Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 17th May 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

America bursts into song as Pope celebrates birthday at White House



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 17 April 2008
AN ENTHRALLED crowd of more than 13,500 sang Happy Birthday to Pope Benedict XVI yesterday – twice – while George Bush said that the first papal visit to the White House in 29 years was a reminder for Americans to "distinguish between simple right and wrong".
In his welcoming speech to the Pope, the US president said: "In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need your message that true liberty requires us to live our freedom not just for ourselves but in a spirit o
f mutual support."

The two men share much common ground, particularly in opposing abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem-cell research, but they disagree over the war in Iraq, the death penalty and the United States' trade embargo against Cuba. Pope Benedict also speaks for environmental protection and social welfare in ways that often run counter to Mr Bush's policies.

The pontiff has told reporters that he planned to bring up immigration policy with Mr Bush during their private Oval Office meeting. Benedict has talked forcefully in the past about the damage caused by punitive immigration laws.

The pontiff turned 81 yesterday, the first full day of his first trip to the US as leader of Roman Catholics. His 90-minute stay at the White House – only the second by a pope – was accompanied by a pomp and pageantry rarely seen, even at a venue accustomed to welcoming royalty and the world leaders.

The vast South Lawn was filled to nearly bursting with the largest crowd of Mr Bush's presidency, requiring a large television screen so those farther back could see.

Thousands of people filled Washington's streets as well, playing music and waving banners as they waited for a glimpse of the pontiff.

An almost serenely quiet papal arrival at the White House preceded the programme, as Benedict's limousine pulled up to a greeting from Mr Bush and his wife, Laura. The two leaders strolled along a red carpet to a platform on the lawn, and sat side-by-side as the Marine Band played the national anthem of the Holy See, while a 21-gun salute sprayed smoke into the air.

The famed American soprano Kathleen Battle sang The Lord's Prayer. The US army Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps marched by, dressed in colonial garb.

The love in the audience was evident. A few yelled "Viva il Papa". Four youngsters sat on the grass with handmade signs, one reading "We love you pope of hope" and another showing a birthday cake – chocolate – with an 81 on it. Happy Birthday was sung spontaneously early in the ceremony, while a formal, more full-throated version came at the end. "God bless America," said Benedict robustly, to cheers from the excited throng.

The six-day trip to Washington and New York City coincides not just with his birthday; it is the third anniversary of his ascendancy to the Church's top position. Nurturing the US flock is a sensitive and important mission for Benedict at a time, not just of ongoing scandal in the American church, but amid his campaign to beat back secularism and reignite faith worldwide.

"I trust that my presence will be a source of renewal and hope for the Church in the United States and strengthen the resolve of Catholics to contribute even more responsibly to the life of this nation," he said.



The full article contains 579 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 April 2008 10:33 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Roman Catholic church
 
1

Fanling,

Hong Kong 17/04/2008 02:55:03
... pass the sick bag
2

Horrible Cankers Le Cyber Shebeen,,

17/04/2008 03:03:53
1 Fanling

Stop lookin' in the mirror..
3

Fanling,

Hong Kong 17/04/2008 03:47:55
Christalmighty ... I looked, then I just saw the Horrible You. Nightmare. Daymare. Stop right there. I will not engage in your idiot games. Your game is up, and you are well rumbled on here. @rse about with your username all day and all night ... sane people have you figured.
4

,

17/04/2008 10:22:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

,

17/04/2008 10:47:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Guga II,

Rockall 17/04/2008 11:31:18
#4 Are you dyslexic? You can't even spell your own name. It should be Mousey Dung.
7

Guga II,

Rockall 17/04/2008 11:40:13
"A few yelled "Viva il Papa".

So, nobody yelled Seig Heil for the former Nazi and member of the Hitler Youth.
8

Elderberry,

17/04/2008 12:21:17
#4 & #5 are the same troll, they are both Horrible Cankers.
9

Jewel of the Forth,

Fife 17/04/2008 12:39:04
7 Guga II

Shameful, you must not have received much attention being drug up.
10

Flower of Scotland,

Glasgow 17/04/2008 14:31:02
#9 Jewel. #7 Guga is more than shameful.It is much more serious than that. The guy is sick and needs help QUICKLY!
11

Flower of Scotland,

Glasgow 17/04/2008 14:32:09
#1 Stop looking into the mirror and you will not need the "sick bag".
12

,

17/04/2008 17:36:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

James,,

17/04/2008 18:06:53
God Bless the Pope.
14

Black Beard,

17/04/2008 20:17:37
12 I thought that was the ANC...
15

Tobermory,

Mull 17/04/2008 21:12:17
12 Media 1

Obviously you have no respect for anyone, including yourself.
16

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 17/04/2008 21:34:42
Yawn...I bore myself you know, not just YOU!
Let's go over the Catholic Church's achievements for the umpteenth time:

(1) 5000 children abused in the USA alone. Thousands more abused worldwide, esp. in Ireland. The Catholic Church has charitably provided place of refuge for paedophiles for decades (if not centuries).
(2) Millions of women reduced in status to baby-making machines; queen termites with their intelligence, creativity and energy burnt up in child-bearing. But then again, Catholicism is also the time-honoured, venerable fertility cult of Venus, a.k.a. Mary.
(3) Millions of women exposed to the health risks inherent in child-bearing, unprotected sex, and back street abortions. Catholicism has single-handedly managed to greatly increase the total number of abortions by suppressing birth control, but amazingly also opposes abortion! Ah well, what does one expect from such a wacky fertility cult?
(4) The Roman Catholic clergy have subsumed the power of their own god to grant absolution. The Pope can send people to Hell and rescue them! What hubris!
(5) Roman Catholicism has created a pantheon of saints, many of whom never actually lived, or about whom nothing whatsoever is truly known. But that hasn't stopped the creative urge of the clergy, who have invented entire biographies to justify spurious sainthoods.
(6) And Roman Catholics have learnt to worship weeping paintings; even to recognise Mary in fogged windows and tea leaves. What's next, Il Papa? Dare I mention the WC after use, and pre-flushing?

