Pope question

that 'the ring of St Peter' actually refers to the office of the Pope.

Sorry I can't pin down where in what context I picked that impression up. Heck, it may be a fragment from fiction even, nothing to do with reality. Sometimes expressions get jumbled around in the subconcious we know.

Heck, with my patchwork memory, it's more likely to be unreal than real. Unfortunately, it's all too easy to get something from a fiction story mixed up with reality over the years.

I'm wondering now if it came from reading Quo Vadis a few decades ago.

JMO

Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

false teachers to come. Some examples are spelled out by him and Peter, but the Pope/Archbishop/Metropolitan stuff can be gathered from context. Any group with that much pomp and circumstance at the top has lost its spiritual way.
Quick check: Next time you see a pic of a Church leader in his finery, remember this quote from Jesus: "Foxes have dens and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head."
IOW it was a political move as power was consolidated over the post-biblical period.
While you're researching "pope," also check out "pontifex maximus," including the first man to have that title in Rome.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

merely one of many Archbishops of the Old Church grew so large that his part of the church split off and formed a new one that we call Catholic. Originally he was one of the group of Archbishops for places like Constantinople and Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. The western Church, of whom the Pope was Vicar General, based in Rome adopted changes to the Nicene Creed (the addition of the "filioque" which Jehovah's Witness adherents should appreciate as it was an elevation of Jesus to a god-head not recognized by the Early Church), and to the liturgy. The "filioque" addition originated in Spain but worked its way back to Rome and was incorporated into worship there, which was a large bone of contention with the rest of the Early Church, as each See, while independent of all other Sees, was required to keep in step theologically with the rest. The best the Church as a whole was willing to grant the Pope was primus inter pares or first among equals because of Peter's association from Rome and because Rome was the original head of the Roman Empire through which Christianity spread and which recognized it as the state religion in the 4th Century under Constantine.

Apparently along about the 8th or 9th centuries the Pope had begun giving himself more credit and more power than the rest of the churches (what we now call the Orthodox Church) could tolerate. The coronation of Charlemagne by the Pope as Holy Roman Emperor in 800 was a major source of friction because the Eastern Roman Empire based in Byzantium or Constantiople (Istanbul) was still ruled by a man calling himself the Emperor of Rome.

So how can the "Catholic" church claim "ownership" of a bible that was translated from Aramaic and Hebrew into Greek in Alexandria under its own archbishop and given to the original Orthodox church of 6 or seven Sees? The "Catholics' don't even come into it until St. Jerome's translation of the Bible from the Greeek and Hebrew originals Hebrew = Old Testament, Greek = New Testament, into the Vulgate, a later variant of Latin.

Sorry but these historical twists and turns interest me.

Thanks to Doug.

Rob

Gibbon says some of the early discussions were around a word "homououision" or some such. One group held out for this 'trinity' while others wanted the doctrines to use its sibling, with one more (or less) "i." Fierce fighting over it for decades, maybe more.
And in fact the early arguments were about the nature of Jesus: equal to Jehovah or "only" his favorite Son. Holy Ghost stuff came later.
I think your summary of Papacy is as good as anyone's.
As to bible "ownership," what I said is my best knowledge of RC teaching; I'm puzzled myself. But they talk around the obvious problems of chronolgy; just how they do is a headache you're welcome to research on your own. You can start here:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/master.htm
Should give you "unbiased" info; the site owner hates our guts.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

"The main work of the Council of Nicea 325 AD [the first council] was the condemnation of Arianism. Arius, a priest in Alexandria maintained that the Son was inferior to the Father, and, in drawing a dividing line between God and creation, he placed the Son among created things: a superior creature, it is true but a creature none the less." The council also dealt with the organization of the church singling out Rome Alexandria and Antioch.

