Hey, I wanted to ask this question but I'm starting this thread in the War Forum instead of Off-Topic because there's already a thread there that's turned ugly.
Anyways, the question I have here is "is the Pope supposed to be God's representative to Catholic followers on earth"? I'm not Catholic so I've never followed the religion and as such I'm ignorant to how it works. But what I would like to know is if my question above is true then does it not undermine the faith seeing how the Pope is experiencing failing health? (Hey, I'm not trying to say ANY faith is better than ANY other - I'm simply asking what your opinion is in regards to the Pope's health). I DO understand that he is as human as the rest of us but does it in any way make sense to say that if the Pope is God's "ambassador" he should be as infallible as God Himself (even though he's a mortal human)?
<img src="http://members.rogers.com/sukhumvit/flag.jpg">
give me a machine gun. that will make him really "HOLY"
Im a Xbox 360 fanboy...and damn proud of it!!
The Holy Father is (through apostliistic succession) the representative of the Church, as Peter the apostle. "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church" IE: It was Peter who was given the dutie of establishing the organised church and through his successors that the church is mantained.
Infallible does not mean invinsable or even perfect. It means that his appointment was not a mistake. Infallable, as opposed to fallable or mistaken.
PAX
invincible no but without failure or error seems rather perfect to me, and the catholic community considers the pope infallible.
He is considered to be infallible in the RC tradition, that means he is "incapable of error in expounding the docturn of faith". So he is capable of error in other areas, and he is still human, as was Peter.
PAX
^^^ True...
However John Paul has made his agenda the church's agenda. For the faults of the church and the previous corruption (which I can expound on, but won't get into), I have to say that at this point, he's exceeded many of his predecessors. He's aware of the pull he has in world politics and has used it (threatening to resign so he could tend his flock in Poland), and he's been reaffirming the faith by creating an openess that's been previously unheard of (Catholic priest child abuse scandals).
I know he's only human, and while I have my doubts about God in some cases, if nothing else, John Paul is a humanitarian and a decent person. Those are not terms you can easily or transparently bestow on a lot of people, specifically people in seats of political or financial power.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
plus he's polish, a definite plus in my book.
closest thing to perfect.
infallible-esque
Well, you know that the only time an Irishman wants to speak to his equal, he's forced to converse with God...
Gotta love Stevens from Braveheart..
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
ToBoGgAn EsQuIrE wrote:plus he's polish, a definite plus in my book.
closest thing to perfect.
infallible-esque
With a name like Janusz-Krzysztof Jarosinski, I feel
obligated to agree The Pope is Poland's Icon,
and he made me proud to be Polish. Much like GAM
said, I respect the Pope as a champion of humanity
rather than an indestructible or an infallible Religious
Monarch.
<A HREF="http://www.j-body.org/members/urbanyan/"><IMG SRC="http://www.j-body.org/registry/urbanyan/thumbnail_personal_pic.jpg" BORDER=0></A>
he's infallible then, only to the catholics--and other that recognize his holiness.
To those that don't, he's just another holy-man in a corrupt quasi-political orginazation...
...
...
...
...
As will be his successor.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
my opinion of him, in a nutshell.
i had the opportunity to meet with him once, at World Youth Day in Rome, 2000. he was an energizing, captivating person who truly inspired many people during this convention.
while i came out of that trip with a loss of my catholocism - based on the actions of "devout" Catholic youth from every country on the globe, who were nothing but whores, liars, and thieves when in their own element - i also came home with a sense of happiness...for this man truly worked for a unification of the world.
was he infallible? hardly...but in the 2 minute chat i had with him, i gained a true sense of self, and quite a bit more respect for him than i'd ever had. as a person, he was a good man...and he will be mourned.
grammar tip of the day: don't use "at" at the end of a sentence.
it makes you sound like an idiot. example: "where are those at?"
the "at" is unnecessary. thank you all for reading this, and have a nice day.
Keeper, if nothing else, he's brought about a real change in the Catholic church, and interrupted the status quo for about 25 years.
As corrupt as the church is, he's brought some respect to it. Noble deed for a guy that would have walked away from it all.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
He also helped bring democracy to Poland and started what became the fall of the Soviet Union. He was a major component, not entirely responsible, but certainly influential.
