After reading all that, I can't help but think: CULT! RUN AWAY!
I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
by minimus 239 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
BurnTheShips
"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."
Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous".This quote doesn't check out. This is an exact quote that appears only on several anti-Catholic sites that seem to be quoting each other in a circle. I am unable to locate any document named "Cities Petrus Bertanous" nor to identify who the Barclay is. Please provide the full name of the Barclay in question (there are several possibles), a link to "Cities Petrus Bertanous", or a link to the document by Pius V where the words "The Pope and God are the same" appear.
"...the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power."
Lucius Ferraris, in "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica", Volume V, article on "Papa, Article II", titled "Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility", #1, 5, 13-15, 18, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.The Pope represents Christ on earth. Christ is God. Therefore, the Pope represents God on earth. However, the Catholic Church has never taught that the Pope is God.
Looking over several of your quotes here we could level the same accusations of blasphemy against Scripture. For example, in the OT in Exodus 21:6, 22:8,9,28 the Scriptures refer to the judges as "gods", (Elohim). This means that they were the supreme representatives of God on Earth and carry his authority. Blasphemy? They were as it were, God. Scripture is therefore blasphemous.
Or what about Exodus 4:16 referring to Moses:
"Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and he will be as a mouth for you and you will be as God to him."
And Exodus 7:1 again:
Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.
Blasphemy? Only if taken out of context and with distortion of intent. Or intent to distort, as many of the quotes you copy here seem to be about.
"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth...by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth." Quoted in the New York Catechism.
Here is the real, official Catholic Catechism:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
This is actually funny! Does the "New York Catechism" even exist! LOL! I only seem to find it on anti-Catholic sites only. If it did exist (and I doubt it) it was probably from the time when ultramontanism was relatively widespread. Just as we have certain individuals in the Church today who publish questionable catechesis tools, so did the ultramontanists in their day, and they had a very extreme view of papal authority.
These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: "To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical."
I challenge the sourcing of that statement! I have found it quoted as sourced from three different sources. It actually was not in the Canon Law of 1685.
Father A. Pereira says: "It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title 'Lord God the Pope,' for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII."
This is thoroughly debunked:
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/forgeries/zenzelinus.html
The problem here is, this argument only relies on an edition of the Extravagantes. Why not look at the original version in the Vatican? GASP This quote is an interpolation and is not in the original.
"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth."
Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. - Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.So first it is Cities Petrus Bertanous in the first quote and then it is Cities Petrus Bertrandus? Something smells very fishy here.
"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh."
Catholic National July 1895A Protestant paper, the "Church Review," in England, October 3, 1895, charges Cardinal Sarto, Archbishop of Venice, with having uttered those words at Venice. Cardinal Sarto was elected Pope in 1903. But as soon as the charge was made in 1895 that Cardinal Sarto had said those words, inquiries were sent from England to Venice, and Cardinal Sarto produced the manuscript of his discourse. And this is what he actually did say:
"The Pope REPRESENTS Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, that is, the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on earth and in heaven."
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num4.htm
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894
OUT OF CONTEXT. Here is the encyclical and a bit of context:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm
This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief. But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us.
Who is the "Us"? It is not the Pope, but the Church, which is the body of Christ, which is the pillar and bulwark of truth (Tim. 3:15)!
I could go on and address all these quotes, but after fisking a few quotes in this anti-Catholic copy and paste I question the veracity of ALL OF IT.
If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, read the Catechism. This is the official compendium of Catholic doctrine. This stuff you copied is crap.
BTS
-
BurnTheShips
Were the following statements actually recorded accurately?
I don't think so:"The pope is the supreme judge of the law of the land . . . He is the vicegerent of Christ, and is not only a priest forever, but also King of kings and Lord of lords"
La Civilta Cattolica, March 18, 1871.Vicegerent?
Here is the archive for La Civilta Cattolica of that time period. I have text-searched under "judge" (giudice) and "supreme" (supremo) singly and together and have found nothing even remotely similar to the statement above.
"All the faithful must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff [the Pope] possesses the primacy over the whole world, and the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is true vicar of Christ, and heed of the whole church, and father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter to rule, feed, and govern the universal Church by Jesus Christ our Lord."