There's so much more, but it really is getting so painfully, painfully boring...
17

James,,

17/04/2008 21:39:26
You are right - you are crashingly boring.

18

,

17/04/2008 21:41:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

Whisky Smuggler,

17/04/2008 22:54:44
18 Chairman Mouthy aka Horrible Cankers

Why do you freehootsman people troll the Scotsman?
20

Flower of Scotland,

Glasgow 17/04/2008 22:54:49
#16 Oh dark one, You are right about one thing! You are a complete bore. Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
21

Flower of Scotland,

Glasgow 17/04/2008 22:58:04
#16 More than 1 billion Catholics dont agree with you. That's a lot of Catholics! You really are a sad individual, yes! quite sad.
22

Whisky Smuggler,

17/04/2008 22:59:44
20 Flower of Scotland

#16 Caora Dubh must be a Islamic terroist since he/she did not provide a huge list of all the good things the Church does in the the world. That or he/she is just filled with hate and wants to try to upset others.
23

Flower of Scotland,

Glasgow 17/04/2008 23:01:13
Oh! I forgot to say, GOD BLESS OUR POPE! WE will be true to thee till death!
24

Flower of Scotland,

Glasgow 17/04/2008 23:03:41
#22 Whisky..... Completely agree with you. Good post.
25

Regina,

17/04/2008 23:13:33
12 Media 1

No, that would be any group you are in favour of.
26

Let's have the truth,

QUEENSLAND 18/04/2008 02:03:21
Catholicism, Islam, what's the difference?

One could put 'ofacist' after either.
27

Edward M. Kennedy,

18/04/2008 02:32:16
26 Let's have the truth

Hater
28

Virginian,

USA 18/04/2008 05:33:22
Article Quote:

"The pontiff has told reporters that he planned to bring up immigration policy with Mr. Bush during their private Oval Office meeting."

Answer:

The Pope must not realize that President Bush will be back at his ranch in Texas in just a few months when he is no longer President.

The President will undoubtedly let the Pope's "forceful" talking go in one ear and out the other...as he should.

The US electorate is still 56% Protestant to 25% Roman Catholic with droves of Roman Catholic Mexicans converting to the Baptist Church.

Does the Pope seriously believe that this visit is going to change anyone's mind on the issue of immigration?

The President is being polite so as not to alienate Roman Catholics, but it certainly does not mean that the American people are going to agree with Pope Benedict about anything he says.

He'll be back home in a few days and everything will go on just as it did before he showed up on these shores.

The papal visit was a nonevent for most Americans.
29

mary gold,

USA 18/04/2008 14:24:21
President Bush described Benedict as a "humble servant of God, an outstanding university professor, & a compassionate & caring individual"
Benedict has opened communications with Muslims & HIS EFFORTS have led to the FIRST Christian church in Qatar & hopefully the FIRST CHURCH to be built in Saudi Arabia. He stresses FREEDOM of conscience for everyone, exactly why he Baptized a former Muslim converted to Catholicism during Easter services.
He plans to teach the world that killing in the name of God is horrific, I hardly call THAT going home and carrying on as before as #28 would suggest.
30

Virginian,

USA 18/04/2008 16:18:57
#29 mary gold,USA

Quote: "He [the Pope] stresses FREEDOM of conscience for everyone, exactly why he Baptized a former Muslim converted to Catholicism during Easter services...I hardly call THAT going home and carrying on as before as #28 [Virginian] would suggest."

Answer: mary, you seem confused about what is being discussed.

The subject is whether or not Pope Benedict will be able to effect change by "talking forcefully" to President Bush about allowing Roman Catholic illegal immigrants into the US and taking away the US Cuban imbargo.

President Bush does not have the ability to make edicts for the US as the Pope does for Roman Catholics.

The American electorate and Congress decide such matters. That is why it does no good for the Pope to "talk forcefully" to the President.

As far as the Pope baptizing a former Muslim during Easter services...an obvious mistake because it has further inflamed the Muslim community as he did recently with his infamous quote against Islam.

The papal visit has no effect on the 56% Protestants and the other non-Roman Catholic Americans that together equal 75% of the electorate because they do not consider Benedict as the head of Christendom or of any other religion or belief system.

Protestants believe that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Christian Church and that the Holy Spirit is God's Mediator on earth in the place of Christ as is stated in the Bible.

Roman Catholics in the US do have "FREEDOM of conscience" only because the Protestants who founded the US won this right for everyone and enshrined it in the US Constitution.

It would only be right that you should thank US Protestants, by the grace of God, for your enjoyment of religious freedom instead of ascribing this right to the papal hierarchy.

31

Flower of Scotland,

Glasgow 18/04/2008 22:24:08
#30 You talk bullshi*, absolute bullshi* The Pope is the head of Christendom. He is the successor of St. Peter who as we know was the first Pope. Read Matthew chapter 16 verses 16-19. Oh! and by the way. GOD BLESS OUR POPE THE GREAT THE GOOD!
32

Hugo Rafael Chávez,

Venezuela 19/04/2008 01:41:34
CHILD MOLESTATION AND OTHER VIOLENCE

Many studies of child molestation have been carried out, and the results are both consistent and startling. Between 55-60% of statutory rape (child molestation) involves homosexuality (P. Cameron, Psych. Reports, 1985, 57:1227-36). A survey of white gays found that 65% admitted to having sex with boys 16 or younger, when they were 21 or older (A.P. Bell, Sexual Preference, 1981, 19).
Entire studies have been written on the large number of child molestation cases, done by homosexuals. In their magazines, gays admit that one of their objectives in doing this is to increase the number of homosexuals.

