Upon us tomorrow is the Pope John Paul II funeral. I'm not a religious person by any means but the footage of all of the things he has done and all of the barriers he has broken down for and about the Catholic church. If ever there was an angel, I would have to say it is him. I don't expect or want any replies or arguments about this, it's not what this post is for. I just think that he was one truly incredible man. And for what it's worth, I think a lot of men in the Catholic priesthood tried to and almost ruined what he worked every day for. Thats all.

Just goes to show that you cant judge all Christian leaders/pastors/ministers by a few bad apples.

ugh, im so tired of people crying about the pope, he is just a MAN.

This is true. I was just telling a coworker the samething yesterday. When he died I remember saying, "Ah man, thats to bad." then I was over it and got on with my life. But I guess alot of people see him as a father figure and are very saddened by his passing, just like I would be if my real father died.

Many people were moved by Pope John Paul II while he was alive, even if you were not. I don't feel that the Pope affected my small life, that I am aware of. Your comment is very callous, coming from someone with huge signature for a belly up pleb.

Guess we should say that about Tweaked too huh? Let's replace Pope, with Tweaked and see what it looks like:

I didn't really know tweaked. I'd meet him before, but never got to know him. But I wouldn't complain about all the threads started by people mourning his death.

Actually, this man has affected all of our lives. If it weren't for John Paul II and Ronald Reagan, the Berlin wall would have never fell, and there's no telling what kind of outcome there would have been with the cold war. He single handedly began the anti-communist campaign that ended communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Even though we're American's, that still has a major effect on our lives.

And for the non-Catholics: He's the first pontiff in history that opened his arms to all other religions and "children of Abraham". He loved every single human on the planet with no judgment, and followed the teachings of Jesus Christ and gave forgiveness to each one of us for our sins. The Papacy was created to ceremoniously be the "Living Voice of the Trinity (Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit)" and I don't see how anyone could disagree that he really was the living voice of God. The man brought together Christians, Jews, and Muslims for the first time in 2000 years of separatism. So many accomplishments for One Human Being.

He and Mother Teresa are the only two Living Saints that we will ever see in our lifetimes, I truly believe that.

My mom was telling me that in her life, no other pope made any major impact like him except for Pius XII(I think) who changed the way Mass is performed for the first time in 100's of years. He said that Mass can be performed in the native language for that parish. My mom said before that, when she was a child, Mass was performed entirely in Latin, and the Priest performed mass with his back to the congregation. Pius XII wanted to include the parish and to allow everyone to understand the teachings of Christ in their native tongue.

Who gave forgiveness to each one of us for our sins? The Pope? That really means nothing, one should only care if God forgives them and those who were sinned against forgive them. I have never sinned against the Pope so he really has no reason to forgive me.

And as far as him being a "living voice" for God, that is only to the Catholic Church, has nothing to do with the rest of Christendom.

The Pope was indeed a great man but that is all he was, a man. But I am sure he will have many rewards in heaven. And the title of saint isn't just for a select few given to man. The bible states that all believers are saints.

I whole-heartedly disagree with you on this. Christ is the only Man who can give forgiveness for our sins, not some religious hoop-la figurehead.

thats way the fuck out of context, if i had not know rob, then i wouldnt mourn for him either, but i did so i do. i also do it as a reminder to all the hypocrite 2 faced members of this site that if you are as genuine on the internet as you are in person, then people will remember you.



the was a man pretending to be a god, it was his job. people saw him higher than man but lower than God himself. which makes no sense, you cant use a ruler to measure how holy you are. you either are, or you arent.
the pope is no higher than myself or you on gods wishlist, cuz such a list doesnt exist.

i am not complaining about his death, im complaining about the fact that people believe his death has any effect whatsoever spirtually. he was only "great" becuz of his job. if he had not been a pope, then you would not be posting up taking up for him, cuz you wouldnt know him either, and you really dont know him, you just know of him and what you have read about him or seen on tv, you cant know a man till you have at least spent some time with him in person.

my point is ROB was a great man all the time and because that is who he was.

the pope however was the pope, and he has a pretty big obligation to touch people's lives cuz thats his job, and if it wasnt, he would just be another old man that you are whining about driving slow in the fast lane. he was only remember for what he did for a living. rob however acted good without any obligation whatsoever. and for this the pope has none of my respect, and i am fully entitled to my opinion, just like you are to yours


this is why many others and myself dont post in this debate er uh "theology" forum.

