The Pope Said It's Better to Be An Atheist

[GodsGrace]

Only God can forgive sin. None can sin against the Pope. Offend him maybe, and that he can forgive. But sin is transgression against the law of God. What mortal man had the power to forgive sin?

HOW would you explain John 20:23?
I agree that God only forgives sin and the CC also believes this. It's not the priest forgiving the sin, he's only declaring that it's forgiven.

However, John 20:23 is problematic for me.

 

[bbyrd009]

At the first general audience of 2019, Pope Francis said this:

POPE FRANCIS
"How many times do we see the scandal of those people who go to church, and are there all day or go every day, and then they live hating others or talking badly about people. This is a scandal. It is better not to go to Church if you live like that, like an atheist. But if you go to Church, live like a child, like a sibling, and give a true testimony, not a false testimony."

I see two ideas coming out of the above...at least for me:

1. Persons that go to church every day should KNOW that they are not to hate others. If they don't, it means the Catholic church is not doing the proper teaching.

2. How could it be better not to go to church? How could it be better to live like an atheist?


What do the catholics on this forum think of what he said?

Ha does the pope suddenly rock or what lol, I love that guy.

 

[bbyrd009]

If one is not a Christian what difference is there between a church attender and an atheist?

Um, hypocrisy?

 

[bbyrd009]

Only God can forgive sin.

Boy, do I have a Scripture for that or what. Go find out who you are quoting imo, and go from there. I'd do it but I can't from here. You can forgive sin too imo, is the upshot

 

[bbyrd009]

Only God can forgive sin. None can sin against the Pope. Offend him maybe, and that he can forgive. But sin is transgression against the law of God. What mortal man had the power to forgive sin?

How can Forgive and you will be forgiven mean anything in that pov bl?

 

[bbyrd009]

Bible says it would have been better for them to have not known the ways of righteousness, than to know it and reject it...


Anyway

Francis is scandalous.

Gonna ruin his rep if he ain't careful huh

 

[bbyrd009]

'The rhetorical “holy war” between Pope Francis and Donald Trump, while perhaps damaging to the latter, may open the Vatican to a charge of hypocrisy in the way the papal enclave in Rome is administered.'

Trump-Pope Feud: The Vatican Has A Wall, Strict Immigration Policy

The Pope supports open borders and illegal migrant invasion into Western countries, but the Vatican has a wall and strict immigration policies. This is only one of many papal hypocrisies.

Ok good point maybe, but let's admit he inherited that

 

[BreadOfLife]

Or Vicarius filii dei

ONE problem with that, my ignorant friend:
It's NOT a title of the Pope. It's just another impotent anti-Catholic invention . . .

 

[Enoch111]

Ok good point maybe, but let's admit he inherited that

Yeah. And if he is such an honest proponent of open borders, he would tear that wall down and ask the migrant invaders to occupy the Vatican and its grounds, while he and his prelates become mendicant monks wandering all over the Sahara and Africa.

Do you know that there are only a handful of people who have been given citizenship of the Vatican? Read that article in full.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yeah. And if he is such an honest proponent of open borders, he would tear that wall down and ask the migrant invaders to occupy the Vatican and its grounds, while he and his prelates become mendicant monks wandering all over the Sahara and Africa.

Do you know that there are only a handful of people who have been given citizenship of the Vatican? Read that article in full.

Tear the wall down!!
Thanks for the good laugh!

 

[Enoch111]

Tear the wall down!!
Thanks for the good laugh!

Yeah. This guy wants to accuse Trump of not being a Christian because he wants to build a wall for national security. Why did he not start out by tearing down his own wall? This is the height of hypocrisy, and it is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yeah. This guy wants to accuse Trump of not being a Christian because he wants to build a wall for national security. Why did he not start out by tearing down his own wall? This is the height of hypocrisy, and it is only the tip of the iceberg.

Not only that...but who was the alternative to Trump?
I guess she was a very good Christian....