Some of these studies were about homosexual school teachers. It is known that they prey on the children.
Aside from passion, there are two special reasons why gays do this: (1) By sodomizing children, they increase the number who will grow up to be homosexuals. (2) Children have less diseases to transmit. NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) has, as its goal, the removing of laws prohibiting gays from having sex with minors. In 1990, the age of consent for homosexual sex in Holland was lowered to 12!

The National Crime Survey reported that about 27% of rapes are homosexual. They have dramatically increased with the rise of the gay rights movement. This crime is twice as common in urban areas where gays congregate (C.W. Harlow, U.S. Dept. Justice, 1991, NCJ-126826).

A study of 518 mass murders in the U.S., from 1966 to 1983, revealed that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality (P. Cameron, Midwestern Psych. Assn., 1983)
33

Virginian,

USA 19/04/2008 03:29:06
#31 Flower of Scotland, Glasgow

Your Quote: "30 [Virginian]#@*%#$...The Pope is the head of Christendom.
He is the successor of St. Peter who as we know was the first Pope.
Read Matthew Chapter 16 verses 16-19."

Answer: The Pope is neither the head of Christendom nor the successor of St. Peter who was never a Pope.

Matthew Chapter 16 verses 16-19 has been misinterpreted by the Roman Catholic Church since 590 AD when they invented the notion of a pope who was over all other bishops.

Before 590 AD the Bishop of Rome was on the same level as all other bishops or "overseers" in the church.

The Apostle Peter did not consider himself as above any of the other apostles.

Read 1 Peter 1:1: 5:1-3 which states:

"Peter an apostle of Jesus Christ...The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God, nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock" (1 Peter 1:1; 5:1-3).

The Apostle Peter never lorded it over the flock as the papal hierarchy has done since it came into being 600 years afterward.

Matthew Chapter 16 does not say that Peter was "the rock" upon which Christ would build His Church, but that He would build it upon the statement that Peter has just made that "Thou [Jesus] are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

The Greek word for Peter is "Petros" and is a masculine person. However, the Greek word for "rock" is "petra" and is a feminine word that refers not to Peter, a person, but to Peter's statement that Jesus was the Christ.

It makes no sense that Jesus would say to Mr. Rock (Peter, masculine) that He would build His Church on Miss Rock (rock/foundation, feminine).

The correct translat
34

Virginian,

USA 19/04/2008 03:54:05
#33 Virginian,USA (cont'd)

The correct translation would contain two separate statements. The first is that Jesus is commending Peter, whose name, "Cephus," means "rock" or "pebble," for being the first to recognize the deity of Jesus as God's Christ.

The second part of His statement is that Jesus Christ would build His church on the rock or foundation of His deity and that the Gates of Hell would never overcome it.

Jesus Christ is "the Rock" and the foundation upon which His church is built and not on Peter, an apostle equal to the other apostles.

Therefore, the Pope in Rome is Head of the Roman Catholic Church and Head of State of Vatican City, but he is not the successor of Peter because Peter was never a Pope nor was Peter "the Rock" on which Jesus Christ built His Church.

Jesus Christ is the Head of Christendom and is the Rock and Foundation on which His Church rests...a firm foundation against which the Gates of Hell will never prevail.

Jesus Christ is the Head of Protestant Christians and not the Pope, as was stated previously.

Flower of Scotland, if you have any other questions regarding Protestant beliefs just send another post.

Kind regards,

Virginian
35

James,,

19/04/2008 10:58:25
#33, 34,

Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic, not Greek. The word Jesus would have used was "kephas", meaning rock. In Aramaic, there was no gender distinction.

The change of name from Simon to Peter is also very significant, in that Peter has been entrusted with an important task, the name-change symbolising a new life, much like Abram to Abraham in the Old Testament and Saul to Paul in the new.

Of course Matthew goes further, with Jesus giving Peter the "keys to the Kingdom of Heaven." In the Old Testament, the King's second in command literally held the keys. In Isaiah 22:19-22 there is a reference to Eliakim, the master of the palace of King Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18: 17ff) and keeper of the keys. As a sign of his position, the one who held the keys represented the king, acted with his authority, and had to act in accord with the king’s mind.

Peter is always listed first of the Apostles. Whenever Jesus chose a group of three Apostles, as at teh Transfiguration, or in Gethsemane, Peter is always chosen, and chosen first.

Jesus chose Peter's boat to teach from. It was Peter who preached the Good News to the crowds after Pentecost, performed the first iraculous healings, and who revealed the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles. There is no doubt that amongst the Apostles, Peter was pre-eminent.

That Peter's authority was handed down to his successors was not doubted by the early church. This can be seen in the writings of St. Irenaeus (d. 202) in "Adversus haereses." It can also be found in "De praescriptione haereticorum" written by Tertullian who died in 250. Likewise Origen (died 254) in "Commentaries on St John." Also see St. Cyprian of Carthage (died 258) in "The Unity of the Catholic Church."

The idea of papal authority by a long, long way predates 590 AD. Inh fact it goes back to the origins of the church.
36

Virginian,

USA 19/04/2008 14:13:02
#35 James,,

Quote: "Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic, not Greek."

Answer: The Bible is translated from manuscripts written in Greek not Aramaic.

Are you suggesting that the Greek manuscripts of the Bible are incorrect?