Although I agree with some of what you are saying and I fully respect your opinion, I would just like to say that for a person to become Pope he has to display all those good qualities long before he is elected. He got to that position because he was a great man in his public life and his personal life. I am not sticking up for him because I am a Catholic, because I am not. There is very little that I like about the Catholic Church, but for a man to devote his entire life to something that he believes in should be worthy of a little respect even if a person disagrees.

Jesus built my popemobile...

im willing to bet before he was a pope he had another job in the church, and before that, prolly so as well.

And why do you think he took those "jobs"? Probably for all the fame and fortune huh?

you people are impossible, its no wonder all the sheep on this site are scared to post in here and the only ones brave enough to are the ones that start shit, and are atheist/agnostic


go back to your 6 posts a day in this forum. im done giving a shit.

AGAIN

I must admit I didn't know much about him, until now. My wife has his book but it's in Polish so I couldn't read it. I got educated on the man when I saw how upset my wife was when he was dieing. I didn't realize what a truly great man and a kind person he was. I learned how he went back to Poland several times to help his homeland that was ravaged by communism. How he stood up to some of the most powerful political figures in the world without fear. He was the first ever non-Italian Pope which when you think about it, is un-heard of. Looking back at his life I can see that the church didn't elect him as Pope God did. He talked the talk and walked the walk as well as anyone I've seen in my life time. Good job John Paul, rest in peace.

There's no need to resort to personal attacks.

I happen to agree with you btw, he is just a man IMO. But I think the way you went about it was rude. If some people are moved by his death, so be it. It's not my place to criticize them for that.

So it was ok to be disrespectful during the mourning, because you didn't him. I didn't know Rob, nor can I remember him writing a post toward me or me to him. I wouldn't show disrespect to him, his family or friend. We are just two different types of people.

[QUOTE=slo95.0]you people are impossible, its no wonder all the sheep on this site are scared to post in here and the only ones brave enough to are the ones that start shit, and are atheist/agnostic
go back to your 6 posts a day in this forum. im done giving a shit. [QUOTE]



This dude realized he was being a hypocrit and refuses to say he was wrong. Be a man and admit you are wrong.....

Isn't all this pomp and circumstance a little much for a religion that reveres humility? Nothing against Catholics - but my gosh.

agreed. but he was a good man but that dont mean squat when you approach the gates that say "abandon all hope ye who enter here"

most everyone has already said what i know to be true so i wont add too much but to say

Jesus Christ is the only human to ever be closer to god than me, thats out of the bible and in context with its original meaning.

I applaud what the pope did for people on earth but he was no more special than you or me.

Jesus died for our salvation, he gave us the chance to recieve grace when we die, no one else can save us, no ammount of prayer will reverse my final destination.

Most of the rituals over the past week have occurred for hundreds of years. I don't really think the Vatican tried to make a big deal about this. The fact that John Paul tried so hard to make peace with so many religions really attracted a lot of attention worldwide and the media has really magnified every event over the past week, just like they did with Terry Schiavo.

Christ taught that he is not the ONLY one that gives us forgiveness for our sins. He told Peter to continue his church with His teachings. This is why Peter traveled to Rome to pass on the word and lessons of Jesus. Peter was then tried and crucified (upside down) and buried. The Vatican was built with the Alter directly above Peter's grave, which was verified by an excavation in the 60's where a body was found and dated to the First Century A.D. If that's not Peter's remains, that's one hell of a coincidence. Peter is considered the First Pope, which all pope's to follow use his teachings, and that is why I say that JPII can give us forgiveness for our sins. You don’t have to sin against someone directly in order to repent to that person. So I don’t understand your comment about sinning against JPII, that’s just idiocy.

