Originally posted by Rajk999Why do you always feel the need to enter every thread related to Catholicism? You only ever show an embarrassing ignorance.
If you were not so well-trained to regurgitate the rubbish they feed you, you will have realised that by that comment, clearly God's grace must have already left the Catholics.
Originally posted by Seitse"Vicar" is defined as "representative".
"Vicar of Christ" has been used to refer to the Pope ever since some crazy Pope in the year 490-something. Nowadays you can find such claim in the catechism of the catholic church.
"Vicar" is defined as "representative".
So, Jesus left no representative and, moreover, he needs no representative, particularly not a human and, even more, not a human who h ...[text shortened]... ds a political & business machine focused on many things but Jesus' legacy and teachings.
Ah....no it isn't. When consulting the catechism, you should be wary that terms often have a precise theological definition, often from a Latin root, and do not translate so readily.
Originally posted by SeitseJesus did leave representatives. They were called "apostles". I think your error is to think that the Pope claims to be the only representative and also to think that a representative must be exactly the same as the person he is representing.
"Vicar of Christ" has been used to refer to the Pope ever since some crazy Pope in the year 490-something. Nowadays you can find such claim in the catechism of the catholic church.
"Vicar" is defined as "representative".
So, Jesus left no representative and, moreover, he needs no representative, particularly not a human and, even more, not a human who h ...[text shortened]... ds a political & business machine focused on many things but Jesus' legacy and teachings.
And why do you claim that he needs no representatives? Surely such a claim amounts to a different belief from that of the Catholics. Does that make them 'frauds' for having different beliefs?
Originally posted by twhiteheadExactly. The Catechism describes all bishops as vicars and this is not uniquely Catholic either. The Orthodox Christians, and to some extent Anglicans, believe the same thing. The bishop is the centre of the church and, when administering the sacraments, acts in the place of Christ (he is the alter Christus).
And why do you claim that he needs no representatives? Surely such a claim amounts to a different belief from that of the Catholics. Does that make them 'frauds' for having different beliefs?
Originally posted by twhiteheadGood, so please be so kind to share with us the power of attorney where Jesus did so.
Jesus did leave representatives. They were called "apostles". I think your error is to think that the Pope claims to be the only representative and also to think that a representative must be exactly the same as the person he is representing.
And why do you claim that he needs no representatives? Surely such a claim amounts to a different belief from that of the Catholics. Does that make them 'frauds' for having different beliefs?
There's a crime called impersonation, and here's a definition at least in Colorado's legislation:
a person who knowingly assumes a false or fictitious identity and, under that identity, does any other act intending unlawfully to gain a benefit for himself is guilty of criminal impersonation
It's not cool to pretend to be something that is not. But thanks for the clarification, I recognize my mistake: the thread title should be "the Pope and all the employees below him are impersonating something that they're not".
Originally posted by Conrau KCatechism? What's the catechism? What authority does it have?
[b]"Vicar" is defined as "representative".
Ah....no it isn't. When consulting the catechism, you should be wary that terms often have a precise theological definition, often from a Latin root, and do not translate so readily.[/b]
Oh yeah, the catechism, those deceiving additions to the Bible.
The catechism has the same value than Asterix comics, though Asterix is far more legit and fun.
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseDo you have evidence that Jesus did not - before or after his death, ask anyone to represent him? Do you have evidence that he has expressly forbidden it? Do you have evidence that any Catholic (including the Pope) is knowingly assuming a false or fictitious identity? Do you have any evidence that any Catholic whilst acting as a representative of Christ has acted unlawfully?
Good, so please be so kind to share with us the power of attorney where Jesus did so.
There's a crime called impersonation, and here's a definition at least in Colorado's legislation:
a person who knowingly assumes a false or fictitious identity and, under that identity, does any other act intending unlawfully to gain a benefit for himself is guilty ...[text shortened]... he Pope and all the employees below him are impersonating something that they're not".
You will need an awful lot of evidence to back up your claim - otherwise you are guilty of slander.
Originally posted by SeitseWell, the catechism clearly defines what 'vicar' and 'representative' mean. Which is why the catechism is particularly pertinent to our discussion here.
Catechism? What's the catechism? What authority does it have?
Oh yeah, the catechism, those deceiving additions to the Bible.
The catechism has the same value than Asterix comics, though Asterix is far more legit and fun.
And anyway, why pick on the Catholics? Anyone who has attended an Orthodox liturgy would see that they regard their clergy practically as divine. The idea of the bishop as Christ's vicar is much clearly defined among the Orthodox.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhenever anything good happens, god gets all the credit. But whenever anything bad happens, he never seems to get any of the blame. Very convenient, that. It would seem to be a package deal to me.
That must lead to a lack of self esteem. Do you honestly believe that every time you do good, it was because God helped you to?
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you have any evidence that the Pope and his minions were appointed representatives of Jesus? If you don't then you're guilty of gullibility.
Do you have evidence that Jesus did not - before or after his death, ask anyone to represent him? Do you have evidence that he has expressly forbidden it? Do you have evidence that any Catholic (including the Pope) is knowingly assuming a false or fictitious identity? Do you have any evidence that any Catholic whilst acting as a representative of Christ h ...[text shortened]... will need an awful lot of evidence to back up your claim - otherwise you are guilty of slander.
The pope is the one who has to justify his claim. It's called impersonating and it is immoral (and illegal in several jurisdictions), as I explained earlier.