Catholics Have To Submit To The Pope No Matter How Wicked

[Budge]

Catholics do have to SUBMIT to the Pope no matter how wicked The CCC says this...[and it doesnt matter if the man is wicked, an apostate and more]

[quote]
CCC 937 The Pope[b]enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls[/b]" (CD 2).[/quote]

[quote] CCC882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, [b]and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered[/b][/quote]

."

It gets even better then this...

[quote]
CCC 87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", [b]the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms[/b].[/quote]



If a Catholic is not following a Pope in matters of faith and morals...[that would include the Popes interfaith plans] they are sinning by the RCCs own teachings...

[quote]
CCC 892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals.[b]To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.[/b][/quote]



There are no provisions made for wicked Popes, and for one to NOT submit to that Popes teachings regarding faith and morals...is to be in sin according to Catholic teaching.

The house of cards fell for me, when I realized there was no charisma on a Magisterium that could be capable of such things as this...

[img]http://www.cephasministry.com/pope_assissi.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.infowars.com/headline_photos/April/pope.jpg[/img]



I KNEW the Pope was not infallible when it came to faith or morals.

Gods Word was truth, the Pope no longer represented it.

[Budge]

Scripture basically says there is to be NO POPE.
WY believe folks that have GIVEN THEMSELVES this authority? ...thats convienent for them anyhow...

Jesus never intended for there to be a Pope as proven by this Bible verse:

Luk 22:24 [b] And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.[/b]

Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

Luk 22:26 [b]But ye [shall] not [be] so: [/b]but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

Luk 22:27 For whether [is] greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? [is] not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

[Budge]

It gets even worse, Rome's saints and more back this up.

It is even worse.

If you KNOW that your current pope is EVIL and a TOTAL REPROBATE, you STILL must follow him, and listen to what he wants done![quote]

:[b]"[u]It is error to believe that, if the Pope were a reprobate and an evil man and consequently a member of the devil, he has no power over the faithful."[/u][/b][/quote]
[i] Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe, Session VIII, and Hus: Session XV[/i]


[quote]
"...[b]whether it be possible for him (the Pope) to err or not, is to be obeyed by all the faithful."[/b][/quote]

[b] St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, pt. 5, (quoted in Apostolic Digest[/b]


[b]
"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: "They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!"[b] But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.[/b]"[/b]

[i] St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222[/i]


[quote]"It is error to believe that, if the Pope were wicked and reprobate, then he is of the devil and is not head of the Church Militant..."[/quote]

[i] Pope Martin V, Inter Cunctas et in Eminentis[/i]



[b]Is that SATAN TEACHING YOU, or WHAT???[/b]


Some Catholics here: "We have to follow these men whereever they will lead us"

[even if into the arms of the antichrist]
[b]
Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.[/b]

[Anomaly]

I agree with 90% of what Budge posted.
I do believe in a 'Pope' inasmuch there should be a leader among the College of Bishops. But it ends there.
Undue honor to the Pope has become a Cult. These quotes are clear examples of over-exending the power and authority of a 'Pope'. Infact, they are contradictory to the RCCatechism that says the faithful should not obey the Church against their own conscience. How do you Roman Catholics reconcile this?

[quote][b]1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53 [/b]
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

[b]- One may never do evil so that good may result from it; [/b]
- the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56

- charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

[b]1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.[/b][/quote]

Edited March 17, 2007 by Anomaly

[thessalonian]

Budge, budge budge. Read Mattt 23:2. "The Scribes and the Pharasees sit on Moses SEAT. Therefore DO WHATEVER THEY TELL YOU". Note that Jesus doesn't say do some of what the TELL you. The next passage is interesting with regard to your claim. He tells them not to imitate their wicked deeds however. We are to obey the Pope's commands but if he is involved in sin we are not to follow after those things. Would Jesus have commanded people to do whaterver they tell you, if what they were telling them was not correct, i.e. was wicked? Nope. So in spite of their sinfulness it must have been correct. Same applies with the Popes that were wicked. God promised us legitimate leaders, not perfect ones.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Budge' post='1214890' date='Mar 17 2007, 08:13 AM']Scripture basically says there is to be NO POPE.
WY believe folks that have GIVEN THEMSELVES this authority? ...thats convienent for them anyhow...