What I don't understand is how Protestants don't believe that they are close to Catholics, and the direct hatred for Catholics alot of Protestants have. Do you guys not understand that Christianity was begun with only two “Churches”: The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church? And being that most of us are of Western heritage, your Christian religions start in the Roman Catholic Church? The only reason there is a Protestant Church is because a British King thought that he was the "Living Word of God". Your entire "belief system" is based on an British King who’s huge ego got in the way and lived Centuries after the death of Christ. And then it keeps breaking off from there. All of this because of Politics, which all of you guys refuse to recognize the politics that DO control religion, because it does.

Most of you guys are making these judgments about the Catholic Church without any historical knowledge what so ever. Before you start running your mouths, do some research. The Catholic Church is not perfect by any means. After all, it’s run by humans, and we’re not all perfect.

so you think peter is a savior?

um you need to read the bible, not the KJV but the hebrew or even the phonecian original version.

and as for the church starting from 2 churches your more than wrong there.

the church at antioch was not cathlioc by any means. that would be impossible.

I am church of christ. I do not understand why catholic people can sit here and tel me they were the original church... are you on crack.

and where did jesus say peter was anything but a teacher, he was a follower of jesus and preached jesus's message. not his own. John 3:16 you know that one its probably the most popluar verse in the bible.

For god so loved.. his only begotten son.. believed in him (jesus)... where is there a verse in the bible that states peter is some one to save me.

I got my bible give me the verse....and dont quote me crap out of the that piece of fiction "the roman calt. catacism" or how ever its spelled. It contradicts the bible completely.

YOu need to learn more about the "real Earily Church."

The mormons tried to make up false prophets too, and add to the bible which is wrong.

Im not tryin to be a jerk but if you guys want the facts study the original versions and pay attention to the whole book not just parts.

I got a copy of the hebrew and greek and phonecian.

ill post some pics as soon as the cam batt charges up.

Alright, First off . . . I'm not a big Bible reader because: a.) I don't read much of anything and b.) I go by what I'm taught by the Holy Gospels, as I believe they're the closest documents that have not been interepeted and translated by incompitent people. I'm also a person who has to have physical proof to be convinced of anything. Which doesn't go along with my belief in God. And because the Bible we all read is far from a physically historical document, and has no Specific Author(s), I can't justify some of it (specifically the new testament). But that's just me. I'm constantly looking for the answers, which I guess is the basis of my faith.

Now, I was wrong on the statement I made about anyone can give forgiveness, as I mistated it. Priests and higher clergy are the only one's that can give forgiveness for our sins. I found this on a Church Website: Because Christ was talking only to the apostles when he gave the power to forgive sins (John 20:21-23). Only a small number of disciples were present, for they were in an enclosed room (20:19). In fact, one disciple, Thomas, was not even there and had to have a special encounter with Jesus (20:24ff). This shows it was not all the disciples generally who received the power to absolve, but only the core group of the disciples--the apostles.

Confirmation for the fact that only clergy can absolve is found in James 5:14-15, where the sacrament of holy anointing is discussed: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters [priests] of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil . . . and if he was committed sins, he will be forgiven."

In the sacrament of anointing we see forgiveness tied to the clergy, therefore how much more will it be when we are dealing with the sacrament of confession itself.


I also found this on their Q&A segment:
Some people in the Church of Christ movement argue that theirs must be the true church, the one established by Jesus, since it has a biblical name (Rom. 16:16 refers to "the churches of Christ"). They note that when a husband takes a bride, she acquires his surname. Since the Church is called, especially by Catholics, the bride of Christ, they argue that the true Church's name will be the Church of Christ.
There are two arguments here. One is biblical and one is cultural.

