Thread: Pope is dead

..I get the feeling my posts are mostly ignored as I said, the NAZI party was officially christian, but many of the members practiced the old Norse religion and even tried to get it made 'official' but hitler thought it would be too much of a change for many people to accept...

Pope debates....I'm getting an "American Idol" visual.

Asatru? Learn something new every day... I NEVER would have placed Hitler with asatru. Asatru's all about moral codes to my limited understanding. I have one of their "bibles" floating around here somewhere. Something like ADVICE FOR TRAVELERS: Let them in and give them soup. That sort of thing.

Originally Posted by kamka

About the Onan story, dude, guess what. God killed him because he was wasting sperm, thats what is considered a sin. And what are you doing when youre whacking off, saving your sperm to impregnant someone later??? Please. Catholicism also believes that having an orgasm when youre not married is a sin.

Save your catholic diatribe for some one who has not studied this. You should read the book yourself before you spread this bull. JB is right when she says that one should understand the expressions and customs of the time that the literature was written. This religion of your pope has spread enough fear and guilt already. Now read this and learn.
Genesis 38:6-9 -- The sin of Onan:
This passage describes how Tamar's first husband Er was killed by God because he was wicked. Under ancient Jewish tradition, Er's brother Onan was required to marry and engage in sexual intercourse with Tamar. Widows were not asked whether they wanted to remarry. In many cases, the woman would have experienced the sexual activity as a form of rape -- something required by tribal tradition which they had to endure. Similarly, nobody consulted the widow's brother-in-law about his wishes in the matter.
Their first son would be attributed to Er. Because any offspring would not be considered his child, Onan decided to use a common and relatively ineffective contraceptive technique to prevent conception. He employed "coitus interruptus". That is, he disengaged from Tamar just before he ejaculated, and "spilled his semen on the ground." (NIV) God was displeased at this action and killed Onan also -- presumably because he refused to follow Jewish tradition.
This passage was used until recent decades by some Christian groups who maintained that Onan's sin was actually masturbation. The term "Onanism" was coined as a synonym of masturbation. This interpretation is no longer in common use.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba3.htm

Originally Posted by JB

Non-Roman Catholic christians all over the world venerate Mary as Theotokos

AS far as I know only catholics venerate Mary. Who are these “Christians all over the world” you speak of?

Originally Posted by JB

The divine maternity of Mary was not a "papal heresy" and the council at Ephesus was not a Roman Catholic affair.

What are you bonkers? Of course it was a Roman catholic affair. The catholics openly claim it. Besides it was in 431 AD, more that 100 years after the Roman church hijacked Christianity and changed it to suit them. The Roman church first put their strangle hold on Christianity shortly after 300 AD when Constantine adopted Christianity, put the Christian headquarters in a palace in Rome and combined the church and state. Any Christians that did not go along with this (i.e. true Christians) were simply left out of the discussion and if they made too much “noise” they were killed.
Marian doctrine is papal, heresy or not and pope John Paul 2 had a picture of the “Black Madonna” and customarily prayed to it.

DDT, The Christians all over the world that JB speaks of are Lutherans, Episcopalians, Protestantsas well as many others who view Mary as Theotokos; the birth giver of God. [/quote]

I am aware that episcopaleans and Lutherans are only a stones throw away from full flegded catholisism but I don't think that they go as far as actually praying to Mary. I understand that she was picked to bear the Christ but that is where her role ended. If you don't believe me pick up the New Testament and read it for yourself. I challenge anyone here to prove me wrong.

If you are interested in the evoltion of Marion dogma or godess worship click here.
http://www.jwmt.org/v1n6/provence.html

Or how it crept into the early curch in Rome, click here.
http://www.eaec.org/cults/romancatholic.htm

Lutherans do not pray to mary....(this coming from someone who was raised in a Lutheran church in a predominately Lutheran town)

This is a Russian Forum and nobody knows about the Russian Orthodox Church! The Orthodox Churches all over the world have been venerating Mary (and saints) since the time of the earliest Christians. Greek, Serb, Armenian, Georgian, Russian and Antiochian Orthodox Churches all display icons of Mary and include her veneration (not worship) in their litergies. The Coptic Church of Egypt also venerates Mary.