Jesus never intended for there to be a Pope as proven by this Bible verse:

Luk 22:24 [b] And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.[/b]

Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

Luk 22:26 [b]But ye [shall] not [be] so: [/b]but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

Luk 22:27 For whether [is] greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? [is] not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.[/quote]


Scripture abuse alert. This does not say there will not be leaders and Popes. It says if you want to be first you must first humble yourself and serve others. Popes who have not done this have reaped their rewards and God has judged them rightly. The passage is a very poor proof text against Popes however. As to use it in the way you have, it has to also condemn any kind of leadership. Heb 13:17 for example proves that quite clearly false. "Obey and submit to your LEADERS who have concern for your souls.". Nice try though budge.

Tell me somthing budge, was the high priest, Caiphas, God's annointed the year that Jesus was crucified, even though he had THE SON OF GOD crucified. Wasn't he one of the tenants of the vineyard who had the owner's only son beaten and murdered. Yet the Holy Spirit still spoke these words through Caiphas:

John 11
49: But one of them, Ca'iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
50: you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."
51: He did not say this [b]of his own accord[/b], but being high priest that year he [b]prophesied [/b]that Jesus should die for the nation,
52: and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
53: So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death.


Blessings budge.

Edited March 17, 2007 by thessalonian

[Budge]

[quote]udge, budge budge. Read Mattt 23:2. "The Scribes and the Pharasees sit on Moses SEAT. Therefore DO WHATEVER THEY TELL YOU". Note that Jesus doesn't say do some of what the TELL you. The next passage is interesting with regard to your claim. He tells them not to imitate their wicked deeds however. We are to obey the Pope's commands but if he is involved in sin we are not to follow after those things. Would Jesus have commanded people to do whaterver they tell you, if what they were telling them was not correct, i.e. was wicked? Nope. So in spite of their sinfulness it must have been correct. Same applies with the Popes that were wicked. God promised us legitimate leaders, not perfect ones.[/quote][font="Arial Black"]
~{Matt.20:25}~
Jesus called them unto him, and said,
Ye know
that the princes of the Gentiles
exercise dominion over them,
and they that are great
exercise authority upon them.
[u]26 But it shall not be among you..
.[/font][/u]

connected to this verse..

[font="Arial Black"]~{Galations 4:1}~
Now I say, That the heir,
as long as [b]he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant,
though he be lord of all
2 But is under tutors and governors
until the time appointed of the father.[/b]
3 Even so we, when we were children,
were in bondage under the elements of the world
4 But when the fulness of the time was come,
God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law
that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6 And because ye are sons,
God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts,
crying, Abba, Father.
[b]7 Wherefore; thou art no more a servant,
but a son[/b][/font]

[quote]
We are to obey the Pope's commands but if he is involved in sin we are not to follow after those things.[/quote]

So why do you defend the interfaith movement?

[FullTruth]

Than you would love the UPC church, because it won't be involved in Interfaith movement either, because they think all those who don't believe Jesus Christ is all of God isn't in the light, and they won't fellowship with any person who believes in a religion that 'divides' the three in the bible into three persons, and not one person - God.

But that is a phariseecal spirit, the same one I see in you.

[thessalonian]

[quote]So why do you defend the interfaith movement?[/quote]

First of all where did I? Second of all do you even know what it is? From what I have seen you have a twisted view, judging from your calling Dominus Iesus a UU document. What a laugher. I will not defend what your view of it is but it is not the Catholic view.

More twisting of scripture. It doesn't say there are not leaders. Simply that leaders are to be servants as I said before. Those who exalt their leadership as something to seek after for personal gain and boast about, will not be good leaders in the kingdom of God and will have consequences as did the steward in Luke 12. But that does not mean he was not the steward when after doing good he started doing bad. You proof text budge. You abuse scripture terribly to try to prove straw man and red herring points. But I like ya.

