Pope given last rites

[Heresson]

Originally posted by CyberShy
3. There is no biblical reason to believe that priests or popes or whomever should not marry.

St Paul viewed abstinence as something better than marriage.

4. There is no biblical reason to believe that Peter was the first pope nor that after he died a new pope should be established. Jesus said that he would found his chuch on Peter. He didn't say that Peter would be the leader of that church.

Words have different meanings. These words of Jesus mean nothing, unless in an alegoric explanation. And alegory is always dependant on our interpretation. Church has its interpretation backed with centuries of tradition and saints of early Christianity. If protestants have any interpretation of this verse, it's an arbitral one by people whose link with the roots of Christianity is much weaker than the ones that established church hierarchy. Hierarchy of the church is nothing wrong per se, and as such, Luther and others had no real reason for attacking it but temporary ones.

Originally posted by Ned
H., The Church justifies its position by claiming that Christ gave them the power. Luther said that if he were wrong, prove it through the scriptures. Instead, the Church simply ex communicated him.

Luther didn't manage to prove his rights to the church either.

Cybershy, I had not thought of the condom controversy in the context of AIDS and the spread of Catholicism in Africa. No one in the US observes the Church's teaching on birth control. However, the Africans, newly converted, just may.

Then this just points out that Americans shoud take example of Africans

If this is true, the Catholic Church is not doing Africa any good to the extent that people avoid using condoms while having extra-marital sex. Both are sins, presumably. It is amazing, then, that the Church has such a ludicrous position on condoms.

What do You expect? That the church should agree for its members to commit sin?

[Robert]

St Paul viewed abstinence as something better than marriage.

For EVERY christian, not just for the priests.
Besides that he said that one should have the gift of abstinence, if one has not that gift, one can better marry then burn.

If I take a look at the many scandals in the roman catholic church I think that's exactly what Paul meant. Which doesn't mean that our church doesn't have it's own scandals and our own wrongs.

Words have different meanings. These words of Jesus mean nothing, unless in an alegoric explanation. And alegory is always dependant on our interpretation. Church has its interpretation backed with centuries of tradition and saints of early Christianity.

There's not historic evidence that Peter gave these 'keys' to any successor. There's even biblical evidence that Peter wasn't the leader of the church. James was the leader of the church of Jerusalen and Paul teaches Peter (Acts 15, Galatians 2) that he's doing wrong. Publicly.

Jesus gave the keys to Peter, in an allogorical way. Not in any literal way. There's no reason nor any evidence that Jesus meant Peter to give them to someone else. It's a roman interpertations that most obviously has risen centuries later.

Not to mention that the roman catholic church has many wrongs that apparantly may exist despite the fact of it's long tradition. Not to mention the worship and praying to saints or worst of all, paying for forgiveness in the middle ages. PAYING for forgiveness!

Again, our church has done many wrongs as well. For that reason I would not dare to lean on our tradition to defend our current points of view. If our view is not biblical, it's not true.
And if your point is not biblical, it's not true. And 'the long catholic tradition' is not a good argument for it's many many failures.

Hierarchy of the church is nothing wrong per se, and as such, Luther and others had no real reason for attacking it but temporary ones.

Luther most of all attacked the church position on paying for absolution. Which is, you must admit, the worst thing the church has ever done.
There's no problem with some hierarchical, though the absolute position of the pope is way too much. So much power for one man is too much. Way too much, as history teaches us. JP II fortunately was one who apparantly could handle these powers.

Ned: Cybershy, I had not thought of the condom controversy in the context of AIDS and the spread of Catholicism in Africa. No one in the US observes the Church's teaching on birth control. However, the Africans, newly converted, just may.

If the africans will obey the church's teaching on birth control they will obey it's teaching on sex within mariage as well.

There are only two positions, either: have sex with anyone you want, but do it save, or: only have sex within mariage. Both positions work against AIDS.
Don't mix them up though. If you mix them up the result will be: "Have sex with everyone you want but don't use a condom"

[Robert]

Heresson, can you explain to me why using birth-control is a sin?
I'm a christian, it's very important to me. I'm very strict on it, but I really don't see why using birth control is a 'sin'!