DDT, your lack of knowledge of the history of Christianity is surprising considering your apparent personal interest in it. Constantine did not start the Roman Catholic Church and he did not put it's headquarters in Rome. In 324 he moved the capital of the Roman Empire east from Italy to the site of the Greek city of Byzantium and built a new city, Constantinople. This caused a lot of distress and loss of power to the bishop of Rome who now had to deal with a ruler that was not only Christian but living in the lap of the Eastern Orthodox bishops, who had his ear. At the Council of Constantinople in 381 the bishop of the Eastern capitol was given primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome which further tweaked the bishop of Rome who rejected this canon. Because as far back as 254-7 the bishop of Rome (Pope Stephen I) had expressed the belief that the bishop of Rome should be the absolute head of the Christian Church.

I am well aware that Constantinople became the capital of the Eastern ROMAN Empire.

If you ever would open a book NOT condoned by Romanists you would understand my point. Do you think that Wycliff and Luther endured persecution for nothing? People, at one time laid their lives down to be able to say whay I am saying here.

Although I do have books from Paulist Press these are not the references I am getting my information from. Try reading something other than those protestant propoganda rags. Start off with "The Birth of Christianity", John Dominic Crossan, HarperSanFrancisco Publishing. Next move onto "Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church", Stuart G. Hall, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, "The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity", Blackwell Publishers "The Orthodox Church", Timothy Ware, Penguin Books "The Orthodox Study Bible", Thomas Nelson Publishers "The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers", Stanley S. Harakas, Light and Life Publishing Company.
And for a comparison of Orthodoxy to the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant denominations read Frank Schaeffer's "Dancing Alone", Holy Cross Orthodox Press. (Frank Schaeffer is the son of the Protestant theologian Francis Schaeffer).

From what you have said so far you would be better off reading "protestant propaganda rags".
My points dont come from protestant puplications. They come from scripture. The ultimate source. Unfortunately the pope doesnt consider that scripture is as valid as his own word as I have already shown from a previous post, which you have still not addressed.

If you actually believe that the Vatican has the authority to change scripture as they claim, then I am wasting my time with you. That is a very dangerous attitude and is what led to the slaughter of millions already. The whims of the popes!! Somebody save us. I suppose a red hot catholic like you considers Luther and Wycliff propagandists.

Exactly where did I say that I think the Pope or the Vatican has the authority to change scripture in the bible? And exactly where did they document this claim? Please post your source.
And exactly what scriptures are you reading? Are you reading the original's in Hebrew or the translations in Greek? Are you reading the Vulgate by Jerome? And who decided what was true and not true in the masses of ancient writings? Who decided which writings to put into what is the modern day bible? What about the Apocrypha?
I find it ironic that the people of the very churches you rally against are the ones who put together the bible that you claim to know so much about.

By the way, I am Russian Orthodox.

Originally Posted by JB

Exactly where did I say that I think the Pope or the Vatican has the authority to change scripture in the bible?

I assumed because you never responded to my posting of a quote from the
Confessio Romano.
Didn’t you read this?

Originally Posted by DDT

However, here is what the Vatican says.:-

21."""""""" "We confess that whatsoever new thing the pope of Rome may have instituted, whether it be in Scripture, or out of Scripture, is true, divine, and salvific;and, therefore, ought to be regarded as of higher value by lay people than the precepts of the Living God...We confess that the Pope has the power of altering Scriptures, or increasing and diminishing it, according to his will...We confess that the Holy Scripture is imperfect and a dead letter, until it is explained by the Supreme Pontiff and permitted by him to be read by lay people." (Confessio Romano--Catholica, Articles IV, I, and XXI)."""""""""""


Pope has the power of altering Scriptures Did you get that??
Why are you still catholic? ……Tradition I suspect.

This is what God says about Tradition.:-


Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...
And he said unto them, Full well YE REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, THAT YE MAY KEEP YOUR OWN TRADITION.
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Mark 7:5-9, 13

This is what the pope says:-

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #82, "...Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."
The Question Box Column, Brooklyn Tablet, Nov. 8, 1958, teaches, “Tradition as a source of Faith would suffice without Scripture”

So the pope says that tradition is as good as scripture. Well we have already seen that that is not Biblical........oh I for got..the pope fixed that when he said that he has the authority to change scripture....silly me!
.

Now, if you think that "that was then, this is now", you had better guess again! Pope John Paul II reaffirmed his supremacy. In an article in The Repository, on May 31, 1995, it read:
"ROME--In an appeal for greater unity among Christians, Pope John Paul II invited leaders of other churches...to join him in a discussion on the role of the papacy...But the pope, made clear that the authority of his office remains absolute and supreme..." (Written by Celestine Bohlen).

