Doesn't the Pope claim to be the vicar of Christ?

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Do you not understand that the Pope is not the Catholic Church?

We have had many horrible Popes in the history of the Catholic Church. We have also had many Saintly Popes.

Jesus is still in charge, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail"

We are the body of the Church. We, us, the people in the pews. Why leave "The Body of Christ"?

This Pope will pass.

---

I am not Catholic but agree with Dad-O-Lot.

There have been a ton of non Catholic Church leaders whom I disagree with but Christ and the church will never go away.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Doesn't the Pope claim to be the vicar of Christ?

---

Not this one.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Of all the horrible acts committed by a pope throughout church history it was this guy kissing a Koran that pushed you over?

---

To be fair it is a sin against the 1st commandment. That being said I do not think it is the worst sin a Pope has committed. All Popes are human and sinners. JPII would frequent confession once a week. I trust he took a contrite soul to meet the Lord.

jrico2727 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Of all the horrible acts committed by a pope throughout church history it was this guy kissing a Koran that pushed you over?

---

To be fair it is a sin against the 1st commandment. That being said I do not think it is the worst sin a Pope has committed. All Popes are human and sinners. JPII would frequent confession once a week. I trust took a contrite soul to meet the Lord.

---

Expressing explicit public reverence for a document that denies all of the central tenets of the faith you lead is not a good look, not sure where he was going with that, but it's probably not in the top 50 awful things done by the popes through the centuries.

There was the guy that sold the Papacy to his godfather only to get it back a few years later, the guy that exhumed one of his predecessors and put the corpse on trial, and an extended period of time when you couldn't know for sure who the Pope was at all. To say nothing of the Sergius III who may or may not have been the father of Pope John XI, whose mother was a power broker that slept around with the most powerful men in Rome.

Any institution that persists through centuries of this kind of garbage at the helm has something going for it

747Ag said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Doesn't the Pope claim to be the vicar of Christ?

---

Not this one.

---

I did not know that. I wonder why he chose not to include it?

RAB91 said:

---

747Ag said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Doesn't the Pope claim to be the vicar of Christ?

---

Not this one.

---

I did not know that. I wonder why he chose not to include it?

---

Don't really know. Perhaps out of an attempt at humility. Perhaps something more nefarious. No explanation was given.

If you're questioning "red flags" from the Catholic Church, your at least 1500 years too late. If you're interested in returning your faith to the roots of Yeshua and the Apostles who were all Jews preaching primarily to other Jews about matters of Torah, then I suggest reading this book and deciding how you feel about the Greco/Roman pagan influenced version of the faith that's come to us as western Christianity.

https://bookshop.org/books/these-things-you-should-have-done/9781735393001

Win At Life said:

---

If you're questioning "red flags" from the Catholic Church, your at least 1500 years too late. If you're interested in returning your faith to the roots of Yeshua and the Apostles who were all Jews preaching primarily to other Jews about matters of Torah, then I suggest reading this book and deciding how you feel about the Greco/Roman pagan influenced version of the faith that's come to us as western Christianity.

https://bookshop.org/books/these-things-you-should-have-done/9781735393001

---

Wouldn't that be 1988 years too late when Yeshua started the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

You could easily argue that error started creeping into the faith at the earliest moments, because scripture itself says so:

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel,

After the Jewish revolt against Rome and the subsequent Roman persecution of genetic Jews, which indiscriminately included those who believed in Yeshua, many gentile believers in Yeshua distanced themselves from the synagogues of Jewish believers in Yeshua to avoid getting swept up in that political persecution. That wouldn't necessarily have created error, but the fact that it led to the separation and drifting from Yeshua's roots that happened over time shouldn't be too surprising.

As Roman persecution waxed and waned in the 1st and 2nd centuries, the separation also waxed and waned, and Jews, even those who didn't believe in Yeshua were welcoming of both Jews and gentiles who did believe in Yeshua. So, many congregations were mixed Jews and gentiles meeting in the Jewish synagogues (as Yeshua did) up until the failed Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt against Rome in 135AD. Because he was conferred with the title of Messiah, those who believed Yeshua was the Messiah, could not support that. The believers in Yeshua were scape-goated for the failed revolt (which was doomed no matter what) and were kicked out of the synagogues. That's when the split from Yeshua's roots became more universal.

