The Pontiff recently concluded his three-country tour of Africa, visiting the Central African Republic, Uganda, and Kenya.The Christian Post reports that during an in-flight press conference on his return trip to Rome, Francis stated,“We Catholics have some–and not some, many–who believe they possess the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disorientation, and doing evil. They do evil. I say this because it is my Church.”He added that “ideas and false certainties” can replace faith, love, and God.
Tagged: pope Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
It is remarkable to me that some continue to express uncertainty about truth. Note the following:Was Jesus correct when He said one could KNOW the truth, and with this knowledge be set free from sin (John 8:31-32)? Of course He was correct! If that is so, then the “pontiff” was surely not correct in this sentiment.Maybe Catholics are a bit uncertain about truth – and this would stand to reason considering their oral tradition takes such precedence like it does. Oral tradition in biblical matters, however, have no room for growth.Whatever is to be said about the Catholic Church’s man-made leader, to the Christian, he is not to be listened to.
According to the “Living faith” section C of The Huntsville Times, Friday, June 14, 2013, the article on Religion & Church News carried an item titled, “NO, I did not want to be Pope.” It was an interview from McClatchy-Tribune that quoted the 3-month-in-office “Pope” of the Roman Catholic Church, Francis, as saying: “’No, I didn’t want to be pope. A person who wants to be pope does not love himself,’ the pontiff added, in a trademark show of humility.’” Based upon his comments, God would agree that:
1. Since “Pope” is a Latin term for “father,” and since Jesus Christ forbade anyone using the term “father” as a term for a spiritual leader (Matthew 23:9), then God would agree that Francis should not be “pope!”
2. Francis “didn’t want to be pope,” a position which is supposed to be the head of the Roman Catholic Church. But the Apostle Paul claimed that “the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Ephesians 3:9-11). Since God’s “mighty power” raised Jesus from the dead and “put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:22-23), then God placed Jesus Christ over His church, not a “pope!” Thus, God would agree that He didn’t want Francis to be “pope” over the church!”
3. Francis said, “A person who wants to be pope does not love himself.” God’s Word has said that, after “the falling away,” “and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4), but whose followers would be “among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10), then Francis must not “love himself” for taking the position of apostasy that God condemns! God would agree that any man who takes such a position “does not love himself” or the truth, either!
4. Contrary to the article cited above, there is no “trademark show of humility” in anyone who opposes God, sits in God’s temple, or claims to forgive sins which only God can do (Matthew 9:1-8)! Jesus Christ condemned public displays of the Pharisees, which are remarkably like that of a “pope:” “all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues” (Matthew 23:5-6). No “pope” has ever manifested a “trademark show of humility,” while claiming to be equal with God! The real head of the church of Christ, “humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8). No “pope” has ever humbled himself to die on a cross for the church of Christ! God would agree that there is no “trademark show of humility” in this, or any other “pope.”
It’s too bad the “pope” refuses to tell his followers what Jesus said would give salvation in Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Will this “pope” agree with God?
A bogus bishop nearly sneaked into the closed-door Vatican meeting of the world’s cardinals as they prepared to choose the next pope. Ralph Napierski got past a checkpoint of Swiss Guards and was photographed shaking hands with Cardinals in the cobblestone square to the left of St. Peter’s Basilica. But he never made it inside to loin the more than 140 cardinals from around the world for their first formal meeting since the resignation of Pope Benedict. His undersized cassock, purple rather than red sash and fedora rather than a zucchetto, the typical skullcap, gave him away. When discovered, he was hustled out of the Vatican. I’m not sure what he hoped to accomplish, but it certainly reminds us that there are plenty of folks who are not all they pretend to be. This is Just-A-Minute with Ed Boggess
The news media and the world have made a big deal about the appointment of the new Pope.
Our world is very careless about religion and religious terms. During this time while the Catholic Church was appointing a new Pope, I never heard anyone ask, “Is there a Pope in the Bible?” No one seems to care about God’s arrangement for the church.
Even the word “church” is used most often in unbiblical ways in our world today. People speak of “the church” when they are talking about the building where the church meets. Some use the word “church” when speaking of a denomination or all the denominations; denomination and our Lord’s church are totally different things.
The church is men and women who have been called out of the word and called into Jesus Christ. When Saul persecuted the church he dragged “men and women” off to prison.
“And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.” (Acts 8:1-3)
This church was not built upon Peter nor was he the first Pope! (More …)
Been thinking here lately (I’m really opening myself up to zingers there!) about the catholic church situation and what the catholic church itself teaches about the pope and even Mary.
