What is his purpose? Why do so many people follow him like the disciples followed Christ? Can someone explain it to me? I am truly curious.

The first pope was St. Peter who was chosen by Christ to lead His followers. This is, in a nutshell, why people follow the Pope like the diciples followed Christ.

There is a lot of great information about the history behind the papcy on this site. From The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm)

I haven't been able to get on the official Vatican site in a few days, but I'm sure there's lots there too.

I am curious and I'm not trying to start a debate or anything but how did Peter end up being a pope? There wasn't catholisism when Peter was alive? How could he have been a pope?

Originally the Pope was the guy who ran the meetings when the different church heads(patriarchs) got together, because the churches were all Christian but served different kinds of poeple in different geographical locations. The would get together and decide about doctrine and dogma, make proclamations, etc. Eventually the Pope of Rome decided he was in charge, and the schism happened. Because times change and people change, the pope became the spokesperson for ideas and doctrines and dogma that developed along the way. My church is one of the 22 churches that fall under the pope of Rome. Roman Catholics are the largest one, but there are many others. Some even have their own patriarchs, more like in the original church councils. I belong to one of 12 (I think) churches that call themselves Byzantine or Greek Catholic. Many have their roots in Slavic or Middle Eastern Churches, and they were under the Patriarch in Constantinople, hence the "Greek". Our worship and praxis is more like an Orthodox church. One of these churches is the Melkite Church, and another is the Ukrainian Catholic Church. You may have heard of them. Our churches were forced to Latinize or become like the Roman Church for a long period of time. Pope John Paul II was very interested in encouraging our churches to reclaim their traditions, including a more Orthodox woship (no pews) and a married priesthood (he looked the other way and said nothing when they began this in the Ukrainian churches in Canada). The new Pope may not be so kind to our churches and traditions. zsorry this is so long, but for many people who are in essence Catholic, but not Roman Catholic, the role of the Pope is very different.

I am curious and I'm not trying to start a debate or anything but how did Peter end up being a pope? There wasn't catholisism when Peter was alive? How could he have been a pope?

THat's what I wanna know.

This might help:

"Almost two thousand years ago, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to earth and founded the Church, through His Apostles and disciples, for the salvation of man. In the years which followed, the Apostles spread the Church and its teachings far; they founded many churches, all united in faith, worship, and the partaking of the Mysteries (or as they are called in the West, the Sacraments) of the Holy Church.

The churches founded by the Apostles themselves include the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome. The Church of Constantinople was founded by St. Andrew, the Church of Alexandria by St. Mark, the Church of Antioch by St. Paul, the Church of Jerusalem by Sts. Peter and James, and the Church of Rome by by Sts. Peter and Paul. Those founded in later years through the missionary activity of the first churches were the Churches of Sinai, Russia, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, and many others.

Each of these churches is independent in administration, but, with the exception of the Church of Rome, which finally separated from the others in the year 1054, all are united in faith, doctrine, Apostolic tradition, sacraments, liturgies, and services. Together they constitute and call themselves the Orthodox Church. "

From:Orthodox Catechism (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/catechism.html)

[QUOTE=jeni]This might help:

"Almost two thousand years ago, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to earth and founded the Church, through His Apostles and disciples, for the salvation of man. In the years which followed, the Apostles spread the Church and its teachings far; they founded many churches, all united in faith, worship, and the partaking of the Mysteries (or as they are called in the West, the Sacraments) of the Holy Church.

I have a question, and please forgive my ignorance (or the fact that I'm half asleep, too.) Jesus founded the christian church? Wasn't he jewish?

i dont think it's really accurate to say Jesus founded the Christian church. My perosnally, i'd hand that redit to Paul.

Jesus had to be a Jew in order to fulfill prophecy. It was prophesied that he would come from the house of David. Jesus kept Jewish law even at the end of his earthly ministry by observing the Passover before He died. He said He did not come "to condemn the law, but to fulfill it".
I would like to say that I am no Christian apologist. I just like to clear things up. Peace!

