Criticisms of the New Pope

On top of that I think he was suitably humble in his first speech. Ofcourse none of that was apparently noticed by the critics on this board.

 

Actually I think he has been getting generally favorable reviews from non-Catholic Christian sources overall.

But here some people say "he creeps them out".

 

I wonder how they'd treat Jesus if he was crowned Pope? No need to wonder, we already know how they treated our Christ!

 

What are you talking about Wes, why on earth would anyone seek to reduce the Godhead of our Saviour to that of pope. The pope is a servant of God.

 

Is a man who says that he is humble truly humble ?

 

Excellent question Roger.
I think ole's Joseph was genuinely feeling humble at that particular moment, but wether that was a fleeting impulse, or a consistent quality....

"I'm sure he/she will answer why if asked."
"
She.
As I said the one time I was at the same reception with him, he gave me the willies. It was a mostly irrational gut feeling kind of thing.

"Since you are one of the ones that has continuously criticized him, care to answer why?"
"
The feud between me and Bob, goes back to a sundayschoolexcursion to a museum my church made a few years ago.
It was an exhibition of items out of the Vatican treasury. I had arranged that visit because our sundayschool teachers had repeated that old canard that the pope has a title on his tiara that proves after a bit of numerology that he is the beast 666. Bob never forgave me for doing that.

 

No hope for that lot I think, individuals yes, but not that organisation. The RCC is run by its unbelieving congregation. IT IS THE WRONG KIND OF POWER TO THE PEOPLE.

David

 

PASTORAL SEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT

In our search for a suitable pastor, the following scratch sheet was developed for your perusal. Of the candidates investigated by the committee, only one was found to have the necessary qualities. The list contains the names of the candidates and comments on each, should you be interested in investigating them further for future pastoral placements.

NOAH: He has 120 years of preaching experience, but no converts.

MOSES: He stutters; and his former congregation says he loses his temper over trivial things.

ABRAHAM: He took off to Egypt during hard times. We heard that he got into trouble with the authorities and then tried to lie his way out.

DAVID: He is and unacceptable moral character. He might have been considered for minister of music had he not ‘fallen’.

SOLOMON: He has a reputation for wisdom but fails to practice what he preaches.

ELIJAH: He proved to be inconsistent, and is known to fold under pressure.

HOSEA: His family life is in a shambles. Divorced, and remarried to a prostitute.

JEREMIAH: He is too emotional, alarmist; some say a real ‘pain in the neck’.

AMOS: Comes from a farming background. Better off picking figs.

JOHN: He says he is a Baptist but lacks tact and dresses like a hippie. Would not feel comfortable at a church potluck supper.

PETER: Has a bad temper, and was heard to have even denied Christ publicly.

PAUL: We found him to lack tact. He is too harsh; His appearance is contemptible.

TIMOTHY: He has potential, but is much too young for the position despite his calling.

JESUS: He tends to offend church members with his preaching.

JUDAS: He seemed to be very practical, co-operative, good with money, cares for the people, and seems to be just the man we are looking for to fill the vacancy as our pastor.

 

Quote from Greg Bahnsen sermon

 

Off Topic.

When I was in elementary school, our school principal (and fellow church member)told us that if someone told you they were humble, they were not. Made a lasting impression on my mind, and over the years of observation since, I have found that to be a true statement.

Back to your regularly scheduled debate.

 

Just ignore it and get on producing fruit for Christ. Its a trick to distract you.

David

 

gb93433
Don't forget that that Paul fellow also claimed to live in sexual abstinence and has stated that such is preferable to marriage.
No doubt about it, that guy is as gay as a maypole.


And could somebody please notify Greg Bahnsen, that to this day no pope has ever shown any interest whatsoever in baseball (allthough Johannes XXIII, Paulus VI and Johannes-Paulus II apparently all liked basketball and the last one loved real football).
And while that person is at it, he can tell him the following as well.
Greg seems to be unware of centuries of infighting among Roman Catholic theologians about whether the Eucharist is to be seen in an 'oblationist' or an 'immolationist' light. The 'oblationist' view focuses on Christ's present priestly intercesssion before the Father. The 'immolationist' view, on the other hand, is all about Christ's presence upon the altar in a figure of death. While the latter view is extremely problematic, it is the other position ('oblationism') which has thanks to men like Ratzinger and Wojtyla decidedly won the debate a couple of decades ago. No Roman Catholic theologian would agree with Greg's description that the mass is a 're-offering' of Jezus.