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/newEdict.htm
http://www.christiancourier.com/archive ... ctions.htm

The Vaticans claim to infallibility
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/Pa ... ility.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/popesandthe ... lity_3.htm


"Each individual must receive the faith and law from the Church with unquestioning submission and obedience of the intellect and the will. ... We have no right to ask reasons of the Church, any more than of Almighty God. ... We are to take with unquestioning docility whatever instruction the Church gives us" (The Catholic World, August 1871, vol. xiii, pp. 58089).


"The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church" (James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel, eds., The Code of Canon Law, Paulist Press, 1985, Canon 212, Section 1).


"Every cleric must obey the Pope, even if he commands what is evil; for no one may judge the Pope." --Pope Innocent III (1198-1216)
"The First See [Rome/papacy] is judged by no one. It is the right of the Roman Pontiff himself alone to judge...those who hold the highest civil office in a state. ... There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff." --From today's Code of Canon Law

Originally Posted by JB

I find it ironic that the people of the very churches you rally against are the ones who put together the bible that you claim to know so much about.

These writings were already in existence before Rome was in control. The fact that Rome left some books out of Cannon is cause for concern.

Originally Posted by JB

And exactly what scriptures are you reading? Are you reading the original's in Hebrew or the translations in Greek? .

I have read some in Hebrew and Greek and have checked against King James. I find it very ironic that a most despicable piece scum like King James II has his name on a well translated Bible. The Dead Sea Scroll proved have that the translation of some of the Old Testament books have been impeccably translated.

Confessio Romano....Catholica: What is this? It is not on the Vatican web site nor can I find it on several search engines. From what you have posted it appears to be some sort of pledge of allegience to the Pope which does not make it authored by the Roman Catholic Pope or necessarily approved by him. Please clarify your source. If the Pope said he has the power to alter scriptures it will be in an official Vatican document.
Your scripture reference to Mark 7 is incomplete and actually starts at verse 7 (and not 5 as you misstated). If you had included verses 5-6 you would see that Jesus was answering an accusation by the Pharisees that his friends were not following Jewish tradition (they were eating some bread and hadn't washed their hands). The catholic catechism is in agreement with the orthodox church on tradition. Your reading that this means that tradition is the same as scripture is not correct. Tradition has been a source of sustaining faith when the scriptures were not available, during times of persecution and when seperated from the body of the church. The Orthodox faith is even stronger than the Romans when it comes to maintaining the traditions and practices of the apostles and first followers of Christ.
And the Brooklyn Tablet is not the voice or the authority of the Holy See.
Pope's claim to infallibility: Now maybe you will get a clue as to how the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are NOT the same. But this does not make them 100% damned, the Orthodox have been patiently tolerating this error from the bishop of Rome for hundreds of years. We pray that he will eventually see the light.
Here is a link on Bible timelines and history.
http://netministries.org/bbasics/
Under New Testament click on "origins".
The old testament scriptures have been around longer than Christianity but the new testament writings have been around only as long as Christians which includes the bishops of Rome. They were just as instrumental in deciding what went into the Bible as the Eastern bishops. And your King James was written from the manuscripts that they chose.

It seems the trouble begins with papal assertion that the lineage of popes traces back to Peter and therefore they are the one true church. Well there is no Biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome.


Roman Catholicism also declares the "Laws of the Church" to be of equal authority with Scripture.

Canon 252 Sec. 3 claims sacred tradition is the basis for dogmatic theology.

"We confess that the Pope has the power of altering Scripture, or increasing and diminishing it, according to his will." --Article I, "Confessio Romani-Catholica in Hungaria Evangelicis publice prescripta et proposita." From "Libri Symbolici Eccl. Cath. editi a Slreitwolf Gotting, 1838 Tom. 2, p. 343

"We confess that whatsoever new thing the Pope of Rome may have instituted whether it be in Scripture, or out of Scripture, it true, divine, and salvific; and, therefore, ought to be regarded as of higher value by lay people than the precepts of the living God." --Article IV, "Confessio Romani-Catholica in Hungaria Evangelicis publice prescripta et proposita." From "Libri Symbolici Eccl. Cath. editi a Slreitwolf Gotting, 1838 Tom. 2, p. 343

"We confess that Holy Scripture is imperfect and a dead letter, until it is explained by the Supreme Pontiff and permitted by him to be read by lay people." --Article XXI, "Confessio Romani-Catholica in Hungaria Evangelicis publice prescripta et proposita." From "Libri Symbolici Eccl. Cath. editi a Slreitwolf Gotting, 1838 Tom. 2, p. 343

Originally Posted by JB

Tradition has been a source of sustaining faith when the scriptures were not available, during times of persecution and when seperated from the body of the church.

