Or can he go to hell?

It is possible these popes, along with Pope Leo X, didn't make it, but who am I to say? Their famous quotes:

Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) :
"The pope cannot make a mistake."

Paschal II: (1099-1118)
"Whoever does not agree with the Apostolic See
is without doubt a heretic."

Pope Innocent IV (1243-54):
described himself as
"the bodily presence of Christ."
( presumably by a kind of
transubstantiation at his election)

Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) :
"Every human being must do
as the pope tells him."

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903):
"We hold upon this earth
the place of God Almighty."
( Encyclical Letter, June 20, 1894 )

I'm pretty sure it is up to God to decide who enters his kingdom. Unfortunately some popes have probably been refused admittance.

berserked- Do you have a source for your papal quotes?

The Pope goes to heaven like us all. He is born again and a part of the Body of Christ or he is not.

What about that time there was 3 popes? Did they all go or was it like a 1/3 chance each?

jkag, in doing some research, I found a link to these quotes. Unfortunately, I didn't check out the source thoroughly before posting, as it refers to "Hitler's Popes" It is hardly credible. While the source itself is questionable, these popes have popped up throughout history as also questionable, I believe. I apologize for the poorly backed-up comment.

http://liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/RCscandal-1.html

[This message has been edited by berserked (edited 3/28/2005 2:22p).]

We have a couple of anti-Popes right now. One just died last week and here is a link to a Sedevacantist group that has elected Pius XIII.

http://www.truecatholic.org/pope/

It seems the "Vatican" is now in Kalispell, Montana.

of course they go, theyre divine.

God decides who enters heaven, because God judges hearts.

Regarding anti-popes, 3 popes, and all the rest of it: Look at the history. When the papacy was the chief temporal power of Europe, its not surprising to have more than one claimant.

There have been bad stretches of popes, especially from the 12th century until Loyola. That doesn't mean the office is invalid, but that's a whole different thread.

Popes are infallible in maters of doctrine, but….

quote:

---

There have been bad stretches of popes, especially from the 12th century until Loyola. That doesn't mean the office is invalid, but that's a whole different thread.

---

A contradiction? Not for Roman Catholicism -- home of the elastic reasoning…
There, truth is how you look at it…

Aaah, Notafraid.

You know better than that. If there is flaw, it doesn't stem from the `bad popes' periods. For the same reason we are instructed to obey vested rulers and leaders as wielders of the sword of law, even the bad ones, so impeccability was and is not a feature demanded of the papacy.

For public relations purposes, yes, the office really ought to be lived as above reproach as possible, to prevent discrediting the message.

But strictly speaking, the question always centers on if contradictory doctrine was promulgated. What makes the question interesting is the irony is that it is under `good and powerful' popes like the present one that sometimes it seems like such a change was made. The deeds of the bad tend to get thrown down anyway, whether ruler or bishop.

On the question itself -- its absurd. Of course the Pope is not guaranteed heaven. A title, a rank, even a lifestyle does not acheive it. It is received.

Please.

notafraid, that's not even worth a response. But here we go:

What is infallibility?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Now, perhaps you can post a concrete example, one not from one of the many obviously idiotic anti-Catholic sites out there, about where a bad man as pope (and there have been some) used this as a means to deceive, or even remotely successfully deceive, the faithful??

I won't be holding my breath.

Anybody, including popes, can go to hell. However, IMHO, JPII will go to heaven and be canonized a saint...

Sainthood for John Paul II?
What miracle was performed in his name?

quote:

---

What miracle was performed in his name?

---

I hope this is not a requirement for sainthood. There is only one Name worthy of miracles, and it is not John Paul II.

jkag89,

quote:

---

We have a couple of anti-Popes right now. One just died last week and here is a link to a Sedevacantist group that has elected Pius XIII.

---

Amazing. I have been readhing thru your link --- its pretty crazy stuff. Yet this "Novus Ordo" reference usefully approximates some of the views I have heard leveled at the post-Vatican II Rome from both Catholics and Protestants.

This sounds similar to Mel Gibson's group. Is this guy his leader?

