Now the pope*’s calling traditional priests effeminate? (* FALSE pope)

“Was wearing a fine piece of clothing by comparing it to cheap wine?”

Nope, but the whole tunic was worth more in trade than if the soldiers split it up. As for the garment being a fine item of clothing... perhaps because of the blood spilled upon it during and after the whipping and beating Jesus received at the hands of the Roman soldiers the bloodied garments became precious but to the soldiers it was barter.

Every item of those crucified was collected by the attending soldiers, lots were cast and the items were then either traded in bulk or individually. Wine was often a medium of exchange out in the frontiers of the empire and the Roman foot soldiers were renowned drunkards and louts. Flavious at el, bears historical context to the demeaning and cruel realities of crucifixion.

... “disputing the idea that Jesus Christ our Lord was wearing a fine piece of clothing?”

Here are two accounts of this:

“Then Jesus went out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak . . . (John 19:5)”

This was to see Pontius Pilot and was mocked as being King of the Jews.

And in Matthew...

“When they were done mocking Him, they took the cloak off Him; and they put His own garments on Him and led Him away to crucify Him.” (Matthew 27:31)

Earier you had offered:

“...In an attempt at keeping contextually accurate, by rending the cloth the soldiers knew that the value would be appreciably less, which meant that the amount of cheap rude wine procured would be less as well.”

_ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ +

A good reliable commentary from Haydock (A.D. 1859) on that portion of Saint John’s Gospel chapter 19 follows (It addresses the heresy of recent, as in Vatican II, false popes, as they wrongly have embraced heretics):

easy to read link or as pasted below:
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id112.html

Ver. 23. They made four parts. Christ’s upper garment had seams, which the four executioners could easily divide; but his under garment, or vest, was without seam, so that being cut, it would have been of no use. (Witham) -— This coat without seam is a figure of the unity of the Church. (St. Cyprian, de unit. Eccles.) -— The Rev. Fred. Nolan, of Woodford, in Essex, in his late work, entitled, Objections of a Churchman to uniting with the Bible Society, after quoting 2 Peter iii. 15, 16, says: “That the Bible may, therefore, prove the remote, but innocent cause of harm, is not, I apprehend, to be disputed, if we are to admit of its own authority:” p. 23, and again, p. 24, “that the present mode of circulating the Scriptures must prove a most effectual specific for multiplying sects and schisms; and consequently, for increasing, to an infinite degree, the greatest evil, under which Christianity has suffered, from the time of its promulgation, down to the memorable epoch of this happy invention, for the establishment of Christian faith, and the extension of Christian unanimity.” P. 62., in the same work, “That the Bible is the foundation of our religion, is new doctrine, unless in the divinity of the conventicle. We are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. (Ephesians ii. 20.) On this foundation others still build, who are labourers together with God; (1 Corinthians xi. 9. 10.) of which divine co-operation the successors of the apostles have an express promise, to the end of the world. (Matthew xxviii. 20.) And by persons thus authorized (John xx. 21.) apostolical tradition has been delivered down to the present day, p. 63. The one body, of which our Lord was resolved his Church should consist, was to have one faith, (Ephesians iv. 4, 5.) it was to contain no schism, (1 Corinthians xii. 25.) but the present confederacy is formed on the principle of combining every sect and party, and this, while we have received an express prohibition against associating with those, who reject apostolical traditions, committed to the Church.” (2 Thessalonians iii. 6. 14.) In a foot-note on the above, the learned divine very appositely cites St. Ignatius, in which quotation we find these emphatic words: Me planasthe adelphoi mou, ei tis schizonti akolouthei, Basileian theou ou Kleronomei. Be not deceived, my brethren, not only acknowledged schismatics, but whoever shall join with a schismatic, shall not inherit the kingdom of God. The same apostolic Father, in another part, adds: he who corrupts the faith of God, for which Christ suffered, shall go into unquenchable fire: eis to pur to asbeston choresei. St. Alexander, in the fourth century, says of the Arians: that seamless garment, which the murderers of Jesus Christ would not divide, these men have dared to rip asunder. Tou arrekton chitona schisai eiolmesan.

“When Luther opposed the Rome’s Catholic doctrine he was labeled a hectic (sic). What has changed? Are NOT the members of the Roman Catholic Church obligated to follow the pope’s dictates?”

_____________+T+_____________

(Obviously you meant “..Luther... was labelled a heretic.”)

The very problem in the “Second Vatican Council” (V2) is that those sitting in the council were or became apostates, leaving the faith. The council was invalid based on the attack on Catholicism that the attendees waged as the council progressed.

One prerequisite for remaining or becoming Catholic today is to reject the V2 council and its rotten fruits.

When one realizes that the man at the helm brought about the damaging council he realizes that the man could not be a true Pope, for a true Pope can do no such thing as CHANGE the doctrines of the Church.

And so it is that WE recognize the Papacy and all of the doctrines of the Church, changing NONE of them, as we refuse to recognize current presumed Popes, as they are not authentic Popes.

You can witness the doctrines of the Church just as they were held prior to the V2 when you attend a Sedevacant Mass such those offered under the bishop quoted below. (The bishop quoted below also is known to have been consecrated in the Apostolic succession, that is, his line of consecration can be followed back to the apostles.)

Luther, on the other hand severed himself from the doctrine of the Church, including the very idea of Apostolic succession and the idea of a Pope. He initiated the idea of interpreting the Bible on your own and made up all his own doctrine as he saw fit, not acknowledging the authority of the Saints, theologians and clerics of the Church.

The snippet below is helpful to explain. I think you’ll begin to see the difference:

Sedevacantism

By Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI

Sedevacantism is the theological position of those traditional Catholics who most certainly believe in the papacy, papal infallibility and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and yet do not recognize Benedict XVI as a legitimate successor of Peter in the primacy. In other words, they do not recognize him as a true pope. The word sedevacantism is a compound of two Latin words which together mean “the Chair is vacant.” Despite the various arguments raised against this position — that it is based on a false expectation that the pope can do no wrong, or that it is an emotional reaction to the problems in the Church — the sedevacantist position is founded on the Catholic doctrines of the infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church and on the theological opinion of the great Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine.

More at http://www.cmri.org/sedevac.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.