PAX
Hahahaha wrote:He is considered to be infallible in the RC tradition, that means he is "incapable of error in expounding the docturn of faith". So he is capable of error in other areas, and he is still human, as was Peter.
PAX
Great explanation and totally in line with my understanding (but not necessarily my belief) as a lifelong RC.
While he made great strides in reforming the church, there is still much work to be done. Gone are the days that pedophiles and child molesters can be hidden from the followers (and authorities) by transferring them from parish to parish. Arguably, more should have been done to resolve these problems and should have been done sooner.
Unfortunately, in any institution as old and large as the RC church, change (and reforms) are slow to take root. Even if John Paul's successor is less conservative and more reform minded, he'll still have to deal with an aging church hierarchy.
_____________________
1st gen Z24 hatch with aero package
Black
23K original miles
(need '87 Z24 hood)
SIMPLY HOLY......................Cant believe you people eve question.
Let's also remember that the Pope during WW2 was an accused NAZI sympathizer who turned his cheek to the holocaust. And as mentioned has recently turned a blind eye to child molostation. Not to mention the stone age views that women are not equal to men. And yet this guy has the balls to rip America? Wow.....just WOW.
He was not the defender of the Jews, and later appologized for it.
He never said women were not equal, only that they cannot be ordained as priests. They can minister the faith as is the tradition. Roles are not based on equality. If they were then nobody could be afforded equality. IE: Men cannot bear children, that does not mean we are unequal, on that in that instance, men are incapable. The priesthood is male, period. Women can function in almost all the same roles as a priest, but cannot be called a priest, the same as they cannot be called male. There are tons and tons of RC Ministers who are female.
He exposed the child molesters and is one reason it is in the news. He stopped the practice of hiding it from public view. You have it backwards.
He ripped on America because they used war as a tool to further themselves and for no other purpose. War in itself goes against the teachings of Christ, therefore he had no option but to disaggree with the practice.
PAX
shame the pope couldnt have come to cincinnati since there seem to be allot of child molesters in that area. (wich he did know about i might add) they just chose to deal with it in their own way instead of actually alerting any authorities, basically giving off the impression that they are above the law, but i digress.
i wouldnt say it undermines the church at all. i mean i dont think anyone in their right mind would expect him to turn water into wine, or resurrect the dead, or walk on water or any other type of religious hoo haa.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
whoever said that the RC church thinks men are greater than women is highly mistaken. Thats just obsurd to say so. The church only says that we had different roles. Not one is more important than another. As said above the two most important roles for mankind are childbirth and priesthood.
For those of you who think the catholic churchs "worship" of Mary is crazy, think about it this way. God wanted to put Jesus on this earth to save us. He could have simply "put" someone down here to do so. But God wanted to stress the importance of women and childbirth by allowing woman to conceive God. This directly shows how women actually have the highest honor that there is. Thus making women valuable thing on the earth. Mary in particular is God's companion. Marriage is the basis of the whole catholic church, for marriege you need man and woman. These two live as companions and are to procreate through marriage. For God to give son he needed a companion. Its rediculous to me that people will put down the church for praising Mary. Think about it. If you know this very very wonderful person. You look your girlfriend/boyfriend or wife/husband and you say wow I am so glad that they were born and you look to the people that created them you arnt just looking at one parent and saying man i am glad that you gave me your son/daughter. You look at both thier mom and dad as companions, not one recieves more praise than the other for that. Mary and God are the same way. Men and Women have different roles. The church does not hate women. That is obsurd. In fact the church is based upon women.
If the Church was based around women, why was Jesus' partner (meaning wife) cast as a whore? Why was her book omitted from the bible? Why are there no books from women in the bible (please correct me if I'm wrong on that one... it's been a while)?
JPII had said that women and men have different roles, however, there was no equality mentioned. Being realistic, this is a long held value of the church, I don't know for certain if JPII held that as his own beliefs, religion is inheirently political and you need to choose your battles. If men and women were equal in Roman Catholic religion, then, women could be confirmed as preists, and hold title and responsibilities beyond Mother Superior.
The whole idea that men and women are equals was orignally a very pagan, and real ideal.. both had their roles, and both needed to fufill them or they'd both suffer.
