Pope is ‘not a true Christian leader’, most believers say

Journey to Rome ^ | 07/22/2009 | kevinrbranson

[kingpins10]

Canon of Scripture did not come to us first by the catholic church. So please do not throw us into your beliefs.

I, nor any other Protestant assumes it was “true in the 4th century.”

You are approximately 250 years late.

[kingpins10]

I agree Dr. Well said !

[kevinrbranson]

kingpins10 wrote: No Protestant I have ever talked to could ever accept that the pope is infallible. The pope is a man who sins. To say he doesn’t is blasphemy, plain and simple.

You apparently do not understand what Papal Infallibility, or Church Infallibility means.

If you will read my original post you will see that I myself volunteer that the Pope is a sinner, just like you and me. He can and does sin. The Catholic Church does not teach and never has taught otherwise. If you would like to know what the Church really teaches about Papal Infallibility this link is helpful.

Blessings and Peace. KB

[kingpins10]

You do not understand the sin involved in claiming a man, other than the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as being infallible.

The claim of papal infallibility is blasphemy.

[lupie]

agreed.

[Judith Anne]

Thanks for posting, thanks for your participation, thanks for your links, and welcome to FR.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Yes, there is a difference and I acknowledged such by including an example from Luke of a verse that was not included in some early manuscripts, but was included in others. So if there are multiple versions of Luke's Gospel or Paul's letters to the various churches, that would lead one to believe people hand copied those letters to share them with others since the original letter was likely not passed around - or it would have been damaged, lost or destroyed.

So years later, in compiling the NT, one would encounter differences among the various copies of Paul's letters. How to resolve those differences and come up with one master version for the NT? I'm guessing consensus opinion and the extent to which the multiple versions differed played a significant factor in resolving those issues. If three versions did not include a verse and one did, logic would dictate that the verse be excluded and a note made about the verse.

Certainly the Catholic Church had much to do with the compilation, but where did they compile the NT from? Are you telling me that the CC is in possession of the one and only original version of every letter Paul wrote?

[BuckeyeTexan]

OK. Over and out!

[kevinrbranson]

kingpins10 wrote: Canon of Scripture did not come to us first by the catholic church. So please do not throw us into your beliefs. I, nor any other Protestant assumes it was “true in the 4th century.” You are approximately 250 years late.

Where did the "Table of Contents" in the front of your Bible come from? Who do you believe decided which books were in and which books were out? Do you really believe that the historic Councils I referenced are not universally acknowledged as having made this determination? Again, even Protestant theologians acknowledge this. It really is not conjecture, it is historic fact. I have given you the facts. Do you wish to provide conflicting facts to debunk what the rest of Protestant and Catholic theologians accept as true?

Blessings and Peace. KB

[kevinrbranson]

Lupie:

Again, as I already have replied, The headline was pulled directly from the article that appeared at Catholic Herald and was linked to directly in the body of the post. The contention of the headline is based on the survey their article discusses.

Not trying to be deceptive. My original post was linked to several categories, including Protestant, Catholic, and Ecumenism (as in Protestants and Catholics who love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ actually talking to each other, and not past each other, so as to better understand each other).

As to me wanting to "get the Brothers talking", this is a forum, is it not. I thought that was the purpose of a forum, discussion.

And as for my content, approach, or attitude being annoying, please accept my apology.

Blessings and Peace. KB

[Mr Rogers]

The table of contents comes from the writings ACCEPTED by the CHURCHES as being scripture. That is why a few of the less well distributed ones took longer to be accepted by the mass of Christians.

The councils in Africa were ratifying what was common acceptance already, and Rome had no authority to impose...only to agree. Particularly since the Councils were in Africa, whose churches didn’t believe Rome was authoritative over them...

[ET(end tyranny)]

So years later, in compiling the NT, one would encounter differences among the various copies of Paul's letters. How to resolve those differences and come up with one master version for the NT? I'm guessing consensus opinion and the extent to which the multiple versions differed played a significant factor in resolving those issues. If three versions did not include a verse and one did, logic would dictate that the verse be excluded and a note made about the verse.Certainly the Catholic Church had much to do with the compilation, but where did they compile the NT from? Are you telling me that the CC is in possession of the one and only original version of every letter Paul wrote?

Majority rule/consensus got us Obama. ACORN played a big role there. Is the RCC the ACORN of the Canon? In other words there were people with agendas determining which books got in and when it didn't state their agenda well enough they were able to 'punch' up the verses by fabricating and adding their own. There was no checks and balances.