Without those roots, the faith became more and more co-opted by gentiles who continued to hang unto their pagan influences while adding "Jesus". Eventually, the Roman Emperor, Constantine, desired to merge this new group with the rest of pagans in his kingdom to created one religion for the nation. He was anti-Semitic and wanted to have "nothing to do with those odious people" the Jews. He abolished biblical sabbath keeping for worship on a day he dedicated to his sun god (Sunday). He abolished Yeshua's Passover and replaced it with the pagan spring equinox festival we now know as Easter. He declared the sun's winter solstice (Dec 25 on the Julian calendar), as the birth day of the sun god and associated it with Jesus. Most of this became more formalized in the 4th century AD. The list goes on from there. But, much of these drifts from Yeshua's gospel that occurred at these times is what eventually became known as the Catholic Church today.

So, saying the Catholic Church errors started at LEAST 1500 years ago allows for the errors to have started from before that time, even to the very beginning, as you have noted; making it closer to 1988 years. On that, we agree.

Serotonin said:

---

Christians meeting for worship and breaking bread on Sunday goes back to the 1st century, no?

---

How about Easter day on the Road to Eammus. And they knew him in the breaking of the Bread.

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

I think you might be conflating papal infallibility with impeccability of the man who is pope at any given time. They are most definitely not the same thing. The first Pope denied Christ 3 times.

If you have an hour to spare, this podcast might be helpful in explaining what papal infallibility is actually and not as typically misunderstood by most Protestants and many Catholics.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-journey-with-matt-and-ken/id1508206533?i=1000533078983

---

I am amazed that I know more about the concept of papal infallibility than my Catholic relatives.

From my understanding, the Pope is only truly infallible when he speaks "ex cathedral" which is incredibly rare.

---

Correct. The doctrine of papal infallibility, more than anything else, boils down to this:

The Pope will never formally bind the Church to doctrinal error (heresy). You will never be forced to choose between accepting a heresy, or leaving the Church.

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

I think you might be conflating papal infallibility with impeccability of the man who is pope at any given time. They are most definitely not the same thing. The first Pope denied Christ 3 times.

If you have an hour to spare, this podcast might be helpful in explaining what papal infallibility is actually and not as typically misunderstood by most Protestants and many Catholics.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-journey-with-matt-and-ken/id1508206533?i=1000533078983

---

I am amazed that I know more about the concept of papal infallibility than my Catholic relatives.

From my understanding, the Pope is only truly infallible when he invokes "ex cathedra" which is incredibly rare.

---

Vatican I should have rejected the idea just because of all of the straw man arguments that become compelling via a misunderstanding. The formalization of the concept is probably responsible for more skepticism than acceptance of Papal authority.

I like C.S. Lewis' criticism of Papal Infallibility, as properly understood. Basically, he could get his head around agreeing to everything the Church believes and everything the Pope says, but Vatican I/Papal Infallibility means that you must agree with everything that they might choose to say in the future.

You're right that it is a very rare thing. It has only been a concept since the early 1900's and was only used to codify beliefs around Mary, which still seems an odd topic to choose for such a novel power recently granted.

My own question to anyone that might know would be, what could/should/would a future Pope pronounce ex cathedra next?

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

I think you might be conflating papal infallibility with impeccability of the man who is pope at any given time. They are most definitely not the same thing. The first Pope denied Christ 3 times.

If you have an hour to spare, this podcast might be helpful in explaining what papal infallibility is actually and not as typically misunderstood by most Protestants and many Catholics.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-journey-with-matt-and-ken/id1508206533?i=1000533078983

---

I am amazed that I know more about the concept of papal infallibility than my Catholic relatives.

From my understanding, the Pope is only truly infallible when he invokes "ex cathedra" which is incredibly rare.

---

Since the Vatican I it has only been use twice and not since 1950.

Serotonin said:

---

Regardless, isn't it strange to think that the early Church and the followers of Christ got so many things wrong that weren't corrected until the 1970s when a Baptist pastor created a new denomination in the United States of America that finally got things right?