Either way, the church has been subjugating and defining a woman's role very narrowly since the beginning... Mary Magdalene was from the house of Benjamin, and Jesus of the house of Solomon (IIRC). If he had taken her as his wife and consumated the union, he would no longer be without sin, and merely a mortal with some very good ideas on how people should treat each other.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
You know it is very sad when you see people saying that th "da vinci code" is the catholic church. That book has been proven wrong up and down again. Yet people still belive it. There is no proof whatsoever that Jesus was married or had children. In total there were at least 20 some (or more, I dont know the exact numer) gospels writen. Only a couple writen by women. No one really knows what these were about and what was said in them. But it wouldnt make any sense for the church to include a book in the bible which did have nearly as much significance as matthew, mark, luke, or john. There is not political need to include a book writen by a woman just because she was a woman. Obviously if Mary Magdalin (SP?) was a whore and stuff like that, she didnt know the way of God for very long. The other 4 writers knew him much longer and could tell his story with more detail. Obviously those are the books that will be put in the Bilbe. Now the definition of a Gospel in the Bible is simply a story of Jesus' life. There isnt going to be 20 + books about jesus life that tell the same story over and over agian. That would have been rediculous. So they pick out the most importat ones that tell the stories with the most accuracy and that is what came out in the bible.
Equality has absolutely nothing to do with women being priests. That is the first thing you must understand. If there is one thing you get out of me saying the please have it be this. Men becoming priest is a matter of simple tradition. Jesus came down as the first priest, he broke the bread at the last supper therefore self proclaiming himself a priest. He gave the bread and wine to those at the last super ( all men). According to the "Da vinci code" there was a woman but that just is absolutely un-true. Jesus first off would not leave out one of his apostles, they were all there, no women. Out of tradition Jesus told all the apostles to go preach the word and to elect others to do so; therefore, making all the apostles priests. Through tradition it has always been an order passed on to a priest. Women can be eucharistic ministers which allows them to pass on Jesus' body and blood to parishioners. The chuch still gives them that very important role. If you family has a tradition that they say a prayer or somthing before thanksgiving meal, and you dont agree with praying, would you say they are being unequall and unfair because thier tradition goes against your beliefs. Hell no. You would simply follow along and allow tradition to be tradition. It is in no way symbolizing inequality.
i believe that dying and goin to heaven to serve god would be far more fullfilling then being even the pope.
-Borsty
Rollinredcavi wrote:You know it is very sad when you see people saying that th "da vinci code" is the catholic church. That book has been proven wrong up and down again. Yet people still belive it. There is no proof whatsoever that Jesus was married or had children. In total there were at least 20 some (or more, I dont know the exact numer) gospels writen. Only a couple writen by women. No one really knows what these were about and what was said in them. But it wouldnt make any sense for the church to include a book in the bible which did have nearly as much significance as matthew, mark, luke, or john. There is not political need to include a book writen by a woman just because she was a woman. Obviously if Mary Magdalin (SP?) was a whore and stuff like that, she didnt know the way of God for very long. The other 4 writers knew him much longer and could tell his story with more detail. Obviously those are the books that will be put in the Bilbe. Now the definition of a Gospel in the Bible is simply a story of Jesus' life. There isnt going to be 20 + books about jesus life that tell the same story over and over agian. That would have been rediculous. So they pick out the most importat ones that tell the stories with the most accuracy and that is what came out in the bible.
Actually, you're assuming a lot.. The Da Vinci Code is a novel, however, you'll notice that the only ones trying to tear it down are select extreme conservatives within the Catholic Church, who are even within the church branded as zealots.
The problem that you're not addressing is that much of the information in TDVC is actually verified... how you ask? Simple: it's in Jewish Messianic/archival tomes. There is a very large gap between the birth of Jesus, and the establishment of this ministry... about a 20 year gap. If you're wondering about what time and events all the other 80 or so Gospels were focused on... it's there. The Dead Sea Scrolls have ignited a very fiery debate, because, they basically refute not only the Latin Vulgate bible, but also the known and long established scrolls that have been for generations the basis from which the Bible and all translations were spawned. I would think, the travels of Jesus to Hindustan (or India) and other areas of "enlightened" philosophy would have made interesting news (but then again, you'd have to have seen the paralells between a lot of Judeo-Christian-Muslim philosophies and Hindu/Buddhist philosphies... I'm no expert, but I have done a bit of study on it).