The whole infallability Pope thing throws me off. We ALL are under the curse of Adam. We
ALL sin and fall short. For the Pope to be infallable, he must somehow be an exemption to the nature of man since the fall. I can't buy that; I don't have either the faith or the scripture.

http://www.sacredheartchurch.net/id23.html


If you are inspired by the Holy Spirit, then you are infallible. That doctine has only been invoked twice that I know of, since the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Bible to write infallibly.

Canonized saints have performed their miracles after death, not before.


[This message has been edited by texasag73 (edited 3/28/2005 8:05p).]

quote:

---

If you are inspired by the Holy Spirit, then you are infallible.

---

Since I have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to do and say many things, I guess that makes me infallible, then. I didn't think I was infallible, but I see I was wrong.

Mel Gibson does not have a group. He is Catholic. He is Latin mass traditionalist, which I am sympathetic to myself, but that does not make him crazy like those in the link. They are not Catholic, nor part of any movement within the Church. Gibson's father may or may not be who knows what, because reports are contradictory.

They are the fringe of the fringe - like Protestants had Koresh and Jones. (A messy defination, but they moved from semi-Protestantism, by which I mean attracting Protestants using only the Bible, to craziness).

And saints don't commit miracles anymore than the Apostles did. Miracles are granted by God through their intercession as an unseen member of the Body of Christ.

Mel thinks his wife is going to hell, thats a little crazy in my book. (I still like Mel and anxiously await Mad Max: Return to Bartertown.)

Wrong.

How about a link? How about a sourced quote? I've seen two interviews where he was questioned about his wife, and "she's going to hell" is not even remotely accurate.

quote:

---

Mel Gibson does not have a group. He is Catholic. He is Latin mass traditionalist, which I am sympathetic to myself, but that does not make him crazy like those in the link. They are not Catholic, nor part of any movement within the Church. Gibson's father may or may not be who knows what, because reports are contradictory.

They are the fringe of the fringe - like Protestants had Koresh and Jones. (A messy defination, but they moved from semi-Protestantism, by which I mean attracting Protestants using only the Bible, to craziness).

---

I don’t think it’s so fringe to think that Vatican 2 and all the Ecumenism stuff like saying Muslims are brothers to Christians and that they believe salvific things. I sympathize with him for that also. If I were RC I would have a hard time stretching so far to believe that, that was not a bunch of BS too. In many ways Vatican II was based more on a humanistic world view than a return to Biblical Christianity. For a group to recognize that is fringe? What I think is fringe reality is all of the rabid RCs that don’t appear know anything at all, and when they do know something, they turn into spinmiesters, and justifiers of all of the contradictory BS. I find that more wacky thinking than Mel’s group. I find him more consistent. They are like post Vatican I – pre Vatican II relics.


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 3/28/2005 11:12p).]

First, the main fault with Vatican II is that it provided an opening, through occasionally loose and undefined language, for secular exploitation, such as the Jesuits under Arrupe and their socialist brothers in arms.

That, however, is hardly the fault of the Council. Every single announcement on doctrine, without exception, reinforced orthodoxy, which is Biblical Christianity. I challenge you to find one otherwise.

And you seem to have a misunderstanding of Christian and Muslim "brotherhood" from this angle. I wish the Pope hadn't kissed the Koran either, but you will not find a single statement along the lines of what you suggest. Christ is the way to salvation. Look at the Pope's Crossing the Threshold of Hope (a short book) for clarity on this question.

You call, well, I'm not sure what exactly, "contradictory BS." If you refer to believing in Christ as the way to salvation and also adhering to Vatican II, post an example. Post two. Get some scripture, get some Vatican II long quotes - here is the link - http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council and have at it.

If not, he's sure wasted a lot of time.

whoa, whoa, whoa...

the pope kissed the koran??

is he going to kiss a copy of the book of mormon, also?

that seems sacrilegious.

titan- I know very little about "Pope Pius XIII" and his group. You probably took far longer looking over the site I linked than I did.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452/

quote:

---

“There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” Gibson replied. “I believe it.”

He elaborated: “Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly. She’s, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it."