37

James,,

19/04/2008 14:32:20
Virginian #36,

I'm saying Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. He would have said neither "petros" nor "petra."

In English - "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church."

Jesus' meaning seems quite unambiguous to me, especially given the rest of the passage - "I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven," "what you bind on Earth shall be considered bound in Heaven," etc.

God Bless the Pope.
38

Virginian,

USA 19/04/2008 14:45:56
#35 James,,

Quote: "...Matthew goes further, with Jesus giving Peter the 'keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.'"

Answer: The "keys" represent the ability and authority of Peter to proclaim God's plan of salvation of Jesus Christ building His Church on "the Rock" or foundation of His deity, not on the weak and fallible man Peter.

However, this authority was given not only to Peter but to all of the disciples of Jesus as seen in the following passage:

"At that hour the disciples came to Jesus...Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven" (Vss. 1, 18, Confraternity Version-Roman Catholic).

It is obvious that Jesus was not giving the plan of salvation to Peter alone but to all of His disciples when He commanded in Matthew 28:18-20:

"18-And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

"19-Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

"20-teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matthew 28: 18-20, New King James Version of the Bible)."












v
39

Virginian,

USA 19/04/2008 15:13:50
#35. James,, (cont'd)

Quote: "That Peter's authority was handed down to his successors was not doubted by the early church."

Answer: The Bible is the final authority in all matters regarding Christian doctrine, not any human being of whatever time.

Many early churchmen did not believe that any special authority was given to Peter. Augustine was just one.

Jesus Christ castigated the Pharisees for replacing God's commands with their "traditions" in many passages of the Bible.

One of the basic differences between Roman Catholic doctrine and that of the Protestant Christians is that the former (Roman Catholic) places final authority in "traditions" of the Roman Catholic churchmen, who often disagree on translations of the Holy Scriptures, while the latter (Protestant Christians) place all authority in the Bible as the Word of God.
40

James,,

19/04/2008 15:37:57
Virginian #38,

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was revealed to you not by man, but by my Father in Heaven. You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church."

No amount of lingiustic gymnastics can change the meaning. Why would Jesus say that Simon is a rock, then mean something else when he says he will build his church on "this" rock? Why not, "You are Peter and upon what you said I am I will build my church?"

Neither Petros, nor Kepha were proper names in Greek or Aramaic, yet that is how Peter was known to the first Christians. To St. Peter, it was a description as well as a name. Peter was and is the Rock of the Church.

Jesus said to Peter, "Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah..." Jonah is Hebrew for dove, Peter is the son of the dove. The dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Peter is guided in his ministry by the Holy Spirit, just as the Pope and the Church are today.

Why give the keys (a symbol of authority) to Peter alone? Why didn't he say he would give the keys to all of them? The keeper of the keys in ancient Israel was the chief deputy of the King, with the power to admit or exclude anyone from the King's household in the best interests of the King. Peter was given the keys because he was to be the chief deputy of Christ on Earth, with the same authority as the keeper of the keys in ancient Israel.

After the resurrection, it was Peter whom Jesus asked three times "Do you love me?" On hearing the answer "Yes," he said, three times, to Peter alone, "Feed my sheep."

Rabbis in ancient Israel customarily used a formula of words THREE TIMES when transferring authority to someone in the community of faith.

Why is Peter's name always first amongst the Apostles when he was not the first Apostle to be called?

Why did John, who reached the empty tomb before him, not go in until after Peter?

Why was it Peter who spoke for all he Apostles on the day of Pentecost?

Peter was obviously chosen by Jesus to lead his Chur
41

James,,

19/04/2008 15:38:20


Peter was obviously chosen by Jesus to lead his Church. No-one claims he alone had the authority to preach the Gospel, but he was the leader of the Church, the Rock upon which it was built.
42

Virginian,

USA 19/04/2008 15:54:39
#35. James,,(cont'd)

Quote: "The idea of papal authority by a long, long way predates 590 AD. Inh fact it goes back to the origins of the Church."

Answer: The bishop of Rome, Leo I, was declared the first pope in 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon.

It was also at the Council of Chalcedon that it was declared that all previous bishops of Rome were declared popes retroactively so that it would appear that there was an unbroken line, or succession, of Roman popes over all Christian bishops.

However, the Eastern Christian and Russian Orthodox churches have never recognized the authority of the bishops of Rome as being the head of all the other bishops.

The Protestant Reformation settled the issue in the West of who Protestants claim as Head of the Christian Church...none other than "Jesus Christ, who sits on the right hand of God Almighty."

James, as you can see, only Roman Catholics believe that the Pope is the head of Christendom, a freedom won for you and others,through the grace of God, by Protestants.



43

Virginian,

USA 19/04/2008 16:25:02
#41. James,,

Suffice it to say, you and I will never convince one another regarding basic differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestant Christianity that have been debated and fought over since the papal system came into being.

Roman Catholics simply need to accept the fact that non-Roman Catholic Christians consider you to be in error, just as you declare them to be heretics.

It is obviously not possible that Roman Catholics and Protestants can ever "agree to disagree" for very long.

Each generation must debate the same issues for themselves...hopefully without resorting to the violence of the Roman Catholic Church against the Protestant Reformation.

Nontheless, the Bible commands Christians to defend the faith as it was delivered to Christ's Church, not doctrines of man-made traditions.

Kind regards,

Virginian
44

James,,

19/04/2008 16:39:37
#39,

"The Bible is the final authority in all matters regarding Christian doctrine, not any human being of whatever time."

Ah Sola Scriptura!

There are five things wrong with this idea:

1) The Church and scripture are one. The Church is not another source of revelation, it is the author, guardian and teacher of scripture. There would be no Bible had it not been collected and canonized by the Catholic Church.