We believe that when Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, He installed him as the first pope. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who died in 107 AD, first referred to the church as the Catholic (which means universal) Church. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and the the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Latin Rite Church on earth. As Jeni mentioned, there is also an Eastern Rite in the Church, but the head of that rite is separate from the Pope. We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Pope in a special way. As a result, he makes decisions regarding church practices and can speak infallibly regarding doctrinal issues. Personally, I also see the Pope as the ambassador for the Church since he speaks on her behalf.

Eastern Rite is actually a misnomer. The other 21 churches in the Catholic church are called churches sui iurus (?), meaning they are self governing. Some are called eastern Churches and some are called Oriental Churches ( I think). Some have a patriarch, some don't. For those that do, the Patriarch of Rome is "first among equals". In effect, he is the embassador for the others.

Sorry Jeni! Knew I was going to screw that up. I am embarrassed to say that I am not very educated on the other rites so I generally try to avoid commenting on them. I need to stick with what I know. :o

It's okay! I would guess that most people in general have no idea about the churches that fall under the heading of Catholic. It truly shows the "universality" of catholicism. It also happens to be something I find fascinating, so I know something about it.

"We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Pope in a special way. As a result, he makes decisions regarding church practices and can speak infallibly regarding doctrinal issues."

How do you explain the change in position on birth control? If it is now ok to use birth control, then the previous pope/popes that said it was not, were wrong......the Holy Spirit can't be wrong. One of them must not have been guided by the Holy Spirit.

"We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Pope in a special way. As a result, he makes decisions regarding church practices and can speak infallibly regarding doctrinal issues."

How do you explain the change in position on birth control? If it is now ok to use birth control, then the previous pope/popes that said it was not, were wrong......the Holy Spirit can't be wrong. One of them must not have been guided by the Holy Spirit.
When did the Pope change his stance? I (perhaps incorrectly) remember the Pope taking a lot of criticism here in the US because he wouldn't say that birth control was acceptable. I believe a lot of Catholics just do it anyway.

Originally posted by ~Amypooh~ When did the Pope change his stance? I (perhaps incorrectly) remember the Pope taking a lot of criticism here in the US because he wouldn't say that birth control was acceptable. I believe a lot of Catholics just do it anyway.

I was just going to post this same thing.

It rings a particular bell with me because when my best friend got married her uncle (who is a priest & married them) was talking about their plans for children with her & she slipped up. Said something to the effect of "We'll make sure it won't be too soon" and had to backpedal.

Is there something in particular you are refering regarding bc issues?

How do you explain the change in position on birth control? If it is now ok to use birth control, then the previous pope/popes that said it was not, were wrong......the Holy Spirit can't be wrong. One of them must not have been guided by the Holy Spirit.

Ditto to the above two posters. The Church has never changed her position on artificial birth control. It has never been acceptable. Maybe you are thinking of Natural Family Planning? That is considered acceptable because it works within the natural cycles God gave us and does not use an artificial means to remove the procreative aspect of sex. However, couples using NFP are called discern whether they really have a serious reason for delaying/avoiding pregnancy. There is a concern by some that NFP has become nothing more than Catholic birth control and that some couples use it with a contraceptive mentality for selfish purposes. HTH.

i dont think it's really accurate to say Jesus founded the Christian church. My perosnally, i'd hand that redit to Paul.
:ditto:

I also think modern day Christianity should be called Paulanity to be more accurate. But that is OT.....and from my limited knowdlege, just more of how I feel from what I have read and do know.

Michelle

"We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Pope in a special way. As a result, he makes decisions regarding church practices and can speak infallibly regarding doctrinal issues."

How do you explain the change in position on birth control? If it is now ok to use birth control, then the previous pope/popes that said it was not, were wrong......the Holy Spirit can't be wrong. One of them must not have been guided by the Holy Spirit.

This was also a problem I had with my former (and still admired and sometimes missed) faith/religion....It actually ended up being a huge problem for me. I wonder how many other religions other than Catholicism and Mormonism are like this?

Ok, I'm only giving OT comments to this thread. :rolleyes:

Michelle

I have another question.....