Second Ecumenical Council, Constantinople 381, developed the idea of the Holy Spirit. "It was the supreme achievement of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria to draw out the full implications of the key word in the Nicene Creed: homoousios, one in essence or substance, consubstantial. Complemetary to his work was that of the three Cappadocian Fathers Saints Gregory of Nazianzus, known to the Orthodox Church as Gregory the Theologian (?329-390?), Basil the Great (?330-379) and his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa (died 394). While Athanasius emphasized the unity of God - Father and Son are one in essence "ousia" - The Cappadocians stressed God's three-ness - Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are the three persons (hypostaseis). Preserving a delicate balance between th threeness and the oneness in God they gave full meaning to the classic summary of Trinitarian doctrine, three persons in one essence. Never before or since has the Church possessend four thologians of such styature within a single generation." Both councils were concerned with thouroughly dealing with Arianism, and the Second with elevation of Constantinople to second position among the Holy Sees. This irritated Rome who feared being supplanted and who ignored this elevation until 1215 and the Lateran Council.

There's nothing better than deeply held beliefs and inter-city rivalry to provoke an 830 year feud.

Third General Council held at Ephesus in 431, deposed Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and his assertion of the dual nature of Jesus which verged on a complete split. There was a second Council held in Ephesus in 449 which was to deal with Monophysitism. "Eutychyes building on the work of Saint Cyril of Alexandria (died 444)maintained that in Christ there was not only a unity of personality but a single nature - Monophysitism." Their opponents asserted, though Monophysites denied it represented their views correctly, "that such a way of speaking endangered the fullnes of Christ's manhood, which in Monophysitism became so fused with His divinity as to be swallowed up in it llike a drop of water in the ocean."

Chalcedon, 451, "while Christ is one person, there is in him not one nature bur two. The bishops acclaimed the 'Tome' of Saint Leo the Great, Pope of Rome (died 461)in which the two natures are clearly distinguished." Chalcedon was the end of Alexandrian supremacy in doctrinal interpretation.

All of this has been cribbed from Timothy Ware's book the Orthodox Church which I keep referring to.

Father Ware is now Father Kallistos Ware and may for all I know be Metropolitan of Oxford or London or some such by now. I know someone who studied with him and had many good things to say about him as a teacher, and much giggling about this tall man dressed in black Orthodox robes who lived in his parents house in Oxford, two utterly ordinary middle-class people who looked to have hatched a cuckoo in their nest so different was he in his dress manner and beardedness.

Rob Boyter

Notice a couple of things:
First, the time between duality and trinity; many trinitarians today assume their god sprang full-grown from the forehead of King James.

Second, what happens when intellectuals get inbred:
"to draw out the full implications of the key word in the Nicene Creed." So they write/compose/create a creed which is an attempt to define God, then assume the creed is God's definition of himself. Why? Because 'never before or since has the Church possessed four theologians of such stature;' so how could they be any less intelligent than God?!
Hubris combined with circular reasoning with embedded tautologies is a scary sight.
Paul has a neat description of such ones, but I don't quote it for fear of being called a flaming troll.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Protestants is the "Catholic Doctrine" we're mostly talking about here was cast in cement before the Reformation, so the trinity is Roman Catholic [truth or invention]. Again, I give credit to those who carry the idea to its logical conclusion: Mary must be, as Catholics teach, the Mother of God.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

but black? within the realm of possibility according to this article.

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/pope/stories/next.pope/

about the guy. As far as an Italian influence, I believe Italians not prejudiced against blacks. (Ethiopian and N African connection; American GIs.) So he would have a chance.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

'gravitas', or maybe theres the 'anti-american' thing going on -- guilt by association or something like that. Plus, Europeans have long thought of America as being the new kid on the block, hardly any history and all that.

I may have mentioned before that the English cut down an entire forest to build up their navy when Spain threatened- over 400 yrs ago. They replanted, so naturally they call it the New Forest!
Regards, Doug in Old New Mexico

where places like Brazil and Africa are both more numerous and increasing. Also the Americans are more or less middle grounders, neither fighting for the poor as some are in Latin America, nor for strict conservative interpretations as apparently is the case in Africa. Don't count Pope John Paul II's Rotweiler out. The scary arch conservative Cardinal Ratzinger. He purged the truly great voice of Catholic liberalism Hans Kung about 15 years ago and has a good section of the Vatican by the reproductive you know what's.

Rob Boyter

do facts apply?

Latin America is awash in such contrasts. Nowhere in the world is the gap between the haves and have-nots wider than in this region. The top fifth of the population controls more than half of the wealth, while the bottom fifth receives just 4.5%. More than 40% of Latin America's 470 million citizens scrape by on just $2 a day, which is the World Bank's definition of poverty. And one-fourth live in extreme poverty, earning just $1 a day. Policymakers have struggled for decades to improve on those numbers, but economic crises, ill-conceived policies, and natural disasters have reversed most of the progress made.