The biblical argument is easily dismissed. Romans 16:16 is the only verse that refers to the "churches of Christ." In this verse the phrase is not used as a title, but as a geographical reference to the local congregations of the one true Church established by Christ. It is not to be taken as meaning that Christ established several different churches.

So far as the cultural argument goes, while wives may take their husbands' names, they usually do not take their titles. "Christ" is a title, not a name. If the Church were to be named after Christ, it would be the "Church of Jesus" (a phrase which does not appear in Scripture). To be really accurate it would use the Aramaic form of his name and be called the "Church of Yeshua." To our knowledge there is currently no denomination calling itself this, but, given the sorry history of Christian schisms, there may be one before long.

The "churches of Christ" argument seems to be the chief one used by members of that denomination. Be on the lookout for it. You may not find it convincing, but thousands have.

Another statement: The power to forgive sins was one Christ gave to his apostles (Luke 10:16; 2 Cor. 5:18-20). After he rose from the dead Christ said to the apostles, "'As the Father has sent me, so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained'" (John 20:22-23).

We can be truly sorry for our sins--that is essential for forgiveness--but we can't forgive our own sins. We can't absolve ourselves. That is a power reserved to God alone. Through Christ that power was conferred on his apostles and their successors, the bishops, and their helpers, the priests. Confession is not an option. It is the ordinary (normative) means through which sins are forgiven.



Again, these are not my words. However, I do agree with them.

In the early days there were three separate divisions within the Christian Movement.

The Pauline Christians
The Jewish Christians
The Gnostic Christians

Each believed themselves to be the true Christian Church and would blast the others at every opportunity.

The only one of the three that survived past the 6th century were the Paulines (which became the Catholic Church). There were others, but not very organized at this time.

Catholicism pretty much swept through Europe in the form of Roman Catholicism.

Then came Martin Luther and the Protestant movement which splintered into the faith groups that are wrapped under the Protestant movement that we have today.

What is idiocy my friend is believing a priest can forgive your sins. Ultimately we sin against God, not man (Psalm 51). Therefore it is only God that can forgive us of our sins and not any man. The scribes of that day knew this to be a fact (Mark 2:5-11). But since Jesus was God in the flesh He, and He alone, had the power to forgive.

And as it has been stated already, the Roman Catholic Church was not the first church. The Church actually began in the upper room on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). And it was non-denominational.

Here is a very interesting page I came upon...
Are Roman Catholic's Christian

Actually you mis quoted and mis intrepreted this verse, its ok many people do not understand the whole context of this verse.

James 5:14, start a verse before just to make sure you get the gist, and im not gonna leave an important part out.

James 5:13 "Is any one among you suffering? let him pray, is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms.

Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church and let then pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

And the prayer of Faith will save the sick, and the lord will raise him up. And if he has commited sins, he will be forgiven.

Confess your tresspasses to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed, The effective fervernt prayer of a righteous man avails much."


So it is talking about the power of prayer, (righteous mans prayer) and how strong and powerfull it is. Thus why the elders are mentioned. Hopefully they are righteous men in the church.

Not just the clergy contain this power but all righteous men do, (the ability to pray and be heard clearly by God)

We confess our sins to each other not just the clergy, but we are forgiven by God only.
The term healed also relates to our status as saved or doomed but thats a different lesson.

If you would really like to talk about what is really written in the bible I wll be happy to give you refrences to stuff you might have questions to... I actually am pretty good at understanding it... Ive studied it some.

I really dont want to come across as a jerk either, the last thing i want to do is make you not like "the church" because I may have represented it as a hypocrite.

PM a brother.

This is why I do not get into Bible talk. It's been interpreted and translated so many times, I can't justify anyone establishing a belief system or argument by it alone. Especially "Bible Church's" . . .