 

[brakelite]

HOW would you explain John 20:23?
I agree that God only forgives sin and the CC also believes this. It's not the priest forgiving the sin, he's only declaring that it's forgiven.

However, John 20:23 is problematic for me.

Jameison, Faucett, Brown...commentary
23. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, etc. — In any literal and authoritative sense this power was never exercised by one of the apostles, and plainly was never understood by themselves as possessed by them or conveyed to them. (See JFB on "Mt 16:19"). The power to intrude upon the relation between men and God cannot have been given by Christ to His ministers in any but a ministerial or declarative sense — as the authorized interpreters of His word, while in the actings of His ministers, the real nature of the power committed to them is seen in the exercise of church discipline.

Barnes Commentary
Ver. 23. Whose soever sins, &c. See Barnes "Mt 16:19" See Barnes "Mt 18:18". It is worthy of remark here that Jesus confers the same power on all the apostles. He gives to no one of them any peculiar authority. If Peter, as the Papists pretend, had been appointed to any peculiar authority, it is wonderful that the Saviour did not here hint at any such pre-eminence. This passage conclusively proves that they were invested with equal power in organizing and governing the church. The authority which he had given Peter to preach the gospel first to the Jews and the Gentiles, does not militate against this. See Barnes "Mt 16:18", See Barnes "Mt 16:19". This authority given them was full proof that they were inspired. The meaning of the passage is not that man can forgive sins — that belongs only to God, {Isa 43:23 } but that they should be inspired; that in founding the church, and in declaring the will of God, they should be taught by the Holy Ghost to declare on what terms, to what characters, and to what temper of mind God would extend forgiveness of sins. It was not authority to forgive individuals, but to establish in all the churches the terms and conditions on which men might be pardoned, with a promise that God would confirm all that they taught; that all might have assurance of forgiveness who would comply with those terms; and that those who did not comply should not be forgiven, but that their sins should be retained. This commission is as far as possible from the authority which the Roman Catholic claims of remitting sin and of pronouncing pardon.

 

[brakelite]

Boy, do I have a Scripture for that or what. Go find out who you are quoting imo, and go from there. I'd do it but I can't from here. You can forgive sin too imo, is the upshot

I can forgive offenses against me, I cannot stand in God's place and forgive offenses against Him. Offenses against me, such as theft, is twofold, sin against God, crime against me. I can no more forgive an offense against God than I can forgive someone who commits a crime against you.

 

[brakelite]

ONE problem with that, my ignorant friend:
It's NOT a title of the Pope. It's just another impotent anti-Catholic invention . . .

Ah, no. It is not an invention by non-Catholics. It is a title indeed used in history and in an official capacity. I am sure you have seen the evidence, in other words, you are not ignorant of this, and hoping I don't know how to access it. Shall I begin?

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

At the first general audience of 2019, Pope Francis said this:

POPE FRANCIS
"How many times do we see the scandal of those people who go to church, and are there all day or go every day, and then they live hating others or talking badly about people. This is a scandal. It is better not to go to Church if you live like that, like an atheist. But if you go to Church, live like a child, like a sibling, and give a true testimony, not a false testimony."

I see two ideas coming out of the above...at least for me:

1. Persons that go to church every day should KNOW that they are not to hate others. If they don't, it means the Catholic church is not doing the proper teaching.

2. How could it be better not to go to church? How could it be better to live like an atheist?


What do the catholics on this forum think of what he said?

What's he saying ? that atheist hate others or talk badly about people ? that's not a fact, as not all atheist do such, some even embrace everything, because they just do not care or have no regard.

Hating Sin is not a Sin.
Talking bad of others is not a Sin, if it's true

To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

 

[bbyrd009]

Yeah. And if he is such an honest proponent of open borders, he would tear that wall down and ask the migrant invaders to occupy the Vatican and its grounds, while he and his prelates become mendicant monks wandering all over the Sahara and Africa.

