Posted on 01/21/2013 9:12:42 AM PST by marshmallow
At the Angelus, Benedict XVI invites prayers for Week dedicated to Christian Unity (18-25 January). This year's theme, "What the Lord requires of us" (cf. I 6.6 to 8), was chosen and developed by an ecumenical group in India. On January 25, Vespers at St. Paul Outside the Walls, along with representatives of the Christian Churches. A prayer for peace for "an end to the massacres of unarmed civilians, to all violence, and to find the courage of dialogue and negotiation."
Vatican City (AsiaNews) - "One of the most serious sins that disfigures the face of the Church is its visible lack of unity, especially the historical divisions that have separated Christians and which have not yet been completely resolved." This is what Benedict XVI said in his reflection before the Angelus prayer with pilgrims gathered in St. Peter's Square. The Pope's words are due to the fact that for more than 100 years, 18 to 25 January, the Christian world celebrates the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, "a moment - explained the pope - always welcome by believers and communities, which awakens in all the desire and spiritual commitment to full communion".
Experts often say that the ecumenical momentum in Churches - especially non-Catholic ones- is fading. But Benedict XVI fondly remembers "the vigil I celebrated about a month ago, in this square, with thousands of young people from across Europe and the ecumenical community of Taizé: a moment of grace in which we experienced the beauty of being one in Christ. " The young people of Taizé in fact wanted to celebrate their European meeting at the end of 2012 in Rome.
The pope encouraged "everyone to pray together so that we can achieve," What the Lord requires of us "(cf. I 6.6 to 8), as this year's........
(Excerpt) Read more at asianews.it ...
That list is quite impressive. I must of missed the part where Peter was elected pope of the Catholic Church. I was under the impression that Jesus appointed him the foundation of His church. Turns out he was elected by Catholics. /sarc
“Check the dates. Constantine was an emperor who legalized the Catholic faith.”
That’s what I said above and was told I was an ignorant fool. Apparently we are both wrong.
You’re right, it centers on the concept of authority. I have read the Bible thoroughly and all the apostolic fathers multiple times, and find no evidence of the the hierarchy you describe in biblical or post-apostolic times, nor the primacy of Rome.
Regarding the evangelicals and fundamentalists, they fall prey to the human tendency of all Christian religionists of all stripes: having once faced heresy, all their theology inexorably becomes exclusionist, rather than inclusionist. It is the story of Rome and of every other long-lasting Christian movement that I have studied.
It’s all about Jesus. I just want to make the Jesus I see in the Bible tangible to people around me. Because of him I have hope for now and eternity, and I suspect you do, too.
You said he was a Pope.
You wrote:
“Read “Pagan Christianity” by Frank Viola. It is the most researched book concerning this very topic.”
No. It is just the latest in a long chain of pseudo research dating back to the nineteenth century that doesn’t actually do anything to prove your point. I see no evidence that you’ve read the book either or imbibed any of its claimed research.
“I bet you won’t because it’s much easier to call me names.”
Actually, I’ll be happy to read it - although I’ve read dozens of books like it before that date back to the 19th century.
“I wish you the best on your journey brother.”
Thanks. Sadly, I knew you would go belly up when I demanded evidence. And you have. And, remember, Constantine did not establish Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. You learned something today about history that you previously got wrong. Don’t forget it. And don’t forget who taught it to you either.
As the emperor of Rome, he was the head of religion for the roman empire at that time. There was no “Pope”. It seems that the lineage was created after adoption of Christianity as the official Roman religion. Man came up with the idea of a Pope.
Jesus said it best:
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples,
2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat:
3 all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.
4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.
5 But all their works they do to be seen of men: for they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments ,
6 and love the chief place at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 and the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called of men, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.
The term is “Pontifex Maximus.”
You’re a funny guy/gal. You know nothing of me. I was going to let this rest but since you asked allow me to retort.
Your post is in error and makes my point exactly. Let’s say that you are correct, that the Catholic religion was adopted 40 years after Constantine. That would mean that anyone prior to that time was appointed pope after the fact. So you get to pick and choose your lineage. How convenient for you.
How about you edjumacate me on other things:
Why do you spread ash on your forehead?
What is the purpose of carrying palm leafs?
Explain the fixation with Mary?
How did Peter get elected Pope?
Why do you call the pope and priests “Holy Father” when Jesus specifically states not to?
Thank you.
So what “church” is the Pope talking about when he says,”One of the most serious sins that disfigures the face of the Church is its visible lack of unity, ...”?
He’s obviously not talking about the Catholic Church, which is quite visible in Its unity.
I'm a protestant, ordained minister/elder. For years, I've advocated for true Christian Unity. The above approach will not advance the effort. It will not work. It is not the right direction.
Absolutely true. The Roman state religion was pagan both before and after Constantine. As has been patiently explained to you, Catholicism became the state religion a good 50 years after Constantine's death. And the definitive proclamation of you New Testament canon was another 20 years after that.
There was no “Pope”.
Of course there was. In fact, Constantine gave Pope Melchiades the estate which had formerly belonged to the family of Plautius Lateranus, which estate became the site of the cathedral of Rome, known today as "St. John Lateran".
Anybody can make up history and publish it. It sounds like that's what this book you're peddling consists of. Read Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism". You deserve to hear both sides of the story.
Matthew 11: If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes
What is the purpose of carrying palm leafs?
John 12:13 They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna! " "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Blessed is the King of Israel!"
Explain the fixation with Mary?
Matthew 1:18 [The Birth of Jesus Christ] This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
How did Peter get elected Pope?
John 21:18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"
Why do you call the pope and priests “Holy Father” when Jesus specifically states not to?
1 Corinthians 4:15 Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
You wrote:
“You’re a funny guy/gal. You know nothing of me.”