And about "the church" being hypocrite . . . that's how I feel about Protestants, so we won't get anywhere in that arguement, LOL.

you, me the pope everyone is a hypocrite....except jesus because he was the only one who was with out sin.

everyone else is human andwill sin and there fore no matter how godly you are you are always gonna sin. and since you have sinned you arent perfect and go against what god wants sometimes.

Churches are for hypocrites cause we all are them wether we like it or not. Sins a sin so we all fall short.

I would rather not get into whether a Catholic is a christian or not. I have already stated that a christian can be from ANY denomination, not just Baptist, or Church of God, or Catholic, or Methodist, etc. But being any one of these does not entitle a person to a free ride either.

Well to start with the first person to wear the title pope wa in 606AD, this is also where the beginning of the eastern orthodox church came into existence and split from the Roman catholic church over the very issue of 1 man being appointed "Pope".

Why does the Catholic church not allow,"bishops""Elders""presbyters"(all the same thing in the Bible) to be married, the qualifications are listed in Timothy and Titus and they include being married and a father. Peter certainly meet these qualifications and rightly so was an "Elder". Peter would not Qualify to be a Bishop in the Catholic church today.
We are warned not to "add to" or "take away" from the word of God, which is what has happened here, the Catholic church is Binding things not bound in the Bible. Very much like the Pharisees of Jesus day, they made the Law of Moses so difficult no one could follow it, thus when Jesus came he came to once and for all fulfill the requirements of the old law and set in place the New Law or NT for us.

All that aside I think John Paul was a very good man and the things he did have helped to make the world a better place.

I don't think the Catholics try to pull from the bible a reason to not allow the priests, bishops, etc. to get married. I believe there are a few married priests in the world today, they were married before, then converted. I think the main reasons are to allow the priest to fully commit his life to the service of the Lord and the laity. They don't have to worry about the everyday commitments and attention a family requires, the financial support. They can be objective in marriage counseling, they can move freely from parish to parish, and by being celibate, it shows one of the ultimate sacrifies.

I agree there are benefits to not beiing married but if you read the qualifications to become a bishop it says..(tim & titus) "He MUST BE..." how do you get around that? if you say anything different arent you changing what Bible says??

I'm afraid I'm not well versed in the bible so I'm not sure where the 'He Must Be' is but from where I briefly looked, I didn't see where bishops couldn't marry.

http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/026.elder.html

the only place it even talks about not marrying is for us and it was paul not jesus. and he said it was his personal feeling not anything from god.

that is correct. but even as Paul said there are benfits to remaining unmarried. that in no way applies to bishops(elders) as the qualifications clearly show.

Where else are the qualifications listed, because from what I've seen so far, it does not state that.

does not state what?? did you look at the link you provided?

look at 1Tim 3:2...a bishop then MUST BE blameless, the HUSBAND of one wife....
NKJV

also Titus 1:6..if a man is blameless, the HUSBAND of one wife, having faithful children.....NKJV


"must be" and the word"is" are both present tense.

Maybee they will make a movie about him and J-Lo will star in it.

I agree. I hate when people would be like " I was blind and when the pope touched me i could see for a second" I mean, dont get me wrong, I go to church on Sundays and all, and realize miracles can happen, but people view him as a God, which i never quite understood. He put his pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else in here does. Yeah he did do some good things for people, in which I give him credit for, but once again, he was only a man.

Go away troll.

Again, maybe I'm missing the point but what the hell does that have to do with bishops not being allowed to marry. That talks more of polygamy.

Why do you want me to go away,why arent you spreading Gods love to me ,Im just alost soul

Here's the thing dude. Faith is very powerful. If a person believes that if the Pope touches them and they will be healed, they very well could be healed. Reason being can be twofold, either they have the faith that the healing is coming from God or they believe that the Pope is a god and the devil allows a 'temporary' healing to deceive the people. God will not give you a 'temporary' healing, when He does something its for real and is permanent.

OK the Bible says a bishop MUST BE MARRIED, if the Catholic church says they MUST NOT be married they are contridicting the Bible.

