TBH, I don't read posts from people who demonstrate a level of willful ignorance as you.
If you're too lazy to confirm with a few simple keystrokes such supersonically blasphemous heresies like the one from pope Leo XIII I quoted - and instead choose to blindly deny their existence - your posts are not only unworthy of the least consideration, but have the potential to lower the collective IQ of the rest of us.
You mean your too willfully ignorant read the evidence that squashes your phony misrepresentations, and are too lazy to post the full context, not even a link to it.
Debate: The Anti-Catholic “Pope as God” Argument [1-1-99]
*
Popes Claimed to be God? / Pope as Antichrist (vs. Calvin #23) [6-30-09]
*
What Year Did Popes Become Antichrist? (vs. John Calvin) [3-11-10]
*
Pope St. Pius V Claimed to be God (Say Anti-Catholics) [2-11-11]
Did a Bishop Say Pope St. John Paul II was God? [2-11-11]
“Pope is God”? Similar Rhetoric from Luther & Bullinger [2-24-11]
Pretending I have no evidence to expose your "few simple keystrokes" might fool some people, but it won't fool everybody. Links are useful because it avoids flooding the thread with walls of text. Your empty-headed snotty remarks shows you are afraid of my evidence.
@Wrangler shows the same fear with a stupid zinger ("the power of indoctrinated idolatry"). That's not discussion, it's stupid insulting persecution.
"We hold upon this Earth the place of God almighty." - Pope Leo XIII
But
if the above citation is accurate, this would, of course, not be an equation of the pope with Jesus (which is absurd and blasphemous and which has never been taught by the Catholic Church), but a reference to the notion of
alter Christus or
little Christ — which means that the pope acts as a
representative of Christ in his priestly function (as all priests do). The pope is also referred to as
Peter sometimes; again, not literally, but in the sense of “successor.”
Each priest at Mass is re-creating the scene at the Last Supper, of Jesus offering the first Holy Communion and saying,
this is My body. But in no sense is that any sort of equality with Christ.
1) The
symbolic equation of Christ and His disciples (even all of mankind) is a most biblical concept:
John 13:20 (NRSV) . . . whoever receives one whom I send receives me; and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. (cf. Lk 9:48, Mk 9:37, Mt 18:5)
Matthew 25:35, 40 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink [etc.] . . . just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.
2) Also, the disciples speak and act in Jesus’ name (the very name
Christian implies that): Mk 10:39, 41; Lk 10:17-20; Jn 14:13-14; 16:23-24; Acts 4:10, 18; 5:28, 40-41; 9:15; 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Thess 3:6; many more).
3) Furthermore, the disciples were given the power to bind and loose in Jesus’ name (impose penance and offer absolution of sins, from God): Mt 16:19; 18:18; Jn 20:23. This is the priestly function.
4) In Scripture there is often taught a mystical (but almost literal) identification of the Body of Christ (the Church: 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 5:30; Col 1:24) with Christ Himself. Jesus equated Paul’s persecution of the Church with persecution of Him (Acts 9:5; cf. 8:1, 3; 9:1-2). This is incarnational theology,
and poorly understood by many evangelicals.
2 Corinthians 4:10 (cf. 2 Cor 1:5-7)
Philippians 3:10 (cf. Gal 2:20)
Colossians 1:24 (cf. 2 Cor 11:23-30; Gal 6:17)
5) The prophets spoke in God’s name, in the first person (read the prophetic books of the OT for numerous examples). This might appear to an outsider as an equation with God, but as we all know, they were merely speaking
for God.
6) The same would hold for the NT writers in certain instances. If men can write God’s own “God-breathed” words, then certainly they can speak for God, not as directly (in the case of the pope), but as His representative. The President’s press secretary is not the President, but he
speaks for him. Papal legates speak for popes. Ambassadors speak for the countries they represent.
Again, context is crucial. (phoneman and wranger's #1 enemy)
7) Note that in Scripture the
Angel of the Lord is oftentimes seemingly equated with God Himself (e.g., Gen 16:7 ff.; 21:17 ff.; 22:11 ff.; 31:13; Ex 3:2; Judges 6:11 ff.; Zech 3:1-2). Yet in other passages, the Angel of the Lord is
distinguished from God (2 Sam 24:16; Zech 1:12-13). So this is a clear example of a creature being described as “God,” yet we know that it is not God, from other passages. So, either this is a contradiction, and the Bible contradicts itself, or the equation is only symbolic and representative.
Since I have shown that Pope Leo XIII clearly distinguishes himself from God, his strong language at one point can only logically be interpreted as symbolic and representative — which is totally in accord with Scripture, as I have just demonstrated.