Someone earlier chastised the poster of the thread for deception in the religion forum. What about the deception in the bible? Maybe that is the Great Deception. Truth and lies mixed as one.

Then to top it off 'some', not all, bibles will make *footnotes even though the text is already added. That's like striking testimony about an abusive husband from a court proceeding, where he is on trial for allegedly murdering his wife. The jury heard it and if you think they are really going to disregard it, think again.

So, people having read it in the bible will think it really did belong there. It shouldn't be in the text, but only mentioned in passing in the footnote.

At any rate it is nearly impossible for the average person to be able to sort through the chaff looking for the wheat. Not everyone can afford to study Hebrew, Greek or Latin to determine the veracity of the translations.

[MarkBsnr]

***A thousand years before there was a Protestant, you had Western bishops calling the papacy the “anti-christ.”***

Do you have examples?

[chs68]

"Did you actually read the blog post? The headline was pulled directly from the article that appeared at Catholic Herald and was linked to directly in the body of the blog post. They said it, well, actually the survey they reported on said it...not me."

I actually did read the blog post -- both here on FR as well as the item on your own blog (which your link points to).

Here is what I read:

"Two thirds of Christians in Britain do not think the Pope is a true Christian leader, according to a new poll."

So, at best the statement that "Pope is ‘not a true Christian leader’, most believers say", really is that "Pope is ‘not a true Christian leader’, most British believers say."

But I have learned that, when dealing with polls, it is always a good idea to try to discover exactly what question was asked.

And your post conveniently answers that question:

"The poll, conducted by ComRes, found that only 38 per cent of Christians surveyed agreed that “Catholic popes are true ambassadors of the Christian faith”."

I'm not quite sure how someone makes the leap from saying that only 38 per cent of Christians surveyed -- In Britan -- agreed that "Catholic popes are 'true ambassadors of the Christian faith' [whatever THAT may mean]" to sayin that "most believers say that the Pope is not a true Christian leader."

[kevinrbranson]

OK, I am trying to decide it you are bothered by the wording of the headline that the Catholic Herald put on their article, or the fact that I did not edit their headline one iota, or both. I was simply pointing out to you that I didn't slap a provocative title on the post of my own creation, and that the title is substantiated in the original article by a survey.

Please forgive me for not adding necessary caveats and full disclosure that the survey was only of left handed British citizens between 5 foot 3 and 6 foot 1 over the age of 43.

I had almost forgotten how much you guys thrive on arguing over which shade of blue the beautiful blue sky really is.

Just kidding :)

Blessings and Peace. KB

[MyTwoCopperCoins]

Every religion, and religious texts, are the inventions of the mind of Man.

[william clark]

Keep saying it. That’ll make it true.

[A.A. Cunningham]

the Bible doesn’t teach that.

Your claim is correct only for a linguistic literalist.

[kevinrbranson]

Let's presume for the sake of discussion that your basic facts are correct, (which I am not conceding, as all the churches did acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome for the first thousand years of the Church's history, piror to the Great Schism, including the African churches.)

Pretending that your contention is true, tossing Rome out of the equation, what reason would we have for any assurance that the decision as to the writings "ACCEPTED by the CHURCHES as being scripture" should be regarded as an infallible list. Why should we believe the "churches" got it right way back when.

By the way, Protestant theologian R.C. Sproul admits that the best the Protestant can say is that the Canon is a "fallible collection of infallible books". The reason he has to say that is because he is at least consistent, and he will not concede the possibility that the Catholic Councils were led by the Holy Spirit, based on Christ's promise that He would lead the Church into all truth, that He would never leave her, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it, and let's not forget Christ's prayer for the unity of his Body, the Church (even that is so old fashioned).

So...and sorry for the rambling prelude...the question is, what reason does the Protestant have for any assurance in the declared collection of books known as the Canon, when other books could have been included, and the inclusion of some books was debated and considered questionable. Who's to say they got it right?

But if the Catholic Church got the Canon right, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, when exactly did the Catholic Church go wrong, and when exactly did the Holy Spirit depart from the Catholic Church, despite Christ's promise that such a thing would never happen?

[Marysecretary]

Christ promised that HIS church, the body of Christ made up of all believers, would not perish. He didn’t found the Catholic Church. Man did. HE founded the Body, His Body, and it’s not a denominational thing. The Pope is a good man and a leader of the Catholic Church. He’s not my leader.