First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, "Eternal Pastor," published in the fourth session of the Vatican Council, 1870, chap. 3, in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. vol. 2, p. 262.Even if the quote were to be wrong in attribution or composition it is essentially correct. In Catholicism the seat of the Apostle Peter has primacy over all others. In the OT, the High Priest had the highest jurisdiction in religious matters. So much so that on his turban, in gold, was written HOLY TO THE LORD (Exodus 28:36). The OT religion was a type for the Christian religion (1 Cor 10:11), and Peter was given the primacy among the Apostles and the highest authority as well. (Matthew 16:18-19). Full power was given to Peter by Jesus Christ to feed and shepherd the flock. (John 21:15-17)
BTS
-
Mary
Who set the Biblical Canon?
The Catholic Church did. I have no problem acknowledging that we all owe them a debt of gratitude for doing that.....in fact, it's something I used to love bringing to the attention of the Dubs (usually during the Bookstudy). I can't remember which book we were studying, but it totally glossed over the fact that the NT writings were cannonized by the Catholic Church----I think it just said something like "eventually, these writings of Christs' followers were organized and became what we know as the Christian Greek Scriptures". No mention whatsoever that it was Public Enemy No. 1 that did this, so I "innocently" asked the conductor "..I think it was the Catholic Church that actually decided what books would be included as part of the Christian Greek Scriptures, wasn't it?"
Of course, no one there wanted to admit that they were so everyone just got a glazed look on their face as we quickly moved on to the next paragraph. I got a few dirty looks for pulling that one.
-
Wordly Andre
Mary! you bookstudy rebel
-
minimus
Amazing/Jim, I can't stay on the computer today as I have some business to take care of. I simply thought some of the writing was similar to yours. It certainly was not meant as an insult. Man, I think either you're a bit touchy or crotchedy. (sp?).....No big deal.
-
Amazing
Minimus and Toreador,
Min:
Amazing/Jim, I can't stay on the computer today as I have some business to take care of. I simply thought some of the writing was similar to yours. It certainly was not meant as an insult. Man, I think either you're a bit touchy or crotchedy. (sp?).....No big deal.
No, I am not touchy ... unfortunately the one dismensional aspect of the PC eliminates real life reactions, and it forces the reader to overlay their own emotional connections to the words used. I just was curious about your point ... I do not insult easily ... relax, I am fine. - Jim W. Toreador, I do not know the source of the blog used by Flatlander ... butr maybe I can look into it. However, it appears that BurnTheShips is doing a far better job responding to the details than I have done ... and it shows a continuous pattern where some blogs outright lie about things that they do not like. Hell, the Catholic Church has enough real juicy sins without having to invent things. Jim W.
-
reniaa
I would ask one question of ex-jws turned catholic and that is.....
Do you now think we will all be eternally tortured in a fiery Hell?
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi Min,
Sorry, I thought I did. What needs clarification?
Tom -
Tom Cabeen
Hi Mary,
So, if there is no church around today that is *essentially* the same as apostolic Christianity, what happened to the early Christian congregation? In the Acts we see a "church" composed of local congregations, at unity with one another (holding "one faith, one hope, one baptism"). Did that church fragment into many "flavors" right from the start, or was there "one church" that had right teaching and practice, from which smaller heretical groups (like the Gnostics) broke off?
When the gospel began to be widely preached to the Gentiles (as Jesus had commanded), would that justify any changes in the way the Jesus' teachings were presented? For example, why would the Greeks or Romans be convinced by extensive quotations from the Jewish sacred writings, which they did not regard to be either inspired or authoritative?
Another question: If the first century church founded by Jewish disciples of Christ became fragmented almost immediately, why so many witnesses from all over the Middle East, Asia, Europe and Africa in the second, third, fourth centuries (and on and on) who testify that there was one main body of believers, in communion with one another, who believed and practiced the same things, whose overseers (bishops) preserved and handed down the teachings of the apostles? To what were they referring?
If no church today is like the first century Christian congregation, what are the implications of that? Could it be that Jesus either decided that the first century church was of use then, but that from then on there would be other ways in which Christianity would be passed on and practiced? Or could it be that the first century Church changed in some aspects of its outward appearance as it grew and the message was preached to all nations, but not in its core teachings and practices?
Finally, what teachings do you believe to have been introduced by the time of the Church of Constantines' day that were substantially, fundamentally different from those teachings held by the apostles and other first century Christians, many of whom were Jews who had accepted Jesus as the Messiah?
Tom