2) Sola Scriptura is contradictory - scripture does not say that we should believe only scripture.

3) It violates the principle of causality - that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The Bible was written and canonized by the Church. If scripture is infallible, then its cause - the Church - must be infallible too.

4) It leads to denominationalism, something that goes against scripture, where Jesus commands Christians to be united. If anyone can interpret scripture, then there will be any number of different interpretations. Like the Supreme Court with the US Constitution, a final authority, in this case the Church, is required to interpret scripture.

5) It is unhistorical. The first generations of Christians had no scripture to teach them - only the Church.

Scripture also makes it plain that Peter is the Head of the Church on Earth.
45

James,,

19/04/2008 17:19:39
#42,

"The bishop of Rome, Leo I, was declared the first pope in 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon."

No he was not declared Pope at the Council of Chalcedon. It actually granted equal privileges to Constantinople as Rome, on the grounds that Constantinople was the "new Rome." The Papal legates were not present for this decision and protested it afterwards. This implies that before 451, there WAS an acceptance of the superiority of Rome.

"The Protestant Reformation settled the issue in the West of who Protestants claim as Head of the Christian Church...none other than "Jesus Christ, who sits on the right hand of God Almighty."

Protestants may reject Papal authority, but in doing so, they are contradicting scripture, as I have demonstrated.

"James, as you can see, only Roman Catholics believe that the Pope is the head of Christendom, a freedom won for you and others,through the grace of God, by Protestants."

That makes no sense whatsoever. I cannot make head nor tail of that paragraph.
46

James,,

19/04/2008 17:26:11
#43,

"Suffice it to say, you and I will never convince one another regarding basic differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestant Christianity that have been debated and fought over since the papal system came into being."

Why not? Have you not an open mind on the subject? What is "the papal system?"

"Roman Catholics simply need to accept the fact that non-Roman Catholic Christians consider you to be in error, just as you declare them to be heretics."

I do accept Protestants CONSIDER the Church to be in error. They are wrong.

"Each generation must debate the same issues for themselves...hopefully without resorting to the violence of the Roman Catholic Church against the Protestant Reformation."

Very conventiently ignoring the violence and persecutions carried out by Proestants against Catholics. Let's not try to claim either side is blameless.

"Nontheless, the Bible commands Christians to defend the faith as it was delivered to Christ's Church, not doctrines of man-made traditions."

See #44.



47

James,,

19/04/2008 17:31:37
Virginian,

We haven't really been having a debate here have we? I have addressed every point you have raised, but you have not moved beyond unsubstantiated, incorrect claims and have ignored my questions.

To repeat:

1) Why would Jesus say that Simon is a rock, then mean something else when he says he will build his church on "this" rock? Why not, "You are Peter and upon what you said I am I will build my church?"

2) Why give the keys (a symbol of authority) to Peter alone? Why didn't he say he would give the keys to all of them?

3) Why is Peter's name always first amongst the Apostles when he was not the first Apostle to be called?

4) Why did John, who reached the empty tomb before him, not go in until after Peter?

5) Why was it Peter who spoke for all he Apostles on the day of Pentecost?



Some sort of comment on the five points raised #44 would also be appreciated.
48

Alba Abú,

Edinburgh 19/04/2008 20:17:48
33 Virginian..... Why is it that no two Protestant curches agree on the matter of scripture?i.e. Baptist to Methodist or Anglican to Presbyterian?
49

Alba Abú,

19/04/2008 20:18:31
#48 Oops! that should have been "churches"
50

James,,

19/04/2008 22:05:18
Virginian,

I have just read #30:

"Roman Catholics in the US do have "FREEDOM of conscience" only because the Protestants who founded the US won this right for everyone and enshrined it in the US Constitution.

It would only be right that you should thank US Protestants, by the grace of God, for your enjoyment of religious freedom instead of ascribing this right to the papal hierarchy."

Fine men, all of them, but their commitment to freedom was not a by-product of their Protestantism, or something that would not have ben posible in Catholics of the time. The ideas enshrined in the Declaration of Independence can be found in much earlier Catholic thought. Some examples:

THE EQUALITY OF MAN - "All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Declaration of Independence.

"Nature made all men equal in liberty, though not in their natural perfections." St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

“All men are equal, not in wisdom or grace, but in the essence and nature of mankind.” Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621).

THE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT - "To secure these rights governments are instituted among men." Declaration of Independence.

"To ordain anything for the common good belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the viceregent of the whole people" St. Thomas Aquinas.

"It is impossible for men to live together without someone to care for the common good. Men must be governed by someone lest they be willing to perish." Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.

THE SOURCE OF POWER - "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence.

"The ruler has power and eminence from the subjects, and, in the event of his despising them, he sometimes loses both his power and position." St. Thomas Aquinas

"It depends upon the consent of the multitude to constitute over itself a king, consul, or other magistrate. This power is, inde
51

James,,

19/04/2008 22:06:05
THE SOURCE OF POWER - "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence.

"The ruler has power and eminence from the subjects, and, in the event of his despising them, he sometimes loses both his power and position." St. Thomas Aquinas

"It depends upon the consent of the multitude to constitute over itself a king, consul, or other magistrate. This power is, indeed, from God, but vested in a particular ruler by the counsel and election of men." Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.

THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT - "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government..." Declaration of Independence.

"If any society of people have a right of choosing a king, then the king so established can be deposed by them without injustice, or his power can be curbed, when by tyranny he abuses his regal power." St. Thomas Aquinas.

"The people never transfers its powers to a king so completely but that it reserves to itself the right of receiving back this power." Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.

