The Pope – The Vicar of Christ

[JLB]

This looks like another piece of anti-Catholic fakery.

I have searched for papal bulls of Paul V and come up with "Unigenitus" - "Condemnation of the Errors of Paschasius" which contains nothing like this.

Also Wikipedia in its list of papal bulls only gives one for Paul V called Exponi nobis nuper fecistis which I can only find in Latin. According to Wikipedia it "Regulates dowries of Roman Jews" so it's unlikely to say what is claimed.

But even if this claim were true it does not forbid people to read and study the Bible.

So no contradiction to 2 Tim 2:15

Try reading Foxes Book of martyrs.

It’s a real eye opener.



Here s the link to the source of the Papal curse upon Bible believing Christians.


https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/papal-curses-against-bible-distribution.html

 

[JLB]

The Council of Trent was held in several sessions from 1545 to 1563. The council was convoked to help the church respond to the challenge posed by the Protestant Reformation, which had begun with Martin Luther decades earlier. The council played a large part in the revitalization of the Roman Catholic Churchthroughout Europe.[1]

A number of canons assigning automatic excommunication were enacted, which became part of the church's canon law. Heresies about the Sacraments or de fide doctrines which had been rejected or re-defined by the Protestants were specified and assigned automatic excommunication for Catholics who held them. These canons still apply today, as evidenced by the fact that the contemporary Catechism of the Catholic Church cites them as authoritative on almost every page.



Original sin is a Catholic doctrine that teaches that all human beings are born with the taint of Adam and Eve's sin; this taint can only be removed through baptism. Some Protestants re-defined (or rejected) original sin. The following canon laws were enacted to punish heretics in the church who rejected this belief.

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema.
3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema.
4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema.
5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_excommunicable_offences_from_the_Council_of_Trent





With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so. Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from the same opening? James 3:9-11


But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, Matthew 5:44



Do you believe it’s right for the “pope” or the Roman Catholic Church to curse people who don’t agree with them?




JLB

 

[Mungo]

Nope!

The discussion certainly is not about praying for each other.


The discussing is about praying to Mary, or praying to saints, so that they will mediate between the person praying and God.


There is one Mediator between God and man.


For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 1 Timothy 2:6



Mary is not a mediator!

Saints are not mediators!

Angels are not mediators!




JLB

Intercession is mediation.

 

[Mungo]

Try reading Foxes Book of martyrs.

It’s a real eye opener.



Here s the link to the source of the Papal curse upon Bible believing Christians.


https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/papal-curses-against-bible-distribution.html

I see you like reading fiction.

I'm still waiting for your to show me where these "ten rules" are in the Council of Trents decrees.
Here is a link to them: Council of Trent
Also here is a link to Wikipedia's list of Papal Bulls. I note your source for this supposed Bull of Paul V gives not name of the Bull or date of issue.

 

[JLB]

Intercession is mediation.

Again, praying for one another is what we as Christian’s do.

Praying to Mary, or to saints is not what Christian’s do.



There is one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5


Mary is not a co-mediatrix.

Hopefully we can agree on this.



JLB

 

[JLB]

I'm still waiting for your to show me where these "ten rules" are in the Council of Trents decrees.

I don’t anything about ten rules in the council of Trent.

 

[Mosheli]

I don't have any problem with Peter being the leader of the apostles (though James was the leader of the community, and Jesus is the head/groom of the church, and though Peter was only little stone/rock while Jesus is the real rock/stone). I have no problem with "Babylon" in Peter's letter being Rome, but I haven't seen any historical/biblical evidence Peter was there and it seems that he was only passing on greetings he had read/heard/received from there but was not also there himself (and Jerusalem not Rome is the center/capital of the Church). I have no problem that authority is important and having one leader/head is too. Nor do I deny that the apostles and church have some authority.
But when I researched the popes list I found that the early popes list really matches the Roman emperors list (eg pope Pius I matches emperor Antoninus Pius in name, meaning, dates, details, and the preceding & succeeding popes & emperors also match all in order), so the popes can't not be genuine successors of Peter (having his keys/authority) and can't be true vicars of Christ. I also found that the patriarchs of Constantinople also match the eastern emperors list too, so that means all the apostolic successions are called into doubt.
Not that I am all anti Catholic or Roman. There are some traditionalist things l like about Catholicism, and my mother's father was an Italian WW2 pow, and the Roman culture/civilisation had some good things. But I simply can not accept what seems a secret lie or wrong. So I just wanted to share my own personal view & info about the popes list matching the emperors list, because watching the discussion here I see the same pope is Peter's successor and has his keys argument used since the synod of Whitby in the 600s ad is so very convincing to many christians. I have no problem if people want to accept the pope is Peter's successor as long as it is openly admitted and not secret (as is the case alot of christians and christian organisations) and as long as the discovery about the popes list is known even if it is not accepted as proven.