[Anomaly]

How come my questions don't get answered?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217818' date='Mar 23 2007, 04:03 PM']

How come my questions don't get answered? [/quote]
Because you already know the answers. You represented a half-truth in your question, namely, that Catholics are obliged to follow their consciences. This is true, but as you surely know, consciences don't come fully formed, but must be educated. Since God has given the authority to educate in His Name to the Magisterium, and only the Magisterium (and whatever catechists preach with their permission and in line with their teaching), then it seems correct that consciences must be educated based on the teachings of the Magisterium. I can't imagine that you don't know that Church teaching. Perhaps I'm wrong and you did know it was Church teaching.

God bless,

Micah

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1217826' date='Mar 23 2007, 06:11 PM']Because you already know the answers. You represented a half-truth in your question, namely, that Catholics are obliged to follow their consciences. This is true, but as you surely know, consciences don't come fully formed, but must be educated. Since God has given the authority to educate in His Name to the Magisterium, and only the Magisterium (and whatever catechists preach with their permission and in line with their teaching), then it seems correct that consciences must be educated based on the teachings of the Magisterium. I can't imagine that you don't know that Church teaching. Perhaps I'm wrong and you did know it was Church teaching.

God bless,

Micah[/quote]Way to avoid the answer, Micah, unless you don't really know the questions. How did Papal Primacy become Papal Supremacy? What is the Traditional History of the development of this Doctrine? Isn't this Doctrine a development of the Latin Church after the Great Schism and was fueled more of geo-political desires than theological need? What about the Eastern Catholic theology that recongizes the Authority of Bishops but has limits their autonomy to their Diocese? What about the practical application of adherence to the complete Body of Tradition when the Church is faced with grave theological questions and must provide definitive (and infallible) answers? I have so many inconvient questions that are answered with 'the Church says so, when reality is, the Church is just the Latin rite that had benefitted from geography and politics, not theological 'supremacy'.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217837' date='Mar 23 2007, 04:34 PM']Way to avoid the answer, Micah, unless you don't really know the questions. How did Papal Primacy become Papal Supremacy? What is the Traditional History of the development of this Doctrine? Isn't this Doctrine a development of the Latin Church after the Great Schism and was fueled more of geo-political desires than theological need? What about the Eastern Catholic theology that recongizes the Authority of Bishops but has limits their autonomy to their Diocese? What about the practical application of adherence to the complete Body of Tradition when the Church is faced with grave theological questions and must provide definitive (and infallible) answers? I have so many inconvient questions that are answered with 'the Church says so, when reality is, the Church is just the Latin rite that had benefitted from geography and politics, not theological 'supremacy'.[/quote]

Papal primacy implies papal supremacy, in as much as one who is first among his brothers has authority over his brothers. I don't think it takes a lot of defense, citations, et al. to prove that.

Let me ask you...what do you think papal supremacy is?

[Budge]

[quote]Than you would love the UPC church, because it won't be involved in Interfaith movement either,[/quote]

Why would I? I dont think Mormons who worship another christ or Jehovah Witnesses who deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ are Christians either.

The EO doesnt believe in the supremacy of the Roman pontiff, which proves it is a much LATER DEVELOPMENT.

In other words, THEY MADE IT UP.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1217860' date='Mar 23 2007, 05:06 PM']Why would I? I dont think Mormons who worship another christ or Jehovah Witnesses who deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ are Christians either.

The EO doesnt believe in the supremacy of the Roman pontiff, which proves it is a much LATER DEVELOPMENT.

In other words, THEY MADE IT UP.[/quote]
That's just silly. We have quotes from Eastern and Western Fathers which at the very least prove that there was support for the papal primacy since at least the fourth century. What's more, it's in the Scriptures. To say that we made it up is just ignoring the facts.

The Eastern Orthodox rejected the extent to which some popes were trying to exercise their authority. That doesn't mean that we made it up any more than it means that they rejected what they had previously held.