Why does the new pope choose a name to go by? Why do they not use their given name? And can they choose any name? I find this really interesting. Something I never got to ask in my adult RIC (not sure if that is the correct name) classes since I refused to go through the anullment process and stopped the classes.

I've been reading with interest what Time magazine has been covering regarding the passing of the Pope and with the election of a new one and saw that they (popes) choose a new name when they are elected and accept the call.

Michelle

Michelle,

This is what I heard about the name-change thing. I could be wrong though.

I heard that wayyyyyyy back, one of the popes had a pagan-sounding name (Can't remember what it was; now I need to go and find out again!) and decided he could not be a pope with that name so he changed it. Ever since then the pope has always chosen a new name.

Hold on......gotta check on what his name was......

Found it! Copied it so I didn't have to retype it:

New Life, New Name
As the newly elected pope accepts his new role, it is tradition for him to select a new name. This papal tradition dates to 533 and the election of Pope John II, whose birth name was Mercurius, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Mercurius is derived from Mercury, a pagan Roman god. Believing that a successor of St. Peter should not carry a name belonging to a pagan religion, Mercurius chose to change his name upon his election to honor a previous pope.
While some that followed John II chose to retain their original name, it soon became commonplace for new popes to choose a new moniker. The name change also symbolizes the new life that the new pope is entering as the head of the Catholic Church. Typically, the new pope selects the name of his favorite Saint or a former pope whom he admires.

John Paul II chose his name to honor his predecessor, John Paul I, who died just 33 days after being elected pope. John Paul I chose his name to honor predecessors Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.


Got it from: http://people.howstuffworks.com/papacy3.htm

While I don't agree with most of Catholicisms religious beliefs (besides Jesus being the Saviour) I seem to drawn to it like a bug to a light. :lol:

I'm often very curious why they do this, that and the other and usually can't find anyone irl that can answer my questions. I usually get a "just because" answer.

When did the Pope change his stance? I (perhaps incorrectly) remember the Pope taking a lot of criticism here in the US because he wouldn't say that birth control was acceptable. I believe a lot of Catholics just do it anyway.

That's the way I remember it, too. ;)

Perhaps Catholics are just like everyone else, :drop: we don't always do as we are told. :shake: :heart:

I think the reason is that for many Catholics, religion is not a topic open for discussion as much as it is who you are. For example, I was always taught to do the right thing because it was the right thing, not because of love of Jesus or fear of hell. I am sure that the idea of what was right was because of my family's long tradition of Catholic Christianity. Also, I grew up in an area where everyone was Catholic, so there was no need for discussion. I was about 18 when I first found out that there were people who think Catholics are not Christian or that we don't read the bible. It wasn't until I was tested by non Catholics that I learned the why's. ALso, keep in mind that infallibility with reagrd to the Pope is limited to very little of what he does. The man is not infallible, and much of what he says, does, and writes, is not considered infallible. That is why Catholics can disagree on some issues and not on others (like a marries priesthood and whether a war is just or not).

I guess, I still don't understand a bunch after reading all of this. After Christ died, he left the Holy Spirit to those who follow Him. Therefore, the Holy Spirit gives wisdom and understanding to any who seek it and believe in Christ's death and resurrection. Having said that, that makes the pope no different than any other man. It seems that the only difference given this man, is the glory that other men give him, in regards to his title, and his authority. When you see thousands upon thousands of people gathering to see a man given a worldly title (no different than the title of Principal, or CEO of a company), many of whom are crying (for what reason I am unsure), it sure looks like men giving glory unto another man.

In Revelation 19, when an angel spoke to John, and John fell at his feet to worship and give glory to him, the angel quickly rebuked him, telling Paul not to give glory unto him but to give glory unto God. Since the Bible says ALL men are sinners, surely man ought not get more glory than angels who have always served God, and even the angel said No to that glory. Can't the pope see that he himself has created and encouraged the glory by taking the title, by accepting the glory given him, by allowing the people to look to HIM instead of looking to the Holy Spirit inside? The pope is no greater a man than a robber in a prison cell. I know some may think I am being terrible to say so, but it is true. Men are ALL sinners. The man who robs people, and the murderer in death row, are no different before God than the person who has done good works, and sought to keep his heart pure. Because even the purest of people is dingy in God's sight. None of us have more worth than another, but we are glorifying this man, the pope, as if he does.