The freedoms enshrined in the US Constitution owe more to Catholic teaching than you think.
52

Virginian,

USA 20/04/2008 01:42:31
#48 Alba Abu, Edinburgh

Quote: "33 Virginian....Why is it that no two Protestant churches agree on the matter of scripture? i.e. Baptist to Methodist or Anglican to Presbyterian?"

Answer: All Protestant churches agree that the Bible is the final authority in questions of doctrine and that Jesus Christ is the head of His church and the Holy Spirit is Christ's Mediator on earth.

Any distinctives a denomination might have such as methods of baptism or types of church government are "indifferent" as to their core beliefs essential to salvation.

All true Protestant Christian churches believe that Holy Scripture as found in the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, while writings of men, fathers of the church or traditions have no authority whatsoever in church matters.

53

Virginian,

USA 20/04/2008 01:54:32
#44,#45,#46,#47,#50,#51 James,,

James, I couldn't disagree more with all you have said.

Read John 8:31-32:

"31-Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.

"32-And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8:31-32, King James version, The Bible)."
54

James,,

20/04/2008 10:20:12
Virginian #53,

That is an absolutely feeble reply. What exactly do you not agree with? Why do you not agree with it?

You can add those two questions to the five you have chosen to ignore AGAIN (#47). Not forgetting the comments I respectfully asked for on the five points I raised about sola scriptura (#44).

Quoting scripture in my general direction does not qualify as an answer. Could it be that you are struggling?
55

James,,

20/04/2008 15:32:37
Virginian,

While you ponder the response which will no doubt soon be winging its way to my questions (#47), and not forgetting your comments on the points I raised about sola scriptura (#44), let me also ask you for your thoughts on the following scriptural passages:

"Give us this bread", they insisted. "But Jesus told them, 'It is I who am the bread of life'" (Jn6:34-35)

"I myself am the bread that has come down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever. And now, what is this bread that I am to give? It is my flesh, given for the life of the world" (Jn 6:51-52)

"You can have no life in yourselves, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood. The man who eats my flesh and drinks my blood enjoys eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, lives continually in me, and I in him." (Jn 6: 54-57)

"There were many of His disciples who said, when they heard it, This is strange talk, who can be expected to listen to it?" (Jn 6:61)

"Only the spirit gives life; the flesh is of no avail; and the words I have been speaking to you are spirit, and life." (Jn 6:64)

"After this, many of His disciples went back to their own ways, and walked no more in His company." (Jn 6:67)

Is this evidence of those who reject transubstantiation (Protestants) rejecting Jesus? Rejection of transubstatiation is clearly contradicts scripture.
56

mary gold,

USA 20/04/2008 19:45:30
Virginian # 30 I m not confused about what is being discussed, friend. I am commenting on the mission of Benedicts pontificate, I can see however that you are afflicted with a great deal of biblical & Universal church confusion.
Biblical prooftexting is so unfortunate, it disregards so many passages that have SO MUCH meaning.
I love Our Lord, did he not say (paraphrasing here)
"You must eat my flesh & drink my blood or you will have NO LIFE IN YOU" (Wow!! the import of that comment is stunning ) Further Jesus says,"Whoever eats my flesh & drinks my blood I will raise him up on the last day" Jesus will raise us up on the last day !!
(again stunning) The only place on EARTH with the Flesh & blood of the Lord is the Universal Church.
Thank You Catholicism & orthodoxy for being so loyal to these biblical injunctions.
57

James,,

20/04/2008 20:33:10
mary #56,

Virginian's opinions have been thoroughly discredited on this thread and he has not posted for nearly 18 hours now. I wonder if he is burying his head in the sand and clinging to the "Bible is the only authority on Christian belief" mantra?

Or is he contemplating what has been posted here with an open mind, geniunely seeking the truth?

Maybe he has just given up.
58

mary gold,

USA 21/04/2008 04:05:01
James, he may have been here & read further responses
under a cloak, so to speak.
Anyway it has been a lively & informative thread maybe other "readers" have benefited.
With regards to Virginian & others who post with disparaging comments about the Universal Church or the Holy Father, I just have to post a rebuttal,its practically in my blood as it appears to be with you.
Perhaps we can be the fortunate beneficiaries of Christs biblical comment regarding
"Who defends Me I will defend before the Father"
(of course its a paraphrase again but another wonderful promise!"
59

Virginian,

USA 21/04/2008 22:56:40
#58 mary gold,USA

Quote: "With regards to Virginian & others who post with disparaging comments about the Universal Church or the Holy Father,I just have to post a rebuttal,...Perhaps we can be the fortunate beneficiaries of Christs (sic) biblical comment regarding 'Who defends Me I will defend before the Father' (of course its (sic) a paraphrase again but another wonderful promise!)"

Answer:
mary gold, the verses you were thinking of are at Luke 12: 8-10 as follows:

"8-And I [Jesus] say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God.

"9-But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

"10-And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven."
***************************************************
The problem you have is that you are defending the Pope or the "Holy Father" in this instance and not defending Jesus Christ.
*****************************************************
You contend that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ while the Bible says that Christ's Mediator on earth is the Holy Spirit as stated at John 14: 23-26:

"23-Jesus answered and said to him, 'If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.'

"24-These things I have spoken to you while being present with you.

"26-But the Helper (Gr. Parakletos), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you (John 14: 23-26, New King James version of the Bible)."
*******************************************************
According to Luke 12: 10 "...but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven."

It appears from this reading that to say that the Pope, a human man, rather than the Holy Spirit, is the Mediator of Chr
60

Virginian,

USA 21/04/2008 23:15:45
#59 Virginian (cont'd)

According to Luke 12:10 "....but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven."