---

Redstone,

It’s too early in the morning for me to deal with the elastic doctrines, interpretation of words, and such that is common in Roman Catholicism. My mind is not quite lawyerly enough to be able to follow all of the tricky interpretations of everything. Besides, I have just had a shower, and I wouldn’t want to feel so dirty after running my mind through all of the sophist logic.

notafraid,
Okay, no need to dirty.

BMX,
That quote fits in with his television interview with ABC and elsewhere, which maybe you didn't watch.
1.) He makes several tongue in cheek comments in interviews, which is unfortunate when talking about religion, 2.) He is not one to judge hearts, God judges hearts, but Christ shows the way to salvation, 3.) The likely tongue in cheek "pronouncement from the chair", ie the Catholic Church, has the earthly authority of Christ under Christ. Even so,

As Gibson suggested, the Catholic dogma is indeed that outside the Church there is no salvation, but your interpretation of what this dogma means is possibly flawed. The Church does not presume to know who will be in heaven with God, absent strong evidence.

The ancient phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church no salvation) has been a widely accepted principle since the earliest days of Christianity. Since the Church has no authority to deny long-established principles, it cannot simply throw out time-honored truths to suit the current fads of thinking.

This principle says that the Church is the necessary instrument for people to find salvation. The Second Vatican Council affirmed that the Catholic Church is the "sole Church of Christ" that Christ established on the earth (Lumen Gentium 8). In the teaching and sacramental ministry of the Church, Jesus Christ is made known to the world for the salvation of the human race. No one would have access to Christ’s salvation if the Church were not in the world. In that sense the Church is necessary.

But Christ’s salvation is not limited to the boundaries of formal membership in the Church. In other words, we know from Christ’s teaching in the Bible that the Church is necessary, but the Church says those outside the Church may be saved.

Acts 4:12 says that salvation is found in no one other than Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." This verse and many others make it clear that Christ is the only Savior of the world. That is precisely why the Church says that its existence in the world is necessary for salvation: because we would not know of Christ had it not been for the Church. In Acts 4:12, Peter is pointing to Christ as the Savior, but he does so as an authoritative witness to Christ, as his chosen apostle. The people to whom Peter was preaching would not know of Christ except through his witness as the leader of the Church. So we can say that the proclamation of Christ by the Church is necessary for salvation. Outside of Christ there is no salvation and, by implication, outside the Church there is no salvation.

Here is what it says about salvation, and its not limited to baptized Catholics. No Catholic on this board or a knowledgable one anywhere else would claim so, and this includes the sometimes goofball Mel Gibson, who a serious Christian.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

[This message has been edited by Redstone (edited 3/29/2005 11:23a).]

If the Pope accepted Christ as his personal Lord & Savior, he's going to heaven. If he didn't then he's not going.

And by the way, everyone that was saved & belongs to Christ is a saint. You don't need to have any man or council decide if you're worthy of that title.

Anyone who is in heaven is a saint.

When the Church canonizes a person, it is saying that we know for sure that this particular person is in heaven, a member of the unseen Body of Christ and a member of our religious family.

Saints are those who have been made holy by God, because He is holy, and they can still be of assistance to us. The saints in heaven are not dead. They are more alive than we are because they are closer to the source of life: God. Jesus tells us in Mark 12:26–27, "He is not God of the dead, but of the living..."

quote:

---

First, the main fault with Vatican II is that it provided an opening, through occasionally loose and undefined language, for secular exploitation, such as the Jesuits under Arrupe and their socialist brothers in arms.

---

BINGO! I was waiting for this.

I have a few catholic friends who are well versed. Perhaps better than 90% of those who claim to be catholic. They told me that the pope will stand for his sins before God just as any other man will. After Vatican II, the catholic church was nearly divided. Some even believe that PJPII will not see the pearly whites, but of course, thats up to God. He has canonized and beatified more saints than any other pope.

Does anyone know how the pope is chosen? I could tell you based on the account of my catholic friends.

quote:

---

When the Church canonizes a person, it is saying that we know for sure that this particular person is in heaven, a member of the unseen Body of Christ and a member of our religious family.

---

But how do we here on earth know this for sure?