[Ned]

Originally posted by bfg9000
"Perhaps the worst of these monsters was Bernard Law. Law reassigned Father John Geoghan from parish to parish even though Geoghan had been accused of child abuse. Law received one of the highest honors of the church, giving one of just nine eulogies for the Pope. Law is a disgrace to the Church. He ought to be cleaning bedpans for the poor in Haiti, not being honored in Rome."
--Paul Begala, Crossfire

The fact that Law was given an important post in Rome is just one example of why the Church remains in denial or worse about its sex scandal.

[Ned]

The bishop of Rome didn't even have power over the other bishops in the Western Empire until the Emperor granted him that power in 444 by making him Pontifex Maximus (a title he still proudly bears) and expressly making all other bishops in the Western Empire subject to him. Still, though, the bishop of Rome remained subject to the Roman emperors until 800, when the pope openly broke with the Empire and appointed, on his own, a Western Emperor, one Charlemagne. The cause of this break was the regency of Irene, the first and only women Empress.

But it also seems the case that the bishop of Rome had to approve the cannons of the synods before they became law. This does show that there was at least some "respect" for the bishop of Rome as first among equals.

[Ned]

The bottom line, the bishop of Rome was head of the Western church by order of the Emperor, not by order of God.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


Sorry for coming back to this again, but I was not sure about it, now I am: according to Time, JPII did say sorry for Galileo.

I suggest you check precisely what he said sorry for.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by CyberShy
For EVERY christian, not just for the priests.
Besides that he said that one should have the gift of abstinence, if one has not that gift, one can better marry then burn.

Well, the priests should have the gift of abstinence according to RCC.

If I take a look at the many scandals in the roman catholic church I think that's exactly what Paul meant. Which doesn't mean that our church doesn't have it's own scandals and our own wrongs.

Actually, I agree with You. Celibate shouldn't be compulsory. Just I'm enangered by ones who think that conservatives in RCC have absolutely no reason for their beliefs. They want priests to be perfect, I think it's putting too much pressure on sexuality issue.

There's not historic evidence that Peter gave these 'keys' to any successor. There's even biblical evidence that Peter wasn't the leader of the church. James was the leader of the church of Jerusalen and Paul teaches Peter (Acts 15, Galatians 2) that he's doing wrong. Publicly.

Leadership of church of Jerusalem doesn't mean leadership of the church necessarily. Also, many leaders are publicly criticised by their subordinates.
One could as well point that the church was in statu nascendi. Jesus' speech concerns long-term future more than present/near future.
The successor of St Peter on the bishopric of Rome was the default successor of owning the keys to Heaven.

Jesus gave the keys to Peter, in an allogorical way. Not in any literal way. There's no reason nor any evidence that Jesus meant Peter to give them to someone else. It's a roman interpertations that most obviously has risen centuries later.

Just like your interpretation, just it was made over a thousand years later. And making a line of successors make greater sense to me than making one unique successor after which no-one comes.

Not to mention that the roman catholic church has many wrongs that apparantly may exist despite the fact of it's long tradition. Not to mention the worship and praying to saints or worst of all, paying for forgiveness in the middle ages. PAYING for forgiveness!

You're not praying to saints to be exact, You're praying through saints. Saints are intermediates between us and God in prayer, and examples for our lives on Earth.
Paying for forgiveness is past, and it isn't completely nonsence. You can help the church by many means, also by giving it money. By helping the cause of God, You're balancing the bad deeds You've commited.
Of course, giving complete absolution for money may be seen as abuse of power, as symony, but it's not obvious.

Again, our church has done many wrongs as well. For that reason I would not dare to lean on our tradition to defend our current points of view. If our view is not biblical, it's not true.
And if your point is not biblical, it's not true. And 'the long catholic tradition' is not a good argument for it's many many failures.