 

The revisionist history continues....

"The fact" (missing from the account above) is that Mioque claimed that the Vatican gave her an exahustive review of all the Mitre artifacts at the Vatican and that BASED on that EXHAUSTIVE audit certified by the Pope and Miogue from the way it was told -- we should "take Mioque's word" for what the Vatican "HAS in storage".

I found the audacity of such a blue-sky wild-eyed claim (trumped up by overblowing a simple Sunday school visit) to be a delusion of grandeur "in the extreme".

Mioque has never deviated from that method. (At least not so far)

My claim for Vicarius Filii Dei was simply to observe that IT IS in Catholic Canon Law. Mioque was hoping to obfuscate that fact with a "Sunday school field trip story". Funny - but not "compelling".

 

"My claim for Vicarius Filii Dei was simply to observe that IT IS in Catholic Canon Law."
"
What I recall was not that you claimed that 'Vicarius Filii Dei' is in Catholic Canon Law, but that it is an official title of the pope.

As for that other bit, when I was in Rome doing some research for my doctorate, I got a short guided tour of the papal sacristy.
It's where they keep the papal tiara's. The sacristan at the time was Dutch and was a friend of another Dutch priest I had helped with a sticky problem back in the Netherlands. About as exciting an event as getting to visit a famous singer in his dressing room after the show.

 

I you would like my posts claiming that Canon Law has this for the Pope - I am happy to re-post it.

I also argued that the RC sources that claimed that there was a Mitre with that title -- were not getting their information from me.

Again - this would appear to be "the obvious" but we managed to find room to differ.

 

Please do.

 

Posted "repeatedly".

 

It further states:

Different popes added their own decrees to the collection of Gratian, as the following quotation will show:

After the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V had this “Canon Law” revised.

This is the standard text of canon law for the whole Roman Catholic Church. Pope Gregory XIII wrote July 1, 1580, in his preface to this corrected edition:

Of this corrected “Corpus,” or canon law, “published in 1582... by order of
.Gregory XIII,” and established by his authority, we read:

Notice that this revised edition of canon law “has the force of law.” In this
canon law, which Pope Gregory XIII had corrected by “the plenitude of the apostolic power,” so that it is “entirely freed from faults,” we find the same statement: “Beatus Petrus in tetris vicarius FiIii Del esse videtur consti-tutus.”-”Corpus Juris Canonici, Gregorii XIII, Ponif. Max. Auctoritate,” Distinctio 96, Column 286, Canon Constantinus 14, Magdeburg, 1747.

“Moreover, custom has even given to several apocryphal canons of the ‘Decree’ of Gratian the force of law”-Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, art. “Corpus Juris Cononici,” p. 393.

In “Corpus Juris Canonici Emendatum et Notis Illustratum Gregorii XIII. Pont. Max.,” “Lvgdvn, MDCXXII,” or “the Canon Law of Pope Gregory XIII, of 1622,” with the Pope’s own “Preface,” in which he assures us of its being without flaw, we find the same: “Beatus Petrus in terris Vicarius Filii Dei esse videtur constitutus”-Column 295.

We cannot see how any consistent Catholic can deny the authenticity of this title without denying the infallibility of the pope. What more authority can they desire?


F. Lucii Ferraris, who wrote “a veritable encyclo-pedia’’ in Latin, of which several editions have been printed by the papal church at Rome. The American Catholic Encyclopedia says of Ferraris’s great work that it “will ever remain a precious mine of information”-Vol. VI, p. 48. From this unquestionable Catholic authority we shall first quote its Latin statement, and then give the English translation:

</font>[/QUOTE]

[ April 23, 2005, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]