So the pope’s word is supposed to be infallible, right? When does it become so? Was his word as a “cardinal” infallible? And since he’s still alive does his word continue to be infallible? If not, how does one go from being fallible to infallible and back to fallible again? Talk about a rollercoaster ride! And also, is Benedict still the most-holy or is he only normal-holy? Or is he even Benedict anymore?
Now when it comes to Mary and her conception being “immaculate” from “original sin” how did she come to be that way? Jesus was born in the flesh according to her genetic material, right? Were her mother and father immaculate as well? How about her grandparents? And her great-parents and their great-grandparents? When did this whole “immaculate” thing start in the gene pool? Why didn’t the siblings of Jesus get the same benefits of their mother’s “immaculate” condition? Scratch that last question – seems like I remember something about sex between a husband and a wife not being allowed and no other children being born. But the other questions still stand.
And by the way, if you do give an answer in the affirmative, please give a scripture reference that affirms your affirmation along with it 🙂 That would be most helpful.
If the Catholic church were biblically wise they would allow the vacancy of the pope to stay just that way – vacant. Many Catholics (and even some people who aren’t Catholic???) worry about their church because it has no head. If they understood the true biblical nature of the church they would know that the church is never without her head. Jesus is the head of the church and his reign as such has not ended (Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22-23). Two heads are not better than one!
If the Catholic church were biblically wise they would allow the vacancy of “Peter’s throne” to stay just that way – vacant. Many Catholics (and even some people who aren’t Catholic???) worry about finding the right person to continue Peter’s legacy. If they understood the true nature of Peter from the Bible they would know that Peter would never allow himself to sit on a “throne” over the church, they would know that Peter would never allow people to “bow and kiss his ring” and they would know that the Bible never refers to an office in the church called the “pope” (Acts 10:24-26, 1 Corinthians 12:27-28). Peter never sat with a golden scepter upon any “throne” above the church which Jesus Himself rules with a rod of iron (Psalm 2:8-9, Revelation 2:26-27).
If the Catholic church were biblically wise they would allow the silence of uninspired and fallible words to stay just that way – silent. Many Catholics (and even some who aren’t Catholics???) worry about the lack of spiritual guidance without a pope. If they understood the true biblical nature of the church they would know that they should listen to the inspired and infallible word of God that the church is called to follow. The word of God guides the church of God, the church of God does not guide the word of God (Ephesians 3:3-5; 2 Peter 1:3; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Timothy 3:15-17).
If the Catholic church were biblically wise they would know there’s a difference between universal unity based upon error and universal unity based upon the truth…that’s one big if though!
“endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:3-6)
Vs. 1-5 repeat Psalm 57:7-11;
Vs. 6-13 repeat Psalm 60:5-12.
This Psalm was originally written by David as Psalm 57 and Psalm 60, but parts of those have been combined into Psalm 108. Since this Psalm repeats the previous Psalms, the comments are the same as for the previous Psalms.
Vs. 1-5= Psalm 57:7-11 comments:
Verses 7-11: David would not take his heart from before the LORD, but kept it “steadfast,” and ready to “sing and give praise.” In verse 8, David speaks to his musical instruments: “Awake, lute and harp!” Clearly, even David did NOT include his musical instruments whenever he said “sing,” for they were an addition to his vocal praise of God! This, then, is yet another reference to such instruments left behind in Moses’ Law, for Jesus “has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14). Verse 9 points to David’s hope for the future, when God would be praised “among the peoples,” and “among the nations,” both frequently referring to “Gentiles,” which has happened since the church of Christ (the “kingdom of God” Acts 8:12) began in Acts 2. In verses 10-11, God’s “mercy,” “truth,” and “glory” are above the earth and cannot be tainted by anything that happens down here. For God to be “exalted” “above the heavens” means that no scientific discovery, no scientist, no human, can ever see, control, reach or ruin the “Most High.”
Vs. 6-13= Psalm 60:5-12 comments:
To be saved “with Your right hand” figuratively suggests that God still helps them with a strong arm (verse 5).
Verses 6-8: It says in verse 6: “God has spoken in His holiness.” God’s dispensation of the tribes of Israelites is the final Word on the subject. “His holiness” always refers to God, and not a man (Pope, etc.). Jesus Christ gave Himself that sinners who obey the Gospel “might partake of His holiness” (Hebrews 12:10). Unless that would make each Christian a “Pope,” then what each Christian may “partake” of is not limited to one individual! It is a profanity for any religion to bestow upon any human the title of “His holiness,” for it is not reserved for one, but to all Christians it is said: “as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:15-16). In verse 7, God claims Gilead and Manasseh, both across the Jordan River from the Promised “mainland.” The tribe of Ephraim would lead; Judah would rule; verse 8, God even claimed their enemies: Moab would be a common “washpot;” Edom would be completely crushed; Philistia would shout triumphantly when taken and included.