This desperate need is driving governments to try solutions never contemplated before. Policymakers are moving away from "blanket subsidies" for food and housing and experimenting with programs that teach the poor the skills they need to build a better life.

One of my nephews was in the Peace Corps in a South American country.

Africa has also suffered from tribal wars, drought, and suspect governments.

Angeline


click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

and found this jewel:
He has said, in effect, "I have a mustard seed, and I'm not afraid to use it."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GD05Aa01.html

I see what you mean. He does see the church as dwindling, especially in Europe.

this caught my eye:
"The offending [mustard seed] sentences did not appear in the English translation, "Salt of the Earth", and were not discussed further in polite Catholic company."
Of course not, and neither are equally strong statements from a Better Source "discussed further" at the doors I go to. Some actually tell me it's "not polite" to discuss one's religion!
The "church," as it's called, has gone 'mustard seed,' but it's not his church, and the poor sod doesn't know it. Far from "grim forecast" any more, it's my reality. I myself don't get any persecution outside the odd insult on SE- full of misspellings and clumsy grammar, I add in righteous indignation- but the JW world is full of it, right up to death. Other "sects" have the same problem.

Poor Cardinal- his own bible told him, his own "God" prophesied it, but he didn't believe: John 15:17-27.
Verses 20-22 especially are worth your time.
"Bear in mind the word I said to YOU, A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute YOU also; if they have observed my word, they will observe YOURS also. But they will do all these things against YOU on account of my name, because they do not know him that sent me."

If the bible is myth, it's worth reading if only because it's part of the famous "Last Supper" speech of Jesus. But if the bible is true prophecy ...

My limited-knowledge take on Ratzinger is that he's sincere, so when the Brown Shirts come with their truncheons he'll stand up to be counted- and be heartbroken when he sees only himself standing. On the other side, I'm told that Billy Graham- confidant of statesmen- once said, 'I don't understand why I've never been persecuted!'

I had forgotten about Asia Times; an excellent source. Have to bookmark it.

The one thing I can tell people about 'why I am a JW' that they'll relate to is: It gives me insight. When I see a link like yours, every sentence resonates with something from the bible, and it all comes together. That's a wonderful feeling in a day when most around me are "faint with fear, not knowing the way out." (Lu 21) You would benefit from some of the same study in your spare time. Stop by your local KH and get one of our pubs. In order from easy to challenging, I recommend What Does God Require?, Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life, or Survival into a New Earth. As I once told an Anglican on a BA flight, "It's fun!"

Finally, I just have to point out that the "Prince of the Church" is misapplying the mustard seed parable in a significant way- his timing is way off. Not important, though; I get his point.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

He's a longshot, but one of the African Cardinals (Nigeria's Francis Arinze) is considered "papabile." Africa now has the second highest number of Catholics of any continent, after South America. However, the two have less than 20% of the Cardinals... BTW, Arinze is a convert from Islam, another reason he might find some favor.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... or seen .... "The Shoes of the Fisherman" by Morris West?

It's been around for quite a while, and was made into a movie with Anthony Quinn, and is available on VHS.

It's an interesting look at the Papal selection process.

I can also recommend these VHS selection:

"One Foot in Heaven"chronicles the pastorate of a true-life Methodist Minister, and is my favorite.

"A Man Called Peter" is about the pastorate of a true-life Presbyterian Minister who became Chaplain of the US Senate.

None of these are "sappy". IMO, they provide excellent insight into the ministries of three main-stream men.

Angeline


click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

And that is most likely the choice, but there appears to be no requirement that the choice be catholic. If you get the bueracricy behind you, it's amazing how quickly you could go from whatever you are to catholic, priest, bishop, and pope. A bunch of kneeling, prostrating, admitting you're not worthy, and Bob's your uncle.

OK, not you're uncle, Diana, because you're a girl, but it could happen.

Dan

how a Pope is chosen!

I said that there was no rule that states those requirements.

Dan

but only a cardinal can be elected pope, and as cardinals are catholic, it would be superflous to "rule" that a pope be catholic?


.

Thank you Jonah!