Do you know that there are only a handful of people who have been given citizenship of the Vatican? Read that article in full.

imo neither of us has a clue as to what constraints the pope has to operate under, so i'm not sure his honesty could be questioned in that manner, and i'm sure there are even justifiable reasons for a king (pope) in the world (RCC) to want closed borders, for that matter. Iow the only reason we are talking about the pope anyway is bc believers here consider him to be a part of the kingdom, and not the world, disregarding that he has openly declared otherwise, and signed a Contract for Jesus a long time ago. The pope has authority in the world, not the kingdom

 

[GodsGrace]

Jameison, Faucett, Brown...commentary
23. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, etc. — In any literal and authoritative sense this power was never exercised by one of the apostles, and plainly was never understood by themselves as possessed by them or conveyed to them. (See JFB on "Mt 16:19"). The power to intrude upon the relation between men and God cannot have been given by Christ to His ministers in any but a ministerial or declarative sense — as the authorized interpreters of His word, while in the actings of His ministers, the real nature of the power committed to them is seen in the exercise of church discipline.

Barnes Commentary
Ver. 23. Whose soever sins, &c. See Barnes "Mt 16:19" See Barnes "Mt 18:18". It is worthy of remark here that Jesus confers the same power on all the apostles. He gives to no one of them any peculiar authority. If Peter, as the Papists pretend, had been appointed to any peculiar authority, it is wonderful that the Saviour did not here hint at any such pre-eminence. This passage conclusively proves that they were invested with equal power in organizing and governing the church. The authority which he had given Peter to preach the gospel first to the Jews and the Gentiles, does not militate against this. See Barnes "Mt 16:18", See Barnes "Mt 16:19". This authority given them was full proof that they were inspired. The meaning of the passage is not that man can forgive sins — that belongs only to God, {Isa 43:23 } but that they should be inspired; that in founding the church, and in declaring the will of God, they should be taught by the Holy Ghost to declare on what terms, to what characters, and to what temper of mind God would extend forgiveness of sins. It was not authority to forgive individuals, but to establish in all the churches the terms and conditions on which men might be pardoned, with a promise that God would confirm all that they taught; that all might have assurance of forgiveness who would comply with those terms; and that those who did not comply should not be forgiven, but that their sins should be retained. This commission is as far as possible from the authority which the Roman Catholic claims of remitting sin and of pronouncing pardon.

I had read Barnes commentary many years ago and this is how I understand it.

It was explained once that they (Apostles) had to authority to know who to include in the new Church, and who not to include.

But then I hear some things spoken of in the same commentary that I know are not true historically.

For instance, in the above commentary it's said that Peter was not given any special authority. This is not true. Peter was the one sought after when there was a conflict in the church. There was a problem once in the East and the Bishop of Constantinople was not sought,,,,but Peter who was all the way in Rome.

I can't remember the details, but I could look it up if you really want to read about this.

It does seem to me that Peter was the head of the church; although I don't think we could call him the first Pope but that's another story.

 

[GodsGrace]

What's he saying ? that atheist hate others or talk badly about people ? that's not a fact, as not all atheist do such, some even embrace everything, because they just do not care or have no regard.

Hating Sin is not a Sin.
Talking bad of others is not a Sin, if it's true

To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

I do believe that if we talk bad of others, it IS a sin --- even if what we say is true.
We're not supposed to spread gossip,,,even if it's true.

What I believe the Pope was saying is that if someone is going to act like an atheist then he should not call himself a Christian.

You DO bring up a good point --- does this mean that all atheists are bad people?
No. The fact is that more is expected from Christians and we should live up to this expectation --- this is our testimony.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah, no. It is not an invention by non-Catholics. It is a title indeed used in history and in an official capacity. I am sure you have seen the evidence, in other words, you are not ignorant of this, and hoping I don't know how to access it. Shall I begin?

Here are the 8 official titles of the Pope - of which "Pope" is not even one of them:

• Bishop of Rome
• Vicar of Christ
• Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
• Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
• Primate of Italy
• Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
• Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City
• Servant of the Servants of God

That's it . . .