And amidst all this error and heresy, where these early Christians can't even get the basics right, they were able to 100%.Flawlessly.Nail what documents to recognize as Holy Scripture?

This begs the question: if you don't trust the early Church knew what it was doing on any of these other issues, why do you think their texts are correct? Why trust their scriptures? Logically it would seem those are probably wrong too.

---

Try telling this to Mormons.

jrico2727 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

I think you might be conflating papal infallibility with impeccability of the man who is pope at any given time. They are most definitely not the same thing. The first Pope denied Christ 3 times.

If you have an hour to spare, this podcast might be helpful in explaining what papal infallibility is actually and not as typically misunderstood by most Protestants and many Catholics.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-journey-with-matt-and-ken/id1508206533?i=1000533078983

---

I am amazed that I know more about the concept of papal infallibility than my Catholic relatives.

From my understanding, the Pope is only truly infallible when he invokes "ex cathedra" which is incredibly rare.

---

Since the Vatican I it has only been use twice and not since 1950.

---

How is it decided when the pope speaks "ex cathedra"? Can he declare it himself or is there some kind of verification process?

Also, does infallible mean he can't be wrong or simply that he is the top earthly authority so what he says goes?

Frok said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

I think you might be conflating papal infallibility with impeccability of the man who is pope at any given time. They are most definitely not the same thing. The first Pope denied Christ 3 times.

If you have an hour to spare, this podcast might be helpful in explaining what papal infallibility is actually and not as typically misunderstood by most Protestants and many Catholics.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-journey-with-matt-and-ken/id1508206533?i=1000533078983

---

I am amazed that I know more about the concept of papal infallibility than my Catholic relatives.

From my understanding, the Pope is only truly infallible when he invokes "ex cathedra" which is incredibly rare.

---

Since the Vatican I it has only been use twice and not since 1950.

---

How is it decided when the pope speaks "ex cathedra"? Can he declare it himself or is there some kind of verification process?

Also, does infallible mean he can't be wrong or simply that he is the top earthly authority so what he says goes?

---

Ex Cathedra, means from the seat. Meaning it's a proclamation from the Seat of St. Peter. It only applies to matters of faith or morals. There have only been 2 such statements when the Pope declared the Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption Of the Blessed Virgin. So I would say it would be something that carries the weight of a Dogma, that if you choose not to believe this teaching you are outside of the Catholic Faith. So things like the recent ban on the Latin Mass even though binding on the Church, it wasn't an Ex Cathedra statement. He was reversing the decision of all prior Popes, especially his predecessor Benedict. However, the next Pope can reverse his decision in that regard. A Dogma once proclaimed cannot be changed.
Infallibility means he cannot be wrong when speaking Ex Cathedra. It is a protection from error by the Holy Spirit. When Christ established the Church, it is to be the pillar of truth for the faithful. So this charism is granted to the Pope, and to the Bishops at councils to safeguard the faith. And to assure the faithful that what we are receiving is from God and is rightly to be believed. Now it doesn't protect the Pope from bad opinions or the ability to never loose at trivia game.

Serotonin said:

---

Christians meeting for worship and breaking bread on Sunday goes back to the 1st century, no?

Regardless, isn't it strange to think that the early Church and the followers of Christ got so many things wrong that weren't corrected until the 1970s when a Baptist pastor created a new denomination in the United States of America that finally got things right?

And amidst all this error and heresy, where these early Christians can't even get the basics right, they were able to 100%.Flawlessly.Nail what documents to recognize as Holy Scripture?

This begs the question: if you don't trust the early Church knew what it was doing on any of these other issues, why do you think their texts are correct? Why trust their scriptures? Logically it would seem those are probably wrong too.

---

The Believers in Yeshua were initially mostly Jewish with a history of following God's Torah, which included counting "days" from evening to morning (Genesis 1); making the first of the new week what we now call Saturday evening. They surely met on the first of the week at this time and these have been known from before the time of Yeshua until now as Havdalah to close out the Sabbath day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havdalah

It's these very practices Yeshua and the Apostles followed that we should return to, while casting off meetings on the pagan Sun(god)day that developed much later by the untaught in Torah and unstable who twisted it as they do to the rest of Scripture to their own destruction.

[edit typos]