 

[Mungo]

The Council of Trent was held in several sessions from 1545 to 1563. The council was convoked to help the church respond to the challenge posed by the Protestant Reformation, which had begun with Martin Luther decades earlier. The council played a large part in the revitalization of the Roman Catholic Churchthroughout Europe.[1]

A number of canons assigning automatic excommunication were enacted, which became part of the church's canon law. Heresies about the Sacraments or de fide doctrines which had been rejected or re-defined by the Protestants were specified and assigned automatic excommunication for Catholics who held them. These canons still apply today, as evidenced by the fact that the contemporary Catechism of the Catholic Church cites them as authoritative on almost every page.



Original sin is a Catholic doctrine that teaches that all human beings are born with the taint of Adam and Eve's sin; this taint can only be removed through baptism. Some Protestants re-defined (or rejected) original sin. The following canon laws were enacted to punish heretics in the church who rejected this belief.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_excommunicable_offences_from_the_Council_of_Trent





With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so. Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from the same opening? James 3:9-11


But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, Matthew 5:44



Do you believe it’s right for the “pope” or the Roman Catholic Church to curse people who don’t agree with them?




JLB

Neither the Pope not the Catholic Church curse people who disagree with them.
The anathemas at the Council of Trent (or any of them) are not about cursing anyone. They are a form of words that express the seriousness of a formal statement of belief. They originally were a form of excommunication for persistent denial of a dogmatically defined belief. By the time of Gregory IX (1370–1378) they were a formal excommunication by the Pope personally. They were very rare but the term remained until finally abolished in the 1983 code of Canon Law. So they do not exist any more.

Matt Slick (of C.A.R.M.) is a virulently anti-Catholic but even he understand this. I quote from him:
"So, when official Roman Catholic documents pronounce anathema it means that the person is not in right standing with their church, is not to take the sacraments, and might be under discipline. It is an excommunication and at the very least a very strong condemnation of the person's actions and/or beliefs as being against the Catholic Church."

 

[Mungo]

I don’t anything about ten rules in the council of Trent.

Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605) confirmed the Council of Trent’s proclamations against Bible translations (Eadie, History of the English Bible, II, p. 112). Trent’s ten rules regarding books prohibited anyone from reading the Bible without a license from the bishop or an inquisitor.

my emboldening

 

[Mungo]

Again, praying for one another is what we as Christian’s do.

Praying to Mary, or to saints is not what Christian’s do.



There is one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5


Mary is not a co-mediatrix.

Hopefully we can agree on this.



JLB

I agree with the scripture but not with the rest of your comments.

 

[Mungo]

There is nothing in Scripture whereby Jesus singled out Peter in such a way as to be the supreme authority over all the entire church worldwide. Nothing.

Yes there is and I'll come back to that in a later post

Please show us where Christ or His apostles used the phrase “Vicar of Christ“ to be associated with a person who is to be the supreme ruler of the church world wide?

Your know perfectly well that scripture doesn't work that way.

Nowhere does scripture use the invented word Bible, or the invented word Incarnation or the invented word Trinity.

Vicar of Christ is a man made term, that comes from a man made dogma, not from Christ or Hs teachings.

ALL words are man made.

 

[JLB]

Your know perfectly well that scripture doesn't work that way.

Nowhere does scripture use the invented word Bible, or the invented word Incarnation or the invented word Trinity.

I don’t use man made terms.

There is no such thing as a pope in scripture.

 

[JLB]

ALL words are man made.

Scripture is from God.

Catholic dogma is from man.

 

[JLB]

Neither the Pope not the Catholic Church curse people who disagree with them.
The anathemas at the Council of Trent (or any of them) are not about cursing anyone.

Sadly you are grossly mistaken.


Original sin is a Catholic doctrine that teaches that all human beings are born with the taint of Adam and Eve's sin; this taint can only be removed through baptism. Some Protestants re-defined (or rejected) original sin. The following canon laws were enacted to punish heretics in the church who rejected this belief.

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema.
3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema.
4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema.
5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.

Anathema -

a·nath·e·ma
/əˈnaTHəmə/

noun


a formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine.
"the Pope laid special emphasis on the second of these anathemas"

 

[Mungo]

I don’t use man made terms.

There is no such thing as a pope in scripture.

ALL words in ALL languages are man made.

 

[Mungo]

There is nothing in Scripture whereby Jesus singled out Peter in such a way as to be the supreme authority over all the entire church worldwide. Nothing.


JLB

I suppose you want a statement from Jesus like "Peter I'm appointing you to be supreme authority over all my Church and you shall be called Pope", perhaps at the end of Mt 28:20?

But Jesus didn't work that way. He gradually revealed to the Apostles his mission and his instructions.
In scripture God's plans unfold gradually.

It is very clear that Jesus singled out Peter for special treatment and that others accepted that (see post #3).
Just to take a couple of examples

Right at the beginning of Jesus ministry he singled out Peter and gave him special status by changing his name. This was a significant act and did not happen to any other apostle.
He [Andrew] brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter). (Jn 1:42)
That put Peter up with Abraham and Jacob in importance in God' plan.