That's a joke, since it was the catholics that was doing the persecution.

Catholics banned the people from posessing the scripture. They said that only the priest class was fit to interpret it for the masses. In the time of Luther hardly any catholic priest had ever read the bible. It wasn't even encouraged.

During the time of the persecutions of christians (real ones before Constantine) there is no mention of christians needing traditions because they had no scripture.

Originally Posted by JB

The catholic catechism .

Is catechism mentioned in scripture? NO. So who cares about it? People who care what other men say. That is where you went wrong.

Originally Posted by JB

.
The old testament scriptures have been around longer than Christianity but the new testament writings have been around only as long as Christians which includes the bishops of Rome. They were just as instrumental in deciding what went into the Bible as the Eastern bishops. And your King James was written from the manuscripts that they chose.

There is only one answer for that. Somehow -despite- the corruption that was for seen by the apostles, that began to creep into the church shortly after John the last of them died. God found a way for the truth to prevail in the form of the New Testament anyway. But given the corruption in the church at the time I can't help but wonder if it is possible that something got left out that should be in. I have read some of those books the Lost Books of Eden, the Book of Enoch, the Book of Thomas but they all seem to have a made up hoky "feel" to them, similar to the Koran or the Book of Mormon .

Originally Posted by JB

Pope's claim to infallibility:

I gave you several links to catholic web sites where they, Catholics, make this claim. I don't know why it is so hard for you to believe this when the Vatican has already changed The Ten Commandments. SShh!

Originally Posted by JB

The Orthodox faith is even stronger than the Romans when it comes to maintaining the traditions and practices of the apostles and first followers of Christ.

If Orthodox faith was doing so then they would probably be keeping the Sabbath instead of Sunday since the Vatican openly takes credit for changing that too!

I think perhaps you have no idea of the depths of this corruption.

Your mistakes made in your attempts to understand the bible by yourself is a perfect example of why the first christians established rules and order in their church. The apostles appointed bishops (the Greek word episkope which means "supervisorship" is used in the original scriptures)as seen in Acts I:20-26.
Peter went to Rome according to I Peter 5:13 (Babylon is recognized as a term for Rome by scholars and historians of R.Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant faiths).
Peter's presence and eventual death in Rome was also documented by ancient historians Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus.

Your continued insistance that this "Confessio Romano..." prooves anything is meaningless unless you can establish who wrote it and how is it considered official Church dogma.

The earliest christians relied on the traditions and scriptures that were part of the oral tradition (not much was written down then and most people couldn't read anyway) as they were persecuted by Romans and other pagens who felt this new sect was blasphamy.

I suggest you plug Russian Orthodox Church into your search engine and read up on what we say and belief before you make any more wild assertions about my not understanding about the Roman Catholics and what they believe. I am well aware of their dogmas and doctrines but as an Orthodox Christian am not so threatened by them. But after reading your posts I now have a better understanding of why the Moscow Patriarch is working so hard to keep all (R.Catholics, Protesants and all Christian cults) heretics out of Russia.

The Biblical quote you give is hotly debated by theologians. In any case my point is that he was not the first pope. I will concede that it is possible that he was in Rome at some time in his life but here is no conclusive proof. Clement did not seem to have said that peter was pope but there is something fishy about him anyway, since he took it upon himself to write a letter to Corinth without consulting the Apostle John first, who had a closer sphere of influence with Corinth. John wasn’t even mentioned in his letter. I would think that if he was the first pope there would be heaps of evidence. The fact that there is not leads one to believe that he nothing to do with Catholicism. I have already given you several links on this subject and you have not responded to them. Here is another.
http://www.tbm.org/was_peter_the_first_pope.htm
http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rl ... /cath2.htm

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm
http://www.cbcg.org/peter's_tomb.htm
http://www.bibarch.com/The%20First%20Ch ... s-Tomb.htm



And also Peter was married. Catholic popes can’t be married so peter could not have been a catholic ,now could he?

Originally Posted by JB

Your continued insistance that this "Confessio Romano..." prooves anything is meaningless unless you can establish who wrote it and how is it considered official Church dogma.
.

All the necessary documentation is with the Quotes. What more do you need? Perhaps the Vatican is ashamed of them and that is why you can’t find them. But forget about those. You still ignored all the links to official catholic sources admitting to the doctrine of infallibility. It is not a big secret you know.