Verses 9-12: If God made the assignments in verses 6-8, then in verse 9, God asks for a leader to step forward and do this. David’s reply in verse 10 is that it was God who gave them victory, and should again. The principle statement in verses 11-12 appears to be “For the help of man is useless.” That acknowledgment sometimes is difficult, if not, impossible, to hear. Jesus heard the Canaanitish woman beg mercy for her “severely demon-possessed daughter” because she “came and worshiped Him, saying, ‘Lord, help me!’” (Matthew 15:21-28). “Her daughter was healed from that very hour” just as David’s help from God had come to him. David will emphasize his conclusion with, “My help comes from the LORD, Who made heaven and earth.” If God created “heaven and earth” (and all the scientific evidence demands that He did!), then only He has the power to interact and override what happens on that earth. God sees, hears, and influences the affairs on earth, continually, for “He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17).
All Scriptures and comments are based upon the New King James Version, unless otherwise noted.
Matthew 16:13-20: When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” 14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.
1. Jesus had said to “Simon Peter” John 1:40, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas (which is translated, A Stone [petros])” John 1:42
a. Why did not Jesus give Peter the name “Petra” (feminine) in this passage, to relieve any confusion later?
b. Jesus, not Peter, is referred to as petra in the New Testament: Matthew 16:18: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Romans 9:33: “As it is written: ‘Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame’” (quoting from Isaiah 8:14; 28:16). 1 Corinthians 10:4: “For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Peter 2:8: “’A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.’ They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.”
c. There is NO original Aramaic manuscript of Matthew known. (1 If Matthew wrote it in Aramaic, God preserved a majority of Greek MSS; (2 Matthew, himself (guided by the Holy Spirit!), would have translated his book into Greek, for Greek was understood by most people then; (3 The only “Aramaism” preserved in this passage would be “Cephas,” but because the Greek word makes a distinction between Peter’s name and the foundation of the church, no appeal to the “Aramaic” would justify making Peter’s name equal to the foundation of the church of Christ! (4 As there are no original MSS of any other New Testament Books, either!
d. Paul condemned as a “schism” any who followed Peter, not Jesus, as the Head of the church 1 Corinthians 1:12-13.
e. When Jesus said to Peter “Follow Me” John 21:19, Roman Catholic Church says it is teaching Peter’s Primacy. But when Jesus tells Philip “Follow Me” John 1:43 NO ONE suggests the Roman Church is built upon Philip!!
2. IF this clearly taught Peter’s Superiority over all the other Apostles, then:
a. Why were they still disputing the issue later? Matthew 20:20-28
b. How were James, Cephas & John all “pillars?” Galatians 2:9
c. Then was Paul the Gentile “Pope?” Galatians 2:7-10
d. How was the church of Christ “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone?” Ephesians 2:20
3. Peter IS IN the foundation, but IS NOT “THE Foundation!”
a. The Church of Christ is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” Ephesians 2:20
b. NOTHING IN SCRIPTURE separates Peter from the other apostles in their work of establishing the church of Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:5: “For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles.” 1 Corinthians 9:5: “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”
c. Peter was never acknowledged as being in Rome, or its “Bishop!” (1 Paul was prisoner in Rome and wrote Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Philemon, but NEVER MENTIONED PETER AS BEING IN ROME! (2 Paul wrote Romans and saluted 27 Christians, but NOT Peter! (3 Peter wrote 2 letters, but never mentioned being in Rome! —–John T. Polk II
I heard a woman on the “Today Show” yesterday ask the “cardinal” of New York about the process of choosing a new pope. She asked about the “qualities” and “qualifications” that identify the person who could fulfill the position. This caught my attention and I waited for the man’s response. The same man who talked so much about the pope “fulfilling the office of the original pope, Peter the bishop of Rome” and so on. Well, I was waiting to hear some scripture quoted like you can for the biblical office of elder/bishop/pastor (no cardinals mind you) and deacons (1 Timothy 3 & Titus 1), but alas I didn’t hear one single scripture given to describe the qualifying and identifying marks of the office of the pope. I wonder why that is??? Maybe it’s because the “office” of the pope isn’t found in the Bible, but only in the writings of the “church” of Rome!
The following excerpt comes from the Huffington Post. For the most part I consider their site to be more of a liberal huff and puff posting place but I wanted to give the link in case someone questioned the quote I’m going to give. It seems the Pope has decided to release another book about the life of Jesus. This one is supposed to focus on Jesus’ birth and childhood. The author of the review had this to say…
“In his book, Benedict sidesteps the extrabiblical legends and focuses solely on what’s contained in the Gospel accounts of the New Testament.