Jesus told Peter to support his brothers
“Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” (Lk 22:31-32)

Next Mt 16: 13-20 . I've already covered most of this in Peter The Rock. But there is something I didn't cover.

Matthew is a Jew, writing to Jews. His gospel is full of references to the Old Testament to show how Jesus fulfils prophecies. Some are explicit and some are not. But they would have been noticed by his Jewish audience

The theme of kingdom runs through Matthew’s gospel. Jesus is not just the Messiah but the promised Davidic king. He starts his gospel “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

In Matthew 16:19 he uniquely gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,…

And he then continued, giving him (singly) the power of binding and loosing
…..and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

He later gives all the apostles the power of binding and loosing
Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Mt 18:18)

This is in the same gospel so it is clearly two separate incidents.
In one he uniquely gives Peter authority to act in his stead, represented by the keys and singly gives him the power to bind and loose.
He then gives he apostles collectively the power to bind and loose.

So the apostles can act collectively to bind and loose, or Peter can act alone to bind and loose. It is quite clear.

Going back to the keys. To understand the significance of the keys we need to start in Revelation.
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
“The words of the holy one, the true one,
who has the key of David,
who opens and no one shall shut,
who shuts and no one opens.”
(Rev 3:7)
This Jesus who holds the key of David, who opens and closes is the same Jesus who says to Peter:
“I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

This passage was addressed to Peter and the passage needs to be interpreted with an understanding of a 1st century Jew.
Prior to this Jesus has asked the apostles who he is. Peter has replied that he is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. He would understand that Jesus was the promised one who would sit on the throne of David (see Lk 1:32), the promised Davidic King who would rule for ever. All through Matthew’s gospel Jesus is referring to the kingdom. And Peter with his new revelation from the Father would understand this.

Therefore when Jesus gives Peter the keys we have to look at the symbolism of that in terms of Davidic kings.
The passage refers back to Isaiah 22: 20-23 when God deposes Shebna as the master of the palace and installs Heliakim instead:
In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him,
and will commit your authority to his hand;
and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David;
he shall open, and none shall shut;
and he shall shut, and none shall open.
And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place,
and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.

Note the three lines I have emboldened which parallel verse 19 and Rev 3:7. Peter is being installed as the new master of the palace, the chief official in the kingdom under the king (Jesus).
The master of the Palace was the highest official in the land.

Now let us move to another interesting passage in Luke's gospel
In Luke 12 Jesus is warning about the end times and the coming of the Son of Man. Peter asks (vs 41) “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?”
Jesus replies to Peter “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?"
Jesus is saying to Peter that when a master goes away to a marriage feast he will leave one of this servants in his place to look after all the others including feeding them.

Now move forward to John 21. Jesus is risen and is soon the go away to the Father. Jesus says to Peter “Feed my lambs.”(vs 15), “Feed my sheep" (vs 17).
Do you see the connection?

Jesus is the master who is going away and he leaves Peter "set over his household [the Church]" (Lk 12:42) and told to feed them. Not literally with food but to nourish then with sound teaching., and to look after them (“Tend my sheep.” (Jn 21:16).

Peter's authority is clear. He is to look after the Church until Christ returns.

 

[Mungo]

Sadly you are grossly mistaken.


Original sin is a Catholic doctrine that teaches that all human beings are born with the taint of Adam and Eve's sin; this taint can only be removed through baptism. Some Protestants re-defined (or rejected) original sin. The following canon laws were enacted to punish heretics in the church who rejected this belief.



Anathema -

a·nath·e·ma
/əˈnaTHəmə/

noun


a formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine.
"the Pope laid special emphasis on the second of these anathemas"

I am not mistaken.
Any Church statement should be understood in the sense that the writer intended it to be meant.
At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: "If any one says . . . let him be anathema".

Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii. The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope.
Both quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[JLB]

ALL words in ALL languages are man made.

Who created languages?


Scripture is from God.

Catholic dogma is from man.



Can we agree on this?

 

[JLB]

I am not mistaken.
Any Church statement should be understood in the sense that the writer intended it to be meant.
At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: "If any one says . . . let him be anathema".

Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii. The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope.
Both quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia

Anathema is a curse.

Stop making excuses.


Anathema -

a·nath·e·ma
/əˈnaTHəmə/

noun


a formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine.
"the Pope laid special emphasis on the second of these anathemas"

 

[JLB]

I suppose you want a statement from Jesus like "Peter I'm appointing you to be supreme authority over all my Church and you shall be called Pope", perhaps at the end of Mt 28:20?

No such thing as pope in scripture.

Jesus is the Head of the Church.


Here is the qualification for a bishop, such as the bishop of Rome.


This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 1 Timothy 3:1-5


Does the pope, the bishop of Rome meet the qualifications?


Why does the Vatican forbid the priests to marry?





JLB