This really stood out to me when I was reading the Bible recently: They are speaking of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (public religious folk, in what the world would call, prestigious positions).
Matthew 23: 5-10
"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassles on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and for men to call them 'Rabbi' But you are not to be called 'Rabbi" for you only have one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'Father' for you have one Father, and he is in Heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher', for you have one teacher, the Christ.

That scripture speaks of giving and accepting glory by worldly titles that take the glory away from where it should be, and that is on the ultimate Rabbi, Father, and Teacher.

The whole position/title of pope just doesn't seem to jive with the teachings of the Bible.

I understand what you are saying Charity, and I have no doubt that some people take love and respect for the pope to the point of papal worship, which is not right. He is just a man - a sinner like every one else. But he is our holy father on earth, and therefore, IMO, worthy of special respect and admiration. Also, Pope John Paul II was extraordinarily humble from everything I have seen. In all the writings and homilies I have heard, he was very, very clear that he was just a sinner and all the glory goes to God and all good things come from Him.

As I mentioned before, we believe Peter was entrusted with the "keys to the kingdom" by Jesus to ensure that his Church wouldn't lose its way. Here's an article that goes into way more detail than I ever could to explain why we believe this:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

Yes, the Holy Spirit guides each of individually in our prayer and actions. However, I believe because we are sinful humans who may be inclined to interpret scripture to fit our own agenda, God established the Church on earth. I would be more convinced that the Church wasn't needed if there weren't so many different protestant denominations and countless interpretations of scripture passages. To me, it seems as if the same Holy Spirit were guiding us as we were reading the same scriptural passages, we would all have the same interpretation. It is also confusing to me that scriptural interpretation changes over time. For example, the idea of the rapture is a relatively new (circa 1930) interpretation of scripture. These discrepancies lead me to think that divinely instituted Church is necessary.

Charity,

I agree w/ what you have said; I just have a hard time getting those words out without hurting someones feelings.

It seems that the Pope is given authority on interpretting the Bible and telling his denomination exactly what it means. In my denomination, however, we are encouraged to seek the Word for ourselves. This is where I get really confused. The Bible was written for me to understand, and for me to understand it, I must seek its Word - not seek a lay person. If I don't understand what I have read, then I should seek the Holy Spirit to explain it to me more in depth (I also pray before reading that the Holy Spirit guides me to read what I need and to understand the words).

I'm also really confused of how the Catholic church thinks she is *the* church and kind of :shake: about the idea that it that the church and the pope must come from the lineage of Peter. Technically, we all come from this line, all of mankind traces back to Adam, therefore, Peter comes from Adam, and so do I.

Yes, the Holy Spirit guides each of individually in our prayer and actions.However, I believe because we are sinful humans who may be inclined to interpret scripture to fit our own agenda,

This is a fascinating quote and I want to touch on it, but lack the words at the moment.

I hope I haven't offended anyone because it is not my intentions.

Yes, the Holy Spirit guides each of individually in our prayer and actions. However, I believe because we are sinful humans who may be inclined to interpret scripture to fit our own agenda, God established the Church on earth.

But the thing is, if the pope is a man like anyone else, a sinner no less, then he too is/can be inclined to interpret scripture to fit his own agenda, or the agenda of his followers. His interpretation of scripture is no less inclined to be corrupted by the sinful nature as is my own.

He is just a man - a sinner like every one else. But he is our holy father on earth, and therefore, IMO, worthy of special respect and admiration.

What makes him holy if he is a man, and a sinner? I thought only God was holy? It seems he is being placed up on the same pedestool as the Lord himself? I know that I personally would never want to stand before the Lord, having allowed people to call me holy, or having allowed people to have equated me with God himself, when I know that all scripture says that I am merely a sinful man in need of saving Grace from He who IS holy.

And why do people refer to him as "Father" (let alone a holy one, when he is merely a sinful man) as the above scripture says we are not to do?