Whats the full name for the Vicar anyway?

Cause ieach letter in the full form "vicar" or something or the other
each letter is a roman numeral and if you add them all together then it
equals 666 !

While it is accurate to say that there have always been people who were celibate, both within and without the Church, it was most decidedly NOT a Christian mandate in the New Testament for "priests" -- in fact, the First Century Church regarded themselves as "a nation of priests" and in the universal priesthood of the Believer. This concept of a clergy-laity distinction as viewed by the Roman Catholic Church evolved over centuries, until the time of Constantine (Fourth Century) it came to rule the Roman Catholic church and later the Western world. It was most certainly neither the prevailing view nor practice of the first two centuries after Christ.

Mandatory celibacy of Catholic priests is NOT 2,000 years old, as I have heard some talk show hosts say. (Since the Catholic Church is less than 1700 years old, it couldn't be!)

Those who maintain that "celibacy of Catholic priests is a 2,000 year rule," are displaying their ignorance. This doctrine, as a mandatory rule for RC priests, is precisely 882 years old.

This doctrine can be changed by another Council. (But it can't be changed by local or national political pressure.)

I quote from the Catholic encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09016b.htm


First Lateran Council (1123)
The Council of 1123 is reckoned in the series of ecumenical councils. It had been convoked in December, 1122, immediately after the Concordat of Worms, which agreement between pope and emperor had caused general satisfaction in the Church. It put a stop to the arbitrary conferring of ecclesiastical benefices by laymen, reestablished freedom of episcopal and abbatial elections, separated spiritual from temporal affairs, and ratified the principle that spiritual authority can emanate only from the Church; lastly it tacitly abolished the exorbitant claim of the emperors to interfere in papal elections. So deep was the emotion caused by this concordat, the first ever signed, that in many documents of the time, the year 1122 is mentioned as the beginning of a new era. For its more solemn confirmation and in conformity with the earnest desire of the Archbishop of Mainz, Callistus II convoked a council to which all the archbishops and bishops of the West were invited. Three hundred bishops and more than six hundred abbots assembled at Rome in March, 1123; Callistus II presided in person. Both originals ( instrumenta) of the Concordat of Worms were read and ratified, and twenty-two disciplinary canons were promulgated, most of them reinforcements of previous conciliary decrees.
Canons 3 and 11 forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to marry or to have concubines; it is also forbidden them to keep in their houses any women other than those sanctioned by the ancient canons. Marriages of clerics are null pleno jure, and those who have contracted them are subject to penance.
Canon 6: Nullity of the ordinations performed by the heresiarch Burdinus (Antipope Gregory VIII ) after his condemnation.
Canon 11: Safeguard for the families and possessions of crusaders.
Canon 14: Excommunication of laymen appropriating offerings made to the Church, and those who fortify churches as strongholds.
Canon 16: Against those who molest pilgrims on their way to Rome.
Canon 17: Abbots and religious are prohibited from admitting sinners to penance, visiting the sick, administering extreme unction, singing solemn and public Masses; they are obliged to obtain the holy chrism and holy oils from their respective bishops.

I saw this thread, and felt compelled to respond. I'm not Catholic, not even a "good" christian, but I was in Rome during the Pope's illness, and left the Tuesday after Easter Sunday. My daughter was there in Rome for the semester at the University of Dallas, and we went to visit. To be there, and to see the way he influences MILLIONS of people is overwhelming. I don't mean just catholics, but all walks of life in that part of the world. The political influence the Vatican has around the world is astonishing. See, a man (yes, a man) like the Pope can reach people that no other man on earth can reach. Here is a man, right or wrong in your view, that walks the walk. No BS. John Paul was never out to make political buddies. I doubt if T.D. Jakes, or Bob Tilton, or even Jimmy Swaggert were to pass from this earth, that 4 MILLION pilgrims would line up just in hopes of seeing his body. I wish I was 1/10th the "man" Pope John Paul was.