The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

cvillehog wrote:I heard a clip on the news of Bush talking about speaking with the Pope regarding the Iraq war. In that sound clip, he refered to the Pope as the "Holy Father." I thought that was a name for God. Of course, President Bush could've mis-spoke. He was speaking extemporaneously from what I could tell, and was doing his best to give due respect to the deceased Pope. My question is, is that really what they call him? "The Holy Father"? Or was that a slip of the tongue?

My understanding is Catholics refer to the pope as the "Holy Father" whereas their god would be the "Heavenly Father". Also, it's my understanding that the pope is a physical representation of Peter, one of Jesus' actual apostles, who is actually interred under St.Peter's Basilica. Could be wrong, it's happened once or twice before!

My question is, is that really what they call him? "The Holy Father"? Or was that a slip of the tongue?

It was probably intentional, but Roman Catholics do not use it to imply that this, or any other Pope, is God. The word "pope" derives from the same greek root that gives us "pappa", and referred to a bishop. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome; Eastern Orthodox bishops are "patriarchs", as in the Patriarch of Constantinople. A bishop is the "father" of his church, the "shephered" of his flock.

The Bishop of Rome is a special case, and how he got to be special is a matter of historical controversy. Before about 600, the supreme authority in the Church was a church council, which could only be called by a Roman Emperor. The Bishop of Rome was considered the senior bishop, because (a) his diocese had been founded by St Peter, and Christ had made that pun (Petrus = rock) "on this rock I shall found my church", with the power over the keys to heaven, etc. And (b) Rome was the first capital of the Empire.

The Eastern Orthodox consider that the "keys to heaven" are given to all bishops like Peter, to the Church in general. Furthermore, after around 300, the Empire had two Emperors: one living in Rome, speaking Latin, and one living in Asia Minor, speaking Greek. As Constantinople became more powerful -- cities, population, trade, and civilization were all stronger in the eastern Mediterranean -- the Bishop / Patriarch of Constantinople became more powerful.

If you followed argument (b), then the Patriarch was more influential than the Pope, although Orthodox were likely to say that the Pope deserved special honor -- not power, but honor -- as the senior bishop.

Between 640 and 1100, (a) Arabs conquered most of the other cities that had bishops who derived their power from the original set (Jerusalem and Alexandria, for instance), and (b) officials working for the Pope began to claim more and more authority for him. In part, this was an effort to establish a central power center that could reform the Church along the lines proposed by people like St Benedict: the clergy should be celibate, should shave their beards, etc.

The Eastern Orthodox, in general, said, "Hey, we never agreed to that!", but they had enough trouble fighting Arab and Turkish armies. There was a bizarre incident in which the Patriarch and the Pope mutually excommunicated each other, but you should read about that in Sir Steven Runciman's "The Great Schism".

I don't want to do a sloppy summary of a carefully researched and contentious history.

Summary:

No, Roman Catholics do not believe that the Pope is God. By slow evolution, the Church has come to believe that in certain special situations (when speaking "from the chair", I believe) the Pope's message is "infallible", but I don't see that there is an easy and clear guideline on when the Pope should use infallibility. Certainly, the next Pope will not wake up one day an declare the law of gravity null and void.

Popes today have more dignity and respect, but less political authority than they did in, say, the time of Dante.

Thanks Taz and Welch for clearing that up.

I knew the papacy was believed by Catholics to start with Peter, but I don't think I had previously seen the Pope refered to as Holy Father. I guess that has to do with not being Catholic.

I also know that Catholics consider priests to be their line of communication with God (sorry if I got the sematics of the wording wrong, but hopefully you understand my meaning), so it makes sense that the highest priest would perhaps be regarded as the best connection. However, the way the Papacy is treated in a King-like manner seems very counter to what I know about the Christian faith.

I guess my point is, it's counterintuitive to me, from my ignorant view of these things.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:50 am
First off, to those who have felt the loss of the pope's death, my condolensces.

Now, in response to the above quotes...

I couldn't help to think that the intense media coverage of this event plays an important part in the playing out of endtime prophecy.

After all...

Since when is it okay to provide round-the-clock coverage of "religious" occurences?

7 days out of the week, the major networks NEVER EVER utter the word Jesus, yet they'll devote a whole day, and more, to the Pope??

While, yes, Catholicism is one of the major religions and the pope's passing would be of interest to the 60 million+ Catholics in the US, I can't shake the feeling that "Religion" is being brought into the limelight for reasons other than to commemorate the passing of an icon.

The Bible talks about a great leader who will rise up and deceive the masses.

Currently, hundreds of millions of people across the globe are without their "leader", and are looking to fill the vacancy/void.

Could this be the moment were a "religious" leader of great power could rise to power and influence in this world. This leader would have a huge following waiting in the wings.

The Pope left a huge legacy, with all the good social works he did...could someone ride that same way to "gain the trust and admiration" of a huge populace?

"Religion" is being cast out into the limelight through politics and social issues.

Perhaps the media might be a vehicle through which we will witness those things that long ago were prophecied.