Mary Magdalene (you were close
) was descended from the line of Benjamin, and hell, if you'd read the book, look at the Last Supper Fresco painted by Da Vinci: <a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vinci/lastsupp.jpg">Here</a>, look at the right hand of Jesus, notice that the figure has only the hint of a bust, and long flowing hair... and is dressed as the inverse of Jesus. Dan Brown actually researched his book, and I'd advise you to do the same with your responses before you start trying to shoot down something, I'm supposing, you haven't read.
Quote:
Equality has absolutely nothing to do with women being priests. That is the first thing you must understand. If there is one thing you get out of me saying the please have it be this. Men becoming priest is a matter of simple tradition. Jesus came down as the first priest, he broke the bread at the last supper therefore self proclaiming himself a priest. He gave the bread and wine to those at the last super ( all men).
I don't remember reading that... but if you can quote the verse, I'll believe it...
And the problem isn't as simplistic as tradition... Jesus had apostles, and one was Mary Magdalene... Here's the dope: Jesus had taught her some lessons and truths that had not been imparted to the other apostles.. Upon learning that Jesus would die, Mary gave these lessons to the others, leading Peter to 'accuse' (or faithfully inquire) if Jesus was favouring her above all other apostles. Again, I point at the <a href="http://www.magdalene.org/">Gospel of Mary Magdalene</a>, and the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A307487">Council of Nicea</a>.
These are not blasphemous rantings of a theologically illiterate mind, they're actually well researched and diligently studied and concluded manuscripts. I advise reading if you want more of the backdrop for Christianity, that is, more that what you learn at Bible school, sunday school, or Mass.
Quote:
According to the "Da vinci code" there was a woman but that just is absolutely un-true.
Read above. Peter questioned teaching Mary more or differently than other Apostles. The idea was that she understood Jesus' teachings on the same level as Jesus, not just as teachings of professor to student.
Quote:
Jesus first off would not leave out one of his apostles, they were all there, no women.
Until you have written proof of attendance (and not just from the bible, it's writings have been altered and re-altered... Don't need a novel to learn that.. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385418493/qid=1112847903/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-2028600-7586241?v=glance&s=books&n=507846">Thomas Cahill</a> is a wealth of knowledge)
Quote:
Out of tradition Jesus told all the apostles to go preach the word and to elect others to do so; therefore, making all the apostles priests. Through tradition it has always been an order passed on to a priest. Women can be eucharistic ministers which allows them to pass on Jesus' body and blood to parishioners. The chuch still gives them that very important role. If you family has a tradition that they say a prayer or somthing before thanksgiving meal, and you dont agree with praying, would you say they are being unequall and unfair because thier tradition goes against your beliefs. Hell no. You would simply follow along and allow tradition to be tradition. It is in no way symbolizing inequality.
No, I'd let them do whatever they wanted... I'm not going to fall into lockstep because the majority says I should... My folks don't pray, but if they did, they are wise enough to let me follow my own path. But then again, you haven't been to one of my family's thanksgiving dinners
Really, the point I'm driving at is that the Catholic church has long been narrowly defining the roles of women as secondary, or weaker vessels... I know that a lot of women are not fit to be priests, and obviously, neither are a lot of men. I just find it odd that ministering falls first to men, then to women in the church.. I find the rituals are esoteric, but just saying they can dole out the trappings of the religion doesn't make me very optimistic about Catholicism.. There's a lot more than just saying "the Body of Christ" and "the blood of Christ" and passing around Sacramental wine and communion wafers. That's just my opinion though.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
the history channel has alot of interesting studies of the davinci code
The Da Vinci Code is an annotated book, and the biggest thing that you have to understand when reading it is that it is not, in fact, a text, it's a novel. It's well researched, and thoroughly documented, but it's still a novel. I think of it as a good starting point.
If it were not at all annotated, or even somewhat researched, I'd pretty much dismiss it, but Dan Brown has dumped a lot of time and effort into the research of the book and framing it around interesting niches in history that I not only found really enjoyable to read, but food for thought and my own research.
In the end, it's a story, take it for what it's worth.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