I don't think anyone is placing the Pope right up there with God. Also, what is considered infallible is very little of what he does. I think if you want a scripture debate, you can have one (but not here). I do think there are a few questions that you might ask yourself if you go to church. One, does the preacher/pastor interpret scripture for you in his sermons? Chances are that he does. This is not different from what the Pope does. Does your church have some rules that it sets down for the congregation? How is this different from what the Pope does? With either of these points, a man can also intepret to suit his own agenda. This would be the case with any human institution. I have a question for you. Why so much hostility towards the Catholic Church? Interestingly, I have never heard a Catholic priest (much less the Pope) in my lifetime of being Catholic say that any peron of any other religion was going to hell or speak disrespectfully of them in any way.

A similar question about calling the pope father and holy was asked today on a Catholic board I frequent. Here's a link to that discussion:

http://forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=51001

The people on that site are far better apologists than I and probably do a better job explaining it. :)

Jeni,

Those are good questions about a preacher and of course I can only speak of how we do it at my church (and those I've attended in the past). Our pastor is a teacher of the Word. He does read it and interpret it and then shares his views on it, I think the difference is, we aren't suppose to take it at face value. We are to to seek answers ourselves. It is my understanding (although I could be wrong) that Catholics are encouraged to not read the Bible on their own because they may misinterpret.

I have no hostitlity towards the Catholic church, I'm actually quite interested in it. I don't agree with alot of it, but it still fascinates me.

Just wanted to add a thank you for trying to explain this a little bit more to me. Its really hard to have such conversations without hurting the other persons feelings. Thank you for taking the time to explain your faith a bit more to me. I hope that I haven't stepped on your toes.

April, you have some outdated information. Catholics used to be discouraged from reading the bible because of misinterpretation. But, times change and Catholics are urged to read the bible for themselves. When we go to our liturgies, we are called to reflect on the message of the readings for that day. What we get out of it may be different from the message of the sermon, but that doesn't make it wrong. I, myself, have been known to e-mail my pastor or deacon following a sermon and readings I have reflected on and come to a different conclusion. But most of the time I get something I had never thought of. In fact, last week we heard two readings about Jesus healing a paralyzed man. Our deacon spoke about spiritual paralysis that can affect every one of us. It was beautiful and interesting, and went straight to my heart. (One of the things I love about my church!)
As far as hostility, I guess I thought that maybe some other posts were a little hostile. If you have a question or wonder why, just ask it. But if you want to tell me that what I am doing is wrong and don't really care about the answer, that's different. It is hard to tell in what tone people ask things on a board like this. Your posts always seem to be genuinely asked out of curiousity - so there are no hard feelings. My feelings were not hurt as much as I was tired of dealing with anti-Catholicism yesterday. (I am a public school teacher and heard a lot about how the new Pope was a Nazi.)
I wonder if poeple confuse the influence of the Pope for Catholic influence. I mean, JPII was an influential guy because of some basic values that most Christians (and non-Christians) share - a desire for violence to end, a desire for all people to have basic, human dignity, a desire for the wealthy to care for the poor and helpless. If we reflected on the Pope's message, rather than the messenger, maybe we could see why he had such great popularity and was so respected.

April, you have some outdated information.
Well, I guess thats what I get for going on old informations. :lol: Glad to know things have changed. I think its extremely important to seek for yourself.

Sorry about your school day, that would make me upset too. :(

I was thinking about this thread on my ride into work this morning. Specifically, I was thinking about what Charity said about wouldn't the pope be just as suseptible (sp?) to misinterpreting scripture as any one else. And to a certain extent that may be possible. We certainly have had popes in the past that were not holy and used the papal office for their own selfish purposes. However, because of the long tradition of the Church, there is a bit of a standard by which popes can be judged. For example, if the pope suddenly says that there is no Divine Presence in the Eucharist, he would be suspect because the Divine Presence has been taught for the past 2000 years. While rituals, devotions and practices have evolved over the years, I don't believe doctrine has ever changed. One of the things I like about the Catholic Church is that I can go back to the early fathers who were students of the disciples and read their teachings and see how our beliefs have remained constant over the years.