It appears from this reading that to say that the Pope, a human man, rather than the Holy Spirit, is the Mediator of Christ would be to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

Why would you think that you are going to be the beneficiary of the promises of Jesus Christ to those who defend Him?
61

Virginian,

USA 22/04/2008 00:19:31
#59 Virginian...Correction of John 14:24-25

Inadvertently omitted verse 24 and listed 25 in its place of John 14: 23-26 passage quoted which reads:

"24 He who does not love Me [Jesus Christ] does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

"25-These things I have spoken to you while being present with you (New King James version of the Bible)."
62

James,,

22/04/2008 18:07:10
Welcome back Virginian, I'd almost given up hope of hearing from you again.

Alas, you STILL have not responded to my questions (#47) and you have STILL not responded to my comments on sola scriptura (#44).

You are however, STILL quoting scripture with very little apparent purpose.

Why can't you respond to the questions and points I have raised?

#59,

"You contend that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ while the Bible says that Christ's Mediator on earth is the Holy Spirit as stated at John 14: 23-26:"

Sorry Virginian, but your understanding of scripture is seriously flawed. You are thinking of 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God: and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Also, you have employed the classic "straw man" logical fallacy here, as no-one here has claimed that the Pope is "the mediator of Christ."

What do you think "the mediator of Christ" could possibly mean? It makes no sense at all.

To clarify an earlier point, Jesus called Simon, "Kepha" meaning "rock." It was not a proper name in Aramaic, just as "Petros" is not a proper name in ancient Greek. Kepha implies neither male nor female, so Jesus was clearly not referring to two different things.

Jesus said, "You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church."

The successor of Peter - the Pope - is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Any chance of those answers I asked for?



63

Virginian,

USA 22/04/2008 20:03:17
#62 James,,

Quote: "Any chance of those answers I asked for?"

Answer: No.
64

Virginian,

USA 22/04/2008 21:21:08
#62 James,,

Quote: "What do you think "the mediator of Christ" could possibly mean? It makes no sense at all."

Answer: James, you are absolutely correct, in this one instance, that the Mediator between God and man is none other than Christ Jesus.

What I should have written is that the Roman Catholic Church believes that the pope is the Vicar [in place] of Jesus Christ on earth.

The truth is that the Holy Spirit is the Vicar [in place] of Jesus Christ on earth because He rose from the dead and sits on the right hand of God the Father, making intercession for His elect.

According to Boettner:

"When the triple crown is placed on the head of a new pope at his "coronation" ceremony the ritual prescribes the following declaration by the officiating cardinal:

'Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art the Father of Princes and Kings, Ruler of the World, the Vicar of our Saviour Jesus Christ...' (National Catholic Almanac)."

Boettner goes on to write:

"The New York Catechism says:

'The pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth...By divine right the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.' (Loraine Boettner, "Roman Catholicism" p.127)."

A third quote by Boettner on page 127 says that "...pope Leo Xiii, in his encyclical, "The Reunion of Christendom" (1885), declared that the pope holds "upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

Now that I have corrected "Mediator" to "Vicar" it still holds true that to say the pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth rather than the Holy Spirit having that office
65

Virginian,

USA 22/04/2008 21:40:30
#64 Virginian (cont'd.)

Now that I have corrected "Mediator" to "Vicar" it still holds true that to say the pope, a human man, takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth rather than the Holy Spirit having that office, blasphemes against the Holy Spirit by saying that a mere man stands in the place of the Third Person of the Trinity who is deity.

Perhaps you can explain this concept, using Bible verses as proof, that the pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth rather than the Holy Spirit being the Vicar of Christ?

While you are at it, James, find one verse in the Bible that designates a "pope" or that says that the Apostle Peter was the "pope" of his fellow apostles.

Perhaps you might want to get your own copy of Loraine Boettner's book, "Roman Catholicism." It is well documented using writings of the Roman Catholic Church to substantiate everything said. (It would save a lot of tedious typing on my part and your endless nagging questions and quibbles.)

Everyone who wants to know about Roman Catholic thought and practice that differs from Bible-based Christianity should certainly obtain a copy.

Looking forward to hearing back from you. Get crackin' now.
66

Virginian,

USA 22/04/2008 22:30:16
#62. James,,

Quote: "What do you think "the mediator of Christ" could possibly mean? It makes no sense at all."

Answer: James, now that we've gotten straight that the Holy Spirit and not the pope is Jesus Christ's Vicar on earth, let's move on to the Roman Catholic concept that the Virgin Mary is the Mediatress between men and God.

Can it be that the masculine word "Mediator" being used rather than the feminine word "Mediatress" is what confused you?

Looking at Loraine Boettner's book, "Roman Catholicism", we learn all about this Mediatress from the book, "The Glories of Mary" by Bishop Alphonse de Liguori (1931 edition; Redemptorist Fathers, Brooklyn...) on pages 138-141.

Boettner quotes Liguori:

"Roman Catholic Church: "And she [Virgin Mary] is truly a mediatress of peace between sinners and God. Sinners receive pardon by...Mary alone' (pp. 82, 83)."

James, it appears that the Roman Catholic Church considers the pope the Vicar of Christ on earth and the Virgin Mary the Mediatress between men and God.

Unfortunately, James, at your #62 post you corrected my mistatement by quoting I Timothy 2:5 which states:

"For there is one God, and ONE Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim. 2:5, King James version of the Bible)."

Well, now you're in a corner, aren't you? Not only does it say that Christ Jesus is the one Mediator and not Mary...it even says "Mediator" and not "Mediatress" that is used in the Douay Version of the Roman Catholic Bible.