But it has many many successes.
And why should we base on Bible only? It's a protestant, not universally Christian stance. God's spoken to many people, and acts through deeds of saints, through words of synods.
Of course, You can disagree with such opinion, but it's a matter of faith.

Originally posted by CyberShy
Heresson, can you explain to me why using birth-control is a sin?
I'm a christian, it's very important to me. I'm very strict on it, but I really don't see why using birth control is a 'sin'!

I'm not a good catholic, perhaps You should read catechism or book by pope.
From what I know, it's a sin because only God is to decide when a human life starts and ends.

The bishop of Rome didn't even have power over the other bishops in the Western Empire until the Emperor granted him that power in 444 by making him Pontifex Maximus (a title he still proudly bears) and expressly making all other bishops in the Western Empire subject to him. Still, though, the bishop of Rome remained subject to the Roman emperors until 800, when the pope openly broke with the Empire and appointed, on his own, a Western Emperor, one Charlemagned. The cause of this break was the regency of Irene, the first and only women Empress.

Pontifex Maximus is just a title. Rome's role was traditional, and was confirmed by earlier synodi.
Of course, with time the role of pope grew and grew,
but pope was hardly a simple bishop from the beginning.
Also, while You're right with the story of Eirene, it's a more complicated matter. As soon as VI century, pope started (and earlier it was said about him as well) making a political influence on Italy. Haussig had his own theory about it, which I'll skip. What's important is that emperors, especially since Longobard and Arab conquests, had trouble exercising their power in Italy despite the papal wishes. One pope, Martin I think, was sentenced by emperor, but He had to be kidnapped by imperial official by night - otherwise the official would have been lynched. In theology, papacy was usually the main opponent of imperial wishes and in conflict, Italian army supported him, not emperor.

I suggest you check precisely what he said sorry for.

Too lazy. Find and post.
I assume for accusations of heresy.

[Ned]

H., I suggest you study a little history. The pope had no power whatsoever over other bishops even in the West until 444. The "title" pontifex maximus was more than just that. It placed the pope, not the emperor, in charge of the Roman state religion, which was Catholicism since the time of Theodosius.

I agree, however, that other bishops did give deference to the pope in that it consulted him on doctrine, which was in major turmoil in the early church. The conflict in doctrine is why Constantine called the first council of bishops in Nicea to iron out what the official doctrine was and to write down the official bible. (50 copies were made and presented to Constantine.) It is significant that the council did not consider its cannons binding until the bishop of Rome approved.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson



Too lazy. Find and post.
I assume for accusations of heresy.

Don't assume- you just make an ass of yourself.

After all, you said you were sure about it. English language playing you up ?

Can't tell the difference between 'sure' and 'pulling the answer out of a monkey's arse ?'

[Heresson]

Apolyton, I hate You.
I've spent over an hour writing an answer, and it was lost...
I'll try to recall and abbreviate:
molly
-You're rude
-critic of scientific works of Galileo was part of accusion of heresy
-when You want to change Holy Scriptures, You should be aware the church will not like that. Philosophy is not pure science, and that's one of the things of Galileo's interest.
-Galileo had good relations with the church before the accusation and even after the accusation, He remained friend of some less and more important figures of the church
You could only be right if You claimed pope apologised for interfering in science in this specific case only. But it's a shallow interpretation, Galileo's case is symbolic.

Ned
- Keep your advices for yourself. I'll deal with You later on.

[Ned]

H. At least I'm not rude. Thanks for that much.

[Heresson]

Yes, You're not.
Sorry if "keep your advices" sounded badly, but I do have some knowledge on this specific subject and I found this specific remark of yours irritating.
I hope You were not offended yourself.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson
Apolyton, I hate You.


molly
-You're rude

Yes, but only to those who are deserving of it.

At no point did Galileo want to change the scriptures. Seems your view of the case is the same as that of the unholy inquisition's.


Consider yourself well and truly blessed.

[Heresson]

Yes, but only to those who are deserving of it.

The only one who deserves it here is yourself.

Inquisition can actually be right sometimes.