Actually you communicate more than you realize. I’ve dealt with your type before. It becomes routine after a while.
“I was going to let this rest but since you asked allow me to retort.”
Oh, gee, please do.
“Your post is in error and makes my point exactly.”
No, actually nothing I said was in error and your about to prove it.
“Let’s say that you are correct, that the Catholic religion was adopted 40 years after Constantine. That would mean that anyone prior to that time was appointed pope after the fact.”
No. The one does not follow the other. Your view - as you’ve posted it - is predicated upon a false idea. You are forgetting - actually you probably never knew - that Constantine, when he seized control of Rome on his way to becoming the undisputed emperor of the Empire, was met by an already installed Bishop of Rome who succeeded a universally well known and famous line of Bishops of Rome. So, not only did you not know which emperor established Christianity as the official religion of the empire, but you falsely assume there were no Bishops of Rome before the time of Consatntine when in fact EVERYONE - Christian and pagan both - knew there was a Bishop of Rome.
“So you get to pick and choose your lineage. How convenient for you.”
No. Again, the line of Bishops was known about long, long before Constantine. Is this really as good as it’s going to get from you? Really? Not only are you presenting things that are historically false, but they don’t even mke sense on the surface either. Typical.
How about you edjumacate me on other things:
“Why do you spread ash on your forehead?”
1) I don’t spread ash on my forehead. A priest puts ash on my forehead in the sign of the cross.
2) 2 Sam 13:19; Neh 9:1; Jon 3:5,6; 1 Macc 3:47; Jer 6:26; Ezek 27:30,31. Apparently you know even less about the Bible than you do history.
“What is the purpose of carrying palm leafs?”
Used as decoration in the Temple - 1 King 6:29,32,35; 7:36; 2 Ch 3:5. A symbol of beauty (Song 7:7). Used to represent the righteous man:
“The righteous shall flourish like the palm-tree:
He shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon.
They are planted in the house of Yahweh;
They shall flourish in the courts of our God.
They shall still bring forth fruit in old age;
They shall be full of sap and green” (Ps 92:12-14).
Jews were commanded by God to use them: Lev 23:40.
And most importantly - used as a sign of triumphal victory, welcoming a king: 1 Macc 13:51; including Christ - Jn 12:13; Rev 7:9).
“Explain the fixation with Mary?”
Since we have no fixation with Mary, there’s nothing to explain. We know who made her what she is and we honor her for the saint God made her.
“How did Peter get elected Pope?”
He was appointed, not elected.
“Why do you call the pope and priests “Holy Father” when Jesus specifically states not to?”
You are confusing two different anti-Catholic attacks and conflating them as one. Not only can you not make a sensible argument, you can’t even keep straight the typical anti-Catholic false attacks. Let me help you since I know this from both sides better than you apparently know it from either. There would be two false anti-Catholic attacks:
1) Why do you call men ‘Father’ when Jesus said call no man father? (Matthew 23:9)
- First, Jesus did not expect us to actually stop calling the men who are our fathers ‘Father’. I once was dealing with an anti-Catholic who, true to form, brought this up without ever realizing the obvious. I asked him, “So what do you call your Dad?” He stopped in his tracks. He suddenly realized, if he was to be consistent, he had to stop calling his father ‘Father’ or ‘Dad’ (since that means ‘Father’). That incredibly obvious thought had never occured to him. Yeah, anti-Catholics aren’t very bright.
- the most complete answer I could give is this one: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father
2) Second false anti-Catholic attack: “Why do you call the pope ‘Holy Father’ when the Bible reserves that for God the Father?”
An anti-Catholic once showed me in his Bible where there was a verse about the ‘holy Father’ but I no longer remember where that is (perhaps it was John 17:11). In any case, it is not improper to refer to the pope as the Holy Father because it is acknowledged that that title is dependent upon God and is about his office and not his person.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-is-the-pope-called-the-holy-father-instead-of-just-father
So, what have we seen here? We see that you cannot make an argument, cannot present any evidence for your claims, and apparently have little or no idea of what you’re talking about. You also seem to have no knowledge of the Bible or Biblical practices. Nothing new there. Typical and Predictable.
Constantine was the FIRST Christian Pontifex Maximus yet he was not considered a pope by Catholics cause they didn’t like him. They also didn’t like any of the pagan Pontifs either. It seems that Darius started the true lineage and before that it was pick and choose. In all actuality the empire had split and there were technically two popes, however the Catholics only recognize the Christian ones. I don’t blame them for this. If you are going to recognize some guy as head of a church you kind of want them on the same team.
Anyway, My beef isn’t about a who is or isn’t pope. Pope is a man made position. My beef is your pope is asking about Christian unity and your brethran make statements that my Christianity isn’t Christian enough.
We are the church, Jesus is head of the church. Unity will only come when we are on the same page. I don’t care that you guys want and need a pope. It doesn’t make you any more Christian than me.
The etymology of the title “Pontifex Maximus” is interesting. In actual usage it meant “most high priest,” but the literal meaning was “great bridge-builder,” which sounds a little Masonic, doesn’t it?
The first to bear the title was Numa Pompilius, second king of Rome.
Unfortunately the only thing you proved to me is that your bias runs deep. You are skilled in rhetoric. When presented with facts you explain them in circles. You then use degradation in a flaccid attempt to intimidate.
My faith doesn’t require your acceptance. See the scripture posted in 46. As brothers we are commanded to help each other.
Peace.
I dug, but not that far brother. I’m going to have to since you brought it up. Thanks again.
Brother xzins,
I took offense to the same post you mentioned. I know you from other debates and respect your views.
My question wasn’t about the Biblical origin. I should have rephrased and asked why is it a ritual.
Some of these brothers have hardened hearts. I am asking you because I know I’ll receive a civil reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.