted more than a day...others a couple weeks.

But God has also set up other Christian leaders. Their effectiveness and success can only be ascribed as being of God. (Billy Graham and others coming to mind)

The Reformation happened. It's undeniable that God had inspired those involved with it as well. The results, while not in the Catholic Church's best interests, were in the common man's.

So...
I'm kinda lost as to why this matters.

In a sense it does matter when discussing types of religious denominations and how they were founded as not all are founded on the rock nor given the keys to the kingdom of God. It's all in who we call Father.

 

[GodsGrace]

IMHO...
God sets up leaders or deposes them...(Daniel)

So...the Pope is obviously set in place by God. There have been Popes that haven't lasted more than a day...others a couple weeks.

But God has also set up other Christian leaders. Their effectiveness and success can only be ascribed as being of God. (Billy Graham and others coming to mind)

The Reformation happened. It's undeniable that God had inspired those involved with it as well. The results, while not in the Catholic Church's best interests, were in the common man's.

So...
I'm kinda lost as to why this matters.

Just talking....