The three wise men from the Christmas story, Benedict concedes, could be inspired by a “theological idea” rather than by a “historical event,” though he says he prefers a more literal interpretation of the biblical account.
The star of Bethlehem, he notes, has been convincingly identified with a major planetary conjunction that took place in the years 7-6 B.C.
Benedict also recalls that, according to the Gospels, there are no animals in the Bethlehem stable to warm the newborn Jesus. But, he adds, no Nativity scene would be complete without them.
Benedict remains convinced that the Gospel narrative of Jesus’ birth and infancy is not just a symbolical account or mere “meditation.”
Matthew and Luke, he stresses, “didn’t want to write ‘stories’ but history, a real history, even if interpreted and understood” through the lens of the faith.”
Here are my thoughts on this review and what it reveals about the Pope’s words in his new book:
1) Actually letting the scriptures speak instead of speaking and making it scripture. What a novel idea!
2) The three wise men could be inspired by a theological idea??? First off, who said there was three? Second off, for anyone to say that the account of the wise men could be based only upon a “theological idea” opens the door to saying that very thing about the entire gospel!
Matthew begins his gospel by saying Jesus was the son of David and of Abraham – is that a “historical event” or just a “theological idea”? Matthew then moves onto the virgin birth and the angel’s appearance to Joseph – are those “historical events” or just “theological ideas”? Matthew then gets to the “wise men” from the east. “Historical event” or “theological idea”? Well, let’s see – Was Herod’s reign a “historical event” or “theological idea”? Was the trip into Egypt a “historical event” or a “theological idea”? Was the wrath of Herod directed toward children that fulfilled prophecy a “historical event” or just a “theological idea”? The return of Jesus’ family, after Herod’s death, to Nazareth and thus fulfilling more prophecy…was that a “historical event” or just “theological idea”? I know what Matthew would say, but the problem is that a lot of people don’t want Matthew to speak because they don’t like what they hear! If one chooses to play with any part of the scriptures and apply a “theological idea only side” title to anything in order to sidestep the “historical event side”, then that person might as well deny the very inspiration of the Bible that says it actually happened!
3) Lastly, the nativity scene wouldn’t be complete without those animals? Even though none were there? Well, I don’t guess I can say much about that considering the scriptures don’t say much about that, but there is one thing I can say about the common nativity scene that is wrong – the wise men didn’t visit Jesus in the stable; that privilege was given to the shepherds. The wise men met the child Jesus in a house, not in a manger (Matthew 2:11). But I guess if it doesn’t matter about the animals, then why should it matter about the wise men? This type of revealed thinking does help to shed some light on how a person can say that the “written tradition” wouldn’t be complete without the “spoken tradition” even though the spoken contradicts the written.
At the end of the day, people may review the Pope’s book, but I don’t need the Pope’s review of God’s Book. After all, if he knew how to properly interpret the scriptures then he wouldn’t call himself the Pope!
“When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”” (Matthew 2:14-15, NKJV)
“Pope Benedict XVI has made a sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ, tackling one of the most controversial issues in Christianity in a new book. In ‘Jesus of Nazareth – Part II’ excerpts released Wednesday, Benedict explains biblically and theologically why there is no basis in Scripture for the argument that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for Jesus’ death” (Decatur Herald & Review, 3/3/2011, A8).
In case the wording of this story might be suspect, in 1965, the Second Vatican Council document, Nostra Aetate, declared that the death of the Lord “could not be attributed to the Jews as a whole at the time or today.” In fact, according to the pope’s study, it was only a few Temple leaders and a small group of supporters who were primarily responsible for the Lord’s death.
And Peter said, “…this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men)…. Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:23 and 36).
What may be said about this? In one respect it is true that the sins of the individual had brought forth our Lord into this world and He, willingly, went to the cross on our behalf as our Savior. On the other hand, let it not be minimized what Peter said occurred. The “house of David” sent our Lord to the cross as a criminal!
If the report in the newspaper is accurate, the Catholic Church is wrong – as is often the case.
I read where Pope Benedict begs for forgiveness from victims for the sins of all those pedophile priests who have been sexually abusing little boys for years.
If adherents to the Catholic church would simply open their Bibles and read it for themselves, they would find that (1) a sinful pope is not needed on earth to represent Christ as His “vicar”, and (2) that celibacy is not a normal lifestyle for men. No where in the Bible do we find the teaching of celibacy for priests (1 TImothy 4:1-5). Rather, marriage is promoted – even among the apostles (1 Corinthians 7:9; 1 Corinthians 7:28; 1 Corinthians 9:5; Hebrews 13:4), for Peter was married (Matthew 8:14).
There would be none of this foolishness going on if folks in the Catholic church would just simply adhere to clear Bible teaching. If they would do that, the Catholic church would soon cease to exist.