Where are you James? Have you slunk from the field of battle just as Boettner came forward as champion? We're all waiting to hear your rebuttal.
67

James,,

23/04/2008 08:39:24
Virginian,

LOL!

It is always hilarious when someone whose agruments have been as thoroughly refuted as yours have, has the gall to indulge in some trash-talking.

You are like Robert de Niro as Jake la Motta, slumped against the ropes with a face like a squashed tomato shouting, "You never knocked me down Ray!"

A refusal to concede defeat, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. This signifies his position of primacy, of both honour and jurisdiction in the Church established by Christ. That Bible verse again:

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was revealed to you not by man, but by My Father in Heaven. You are Peter (kepha) and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven. Whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven."

As we have already seen, the rock Jesus referred to was Peter. The keys signify Peter's position as Jesus' representative on Earth, and his authority over the Church.

The verse also explains that Peter is to be guided by the Holy Spirit, as demonstrated #40.

There is no Bible verse calling Peter, "Pope," but you must remember that "Pope" is simply a title. The responsibility given to Peter is obvious. It was re-affirmed after the resurrection, after Peter had denied Jesus three time.

Jesus asked Peter if he loved him three times.

Peter replied "yes" three times.

Three times, Jesus said to Peter, "Feed my sheep."

Peter's role as leader of the Church is unrelated to Jesus as mediator between God and Man. A mediator is someone who brings two estranged parties together. Jesus brought God and man together both by his nature as fully God and fully Man, and by his sacrifice on Calvary, which made our salvation possible.

Now, those questions I asked YOU. AGAIN. Where are your answers?

Your failure to answer is a
68

James,,

23/04/2008 08:39:55
(cont)

tacit admission that you have no answers.
69

James,,

23/04/2008 08:47:14
Virginian #66,

Like almost everything you have posted on this thread, this post is fatally flawed.

""Roman Catholic Church: "And she [Virgin Mary] is truly a mediatress of peace between sinners and God. Sinners receive pardon by...Mary alone' (pp. 82, 83)."

I wonder why you felt the need to miss out part of that passage? Note that it calls Mary, "a mediatress," not "THE mediatress."

Mary, like all of the angels and saints, is an intercessor, not mediator. As the Mother of God, Mary is the greatest of all the saints, and Queen of Heaven.

70

James,,

23/04/2008 08:49:24
Now, Virginian, again I have addressed every point you have raised.

Again, you have ignored my questions. Your failure to address those questions and points raised is a sorry admission of defeat, in spite of your big talk at the end of #66.

You are a sorry representative of your faith.
71

James,,

23/04/2008 09:54:18
Virginian,

Amidst all the irrelevant or poorly understood scripture quotations you have scatter-gunned across this thread, I missed #63:

"#62 James,,

Quote: "Any chance of those answers I asked for?"

Answer: No."

So you have run up the White Flag.

The reason you refuse to answer those questions (#47), and address the objections I raised to sola scripture (#44), is that you have no answers, and perfectly demonstrates the poverty of your position.

Provided that you cease quoting scripture at me in the mistaken belief that you are proving some contrived point or other, I accept your surrender.

72

Virginian,

USA 23/04/2008 16:05:08
#67 James,, 23/04/2008

Quote: "There is no Bible verse calling Peter, "Pope," but you must remember that "Pope" is simply a title.

Answer: Precisely, James...

"Pope" is simply a title in the Roman Catholic Church that has no warrant in the Bible and is not used in any other Christian church.



73

Virginian,

USA 23/04/2008 16:22:26
#67 James,, 23/04/2008

Quote: "The responsibility given to Peter is obvious. It was re-affirmed after the resurrection..."

Answer: James, you need to get Loraine Boettner's book, "Roman Catholicism," because he plainly shows how Peter was not the Head of the Apostles.

A lengthy quote should put this question of Peter's pre-eminence among his fellow apostles to rest once and for all.

Boettner explains:

"That no superior standing was conferred upon Peter is clear from the later disputes among the disciples concerning who should be greatest among them. Had such rank already been given, Christ would simply have referred to His grant of power to Peter. Instead we read:

"And they came to Capernaum: and when he was in the house he asked them, What were ye reasoning on the way? But they held their peace: for they had disputed one with another on the way, who was the greatest. And he sat down, and called the twelve; and he saith unto them, If any man would be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all' (Mark 9:33-35)."

"And again:

'And there came near unto him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying unto him, Teacher, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? And they said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left hand, in thy glory....And when the ten heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning James and John. (To be continued)
74

Virginian,

USA 23/04/2008 16:39:20
#73 (Continued)

"....And when the ten heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning James and John. And Jesus called them unto him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you: but whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all' (Mark 10:34-44)."

"It is interesting to notice that some of the church fathers, Augustine and Jerome among them, gave the Protestant explanation of this verse, understanding the "rock" to mean not Peter but Christ. Others, of course, gave the papal interpretation. But this shows that there was no "unanimous consent of the father," as the Roman Church claims, on this subject.(pp. 107-108, Loraine Boettner, "Roman Catholicism" The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, 1962.ISBN: 0-87552-130-4)."

James, Boettner is able to substantiate from Holy Scripture all that he says about the subject of Peter not being a pope.

You, on the other hand, are unable to even find the word, "pope," in the Bible or any other verses that indicate that Peter was anything other than an equal with the other apostles.

How can you say that you have proven your point?
75

Virginian,

USA 23/04/2008 16:49:36
#74 Virginian (Correction of word quoted)

ERRATUM: Fourth paragraph from the bottom should read:

"But this shows that there was no "unanimous consent of the FATHERS [emphasis mine],as the Roman Church claims, on this subject."

"father" should read "fathers" (plural).