If catholics didn’t think that they could change scripture then how do you account for them changing the 10 Commandments. They also claim to have been responsible for changing the Sabbath to Sunday. I suppose you know nothing of this as well. They obviously believe that they have the authority.

On an interesting side not, since this is a language forum. In over 105 languages it is seen that all of the words for Saturday either contain the root word for Sabbath or are synonymous with Sabbath.

Originally Posted by JB

Your mistakes made in your attempts to understand the bible by yourself is a perfect example of why the first christians established rules and order in their church. The apostles appointed bishops (the Greek word episkope which means "supervisorship" is used in the original scriptures)as seen in Acts I:20-26.

The Bible exhorts us to read it and study it for ourselves. Catholics at one time took it upon them selves to kill anyone who did so. It is no wonder because the more one reads it the more one realizes the sham of catholicism.

Originally Posted by JB

I am well aware of their dogmas and doctrines but as an Orthodox Christian am not so threatened by them. .

You do not need to feel threatened by them because Orthodoxy is so close to them. The rest of us do need to feel threatened by them. You only have to read John Paul II 's writings.

Originally Posted by JB

(Babylon is recognized as a term for Rome

Interesting that you would admit to this since John's book of Revelations spends a good deal of time telling how the evil Babylon (Rome) will suppress truth and try to rule all through a counterfeit religion

I never responded to your links about the doctrine of infallibility because it is common knowledge that the Catholic Church has been claiming this for the last century. This is not earth shaking news.
It doesn't matter what the Catholics claim about their own religion, it is their business. If they think they are infallible or if they want to call Peter the Pope or Santa Claus has no effect on the rest of the world's religions. Their interpretation of the scriptures, 10 commandments or whatever is for their own people and not being forced on anyone else.
Before you make accusations about Catholics or any other religion you should get the facts straight. (a lot of popes were married) Quoting random passages from nonauthoritive sources (Confessio Romano ) looks impressive until someone tries to research it and finds it to be hogwash that the Catholic church doesn't even know about.
And your big revelation that the Catholics "changed" the day of worship to Sunday is a good example of how people who try to interpret the NT and the history of Christianity without any education or assistance from educated sources don't understand what they are reading. (again I recommend you get out a history book)
Instead of wasting your time looking up highly questionable sources to assist you in persecuting the Catholic religion (a real Christlike endeavor) maybe you should use your energy to study some of the reference books I posted earlier. And if you pray for God to help you overcome your bias and prejudice perhaps you will start to have a better understanding of the history and purpose of Christianity.

DDT-Sorry as I am a bit late in responding to your post regarding Lutherans and such praying to Mary. You are correct that they do not pray to Mary. I also never said that they did. Just because Mary is considered the Theotokos it does not mean to suggest that she is prayed to but only that these religions recognize her as a mother of GOD.

So basically what you have said is what my point is all along. That the Vatican is it's own religion and can say and do what ever it likes.

Well now that we have got that out of the way. I agree. She is more than welcome to say Peter was their first pope. Print their own Commandments and such.-- As long as she keeps them to herself--

And since she has stopped killing off all her rivals I suppose it is OK to even be friends with some of her devotees.

Originally Posted by JB

or if they want to call Peter the Pope or Santa Claus has no effect on the rest of the world's religions. Their interpretation of the scriptures, 10 commandments or whatever is for their own people and not being forced on anyone else.

Unfortunately you are wrong about that as they are trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us but you never responded to that either. JP II was hoping for legislation concerning Sunday that would effect all of us.

Originally Posted by JB

(again I recommend you get out a history book)
.

I have read. History of the Christian Church. And also a better one than that, the Bible. And since that holds no weight with catholics I have the Catholic Catechisms themselves. Something I recommend you read especially concerning Sabbath



.

Originally Posted by JB

in persecuting the Catholic religion

A good offence is a good defense, my dear.

The Vatican is a VERY powerful entity . She has her own military (The Swiss Papal Guard. The Swiss Guard is not considered to belong to any larger force, but is instead the army of the sovereign state of the Vatican. The force is specifically limited to one hundred soldiers.) and intelligence gathering agencies. The Holy See has permanent observers at the United Nations. The Vatican is a sovereign nation and as such is like no other religion.

I have every right to be suspicious of them and so do we all. Russia too. Russian Orthodox is a stumbling block to the Vatican, so you had better look out. There is a similarity between the two religions and the Vatican will try to use this to gain power in Russia.