Pope asks universities to disseminate his claim ‘diversity of religions’ is ‘willed by God’

LifeSite News | March 25, 2019 | Maike HIckson

[Mrs. Don-o]

"So if God does not guide the college of cardinals in the selection of the pope, then there can be no legitimate claim of him being the vicar of Christ...He’s just a man elected by popular vote."

That doesn't quite follow. He's not elected by popular vote, he's elected (or selected or approved) by fellow anointed bishops, and designated Bishop of Rome.

(Incidentally, every priest is anointed with oil on the hands, and every bishop anointed on the head. So I'm talking about "anointed" both ns the figurative and literal sense.)

The Vicar part goes back to Isaiah's prophetic description of the Power of the Keys inIsaiah 22, in which "the key of the house of David" is conferred upon Eliakim, the son of Helkias, as the symbol of headship over the royal household and plenary authority in the Kingdom of Judah.

Christ by employing this expression clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church.

That's what's meant by "Vicar."

And it's not conveyed by "popular vote", but consecrated by a laying-on of hands by bishops, successors of the Apostles --- which was the way Apostles delegated authority, in the NT, as you know. And the original Apostles, the Twelve, were appointed by Christ.

We do not forget that the Twelve included one traitor (Judas); one guy who was intimidated (yeesh, intimidated by a servant girl) into denying Him three times, and the other nine, at the point of crisis, just ran like scalded cats.

(Except John.)

Does that mean they were not picked by Him? Or does it mean they were picked but retained their ability to choose well or badly?

The Kings of Israel were picked, too. But even when they went bad --- and a lot of them did --- they were still kings.

David, even when King Saul was trying to kill him, would not raise his hand against the Lord's anointed.

If you think "anointed shepherds" can't go wrong, you need to take another look at your Bible.

[Mrs. Don-o]

And you know how surreal this is, when you consider that we have to oppose the pope to be faithful to the Papal Magisterium ---

Because on the global scale, the principal opponent of the Papal Magisterium is now the pope!

I think the word "surreal" was invented for a time like this.

[amihow]

Or the end times. Interestingly enough I owe my knowledge of the Church’s teachings to a Jesuit.

We were friends for over twenty years. He was totally orthodox, very learned and loved to teach.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The fool...

[combat_boots]

No

[Concentrate]

Sorry to say, but it sounds like nonsense to me at this point.

[Bulwyf]

Christ founded the church on Christ.

[Gamecock]

Remember the good old days when Catholics said we Protestants are going to Hell for not being Roman Catholics?

[metmom]

They still do.

They’ll just use this as proof then, that Frank is not a good Catholic.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Christ founded the church on Christ."

Amen to that. Christ the Cornerstone, had the right to pick His men and build His Church upon the stones He chose.

As Peter said to all of us (1 Peter 2:4 -5) "Come to Him, a living stone, rejected by human beings but chosen and precious in the sight of God, and, like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

THis is this same Peter who, because of the Faith he professed, was particularly re-named by Christ Himself as this kind of stone upon which He would build:

"Thou art Cephas [=Peter, Rock) and upon this "Cephas" I will build My Church."

And again, in Revelation 21:14

"The wall of the city [the New Jerusalem]had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

[Mrs. Don-o]

All this was predicted. It is terrible for sure, but it shouldn't take anyone utterly by surprise.

Peter himself exemplified this. In Matthew 16, Christ calls him "this Rock" --- a stone for building the Church --- and just one sentence later, He calls him a stone in another sense: a stumbling stone, when Peter speaks from his own obtuseness, rather than by the Spirit of God.

[Bulwyf]

If you want to get specific, the word rock used for Jesus and Peter and not the same. Original word means pebble for Peter. Either way, this is a very small issue considering the rest of the catholic teachings. Peter himself was rebuked by Jesus and other disciples as well. We’re human.

Without Jesus, there is hope, no life. He specifically talks against vain repetitions. Also, I’m fairly certain that the millions of christians murdered by the catholic church would go against God’s teachings as well.

I am sure many that profess to be catholic are actually christians though, just from some beliefs I’ve heard and attitude I’ve seen. I think some just have the terminology mixed up.

[PeterPrinciple]

Rule #1, the Pope is always right.

Rule #2, If the Pope is wrong, see Rule #1

[daniel1212]

The Vicar part goes back to Isaiah's prophetic description of the Power of the Keys inIsaiah 22,

Where is this an infallible or otherwise binding interpretation of Is. 22? And if it is not, then it is not certain for you, unless you assent that certainty of belief can be obtained from Scripture submission to binding teaching from Rome.

And nowhere does the Holy Spirit invoke Is. 22 this as pertaining to Peter, and not only was this prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy apparently fulfilled in the OT [as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and Is. 36:22, 37:2 all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in Is. 22:15,22) which Shebna the treasurer was, (Is. 22:15) and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later] - but the text actually states:

"In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it." (Isa 22:25)

Whether this refers to Shebna or Eliakim is irrelevant, for in any case it means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency.

Yet if we are looking for a future fulfillmen, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28).

For it is Christ who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6) And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, ” (Is. 22:24) for He is the head of the body, the church, (Colossians 1:18) "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,“ (Eph. 4:16) and in Jesus Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9)

Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, nor does it necessarily denote successors (Christ has none Himself, but took over the function of Lordship from the Father: Acts 2.

Thus if this prophecy corresponds to anyone future then it is Christ, who shall one day delivered the kingdom to the Father as functional head, after he, not Peter, has put all His enemies under His feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25-28)

[daniel1212]

And you know how surreal this is, when you consider that we have to oppose the pope to be faithful to the Papal Magisterium --

Meaning that like us, you ascertain the veracity of church teaching based upon your judgment of what historical church teaching is and says. And in which you are disagreements. I am sure Catholic answers would not tolerate what we see from Catholics here.

The main difference is that for us historical church teaching is the most ancient teaching as preserved in the only wholly inspired substantive record of what the NT church believed.

Because on the global scale, the principal opponent of the Papal Magisterium is now the pope! I think the word "surreal" was invented for a time like this.

It's surreal alright, in the light of the manner of submission s much historical papal teaching required:

'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

[Bulwyf]

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” 1 Timothy 2:5

[daniel1212]

Makes sense. God created the universe for entertainment, he was bored. No, God was never bored, and never needed anything. (Acts 17:25) Instead, God is always giving, and He would not have grief if He did not created creatures who had a freedom to chose btwn good and evil, yet.

Even the command to worship is not due to need, but because man will worship something, and it is only right to worship the One who alone made universe and can never fail His own, and obeying Him is to our benefit, and even non-believers are blessed by obedience.

[amihow]

I would think you would agree there are levels of certainty which accompany every teaching on faith and moralsfrom infallible to even dubious. My words are not accurate, but I would refer you to Ludwig Ott on Dogma.

But the above is regarding belief as to faith and morals.

Also for Catholics there is the issue of obedience to the Pope’s directives, which we are obliged to obey. This is where liturgy belongs because the Pope has absolute power over liturgy.

Some Catholics confuse the two. Many disobey both.

[daniel1212]

So did he sign this Ex Cathedra? No, and the Holy Spirit would never have let him. Thank God.

A comforting delusion for the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome ( is nowhere taught in Scripture. If those who sat in Moses seat could err, so can Popes speaking from the chair. And have.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Jesus: Nobody comes to the Father, but through Me.
Francis I: But that’s so unfaaaaiiirrrr!
Jesus: Fine, I’ll be completely fair: from now on, everybody goes to Hell without exception.