The Anti Christ isn't going to rise until the chruch is taken up to heaven (rapture). If you look at 2 Thes. 2:1-12, where it talks about the anti christ, you'll see that Paul says that the "one who holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way" (v.7). Many, although not all theologians say that this is the Holy Spirit. If so, the Church must be raptured before the anti christ can rise because we all posses the Holy Spirit. If you look in Dan. 9 or Revelations you will see other verses that make it clear that the Day of the Lord (7 yr period of tribulation) will come only after the Church is taken up to heaven. So while I admire your vigilance, I don't think that the Anti Christ can use this as an opportunity to rise.

welch wrote:

My question is, is that really what they call him? "The Holy Father"? Or was that a slip of the tongue?

I don't want to do a sloppy summary of a carefully researched and contentious history.

Summary:

No, Roman Catholics do not believe that the Pope is God. By slow evolution, the Church has come to believe that in certain special situations (when speaking "from the chair", I believe) the Pope's message is "infallible", but I don't see that there is an easy and clear guideline on when the Pope should use infallibility. Certainly, the next Pope will not wake up one day an declare the law of gravity null and void.

Popes today have more dignity and respect, but less political authority than they did in, say, the time of Dante.

Just a little tib bit for ya'll curious about Papal infallibility...
The idea of Papal infallibility does not come from theology, but from historical circumstances. It was not until the unification of Italy in the mid 1800s that this came about. The Pope, having lost all his political authority when the papal states were joined with the rest of Italy under Cavour and Victor Emmanuel. It was at this point that pope Pius IX declared the doctrine of Papal infallibility so he could claim moral authority. So you won't find anything in the Bible to support it, or say when the Pope's words are infallible.

It's not nice to undermine religion by bringing up His Silliness and the church. Religion has its place. Even adults need imaginary playmates. Also, it's not true religion has to be a gateway psychosis. I've known many very intelligent people use it successfully right up until the time they'e heard voices and then managed to pull back without making any blood sacrfices or destroying any child's sexuality. Believe you me. People like George Bush and Jim Jones are in the minority.

crazyhorse1 wrote:It's not nice to undermine religion by bringing up His Silliness and the church. Religion has its place. Even adults need imaginary playmates. Also, it's not true religion has to be a gateway psychosis. I've known many very intelligent people use it successfully right up until the time they'e heard voices and then managed to pull back without making any blood sacrfices or destroying any child's sexuality. Believe you me. People like George Bush and Jim Jones are in the minority.

Maybe it's me, but it's almost like you are cutting and pasting this, changing a few words each time......is this your thoughts or did you borrow it from someone else?

Just curious.

It's just that I'm outraged by the nonsense going on. The Pope had nothing to do with the collapse of communism. Neither did Reagan. Communism was a failure from its beginning; not even mass murder and the Gulag could make it work. Why don't Americans drop the fuzzy myths and grow up? The Pope stood against women in the church, against birth control, against choice, and let his surrogates advocate against any Catholic who supported choice be banned from communion (including John Kerry). He also shielded priests guilty of sexual abuse of children, notably Cardinal Law, who was involved in a child-rape scandal. Just as bad, though he pronounced himself anti-war, he took actions that aided the war criminal, Bush, in spite of Abu Ghraib and the death of 100,000 Iraqi citizens based on lies. Please don't tell me he was a man of peace filled with grace. I'm sick of all the lying.

I'm nuetral on the Pope. I couldn't really care any less either way. I was just curious if you had written that post or borrowed it.

The way you posted several times with few changes reminded me of people in school who would circumvent plagerizing people's wpork, by re-wording or changing portions of it.

To all those who had the kindness and decency to respect the feelings of those of us who are catholics, thank you very much.

To all those who did not, it does hurt but I wish you well. It is in the essence of being who we are to forgive the offenses made against us.

Again, I respect other religious views, including none at all. I come to this site because I am a Redskin fan and I enjoy sharing messages with all of my fellow Redskins fans to whom I wish well. Life is tough enough as it is to make this little place an unhappy site. I come here to exchange views on our beloved Redskins and other fora such as the Lounge are just a plus.

BossHog wrote:Personally... I can't understand the sadness... don't the catholics think that the pope is going to a 'far better place' any way?

If we lose a friend, parent, brother/sister or a son/daughter, Would we be sad for the loss? Yes! Some of us would be very sad. But we would also celebrate their lives and the memories they leave behind. If they earned so, yes, they would go to a -far better place-. This fact alone does not contradict the natural feeling of a loss of a human being who is very close to our heart. Why is this so difficult to understand in -ALL- cases?

Yeah, losing a sibling or a child or a parent, and the pope dying are the same thing...



Why even argue with a logic I can't possibly fathom?

Don't underestimate what the Pope means to many Catholics BH. We may not understand it, but that doesn't make it so.

And I keep wanting to change this thread title - just my type A personality.

I didn't dispute the claim, or underestimate it's truth... doesn't mean that I agree with it nor should feel the same way myself.

If someone thinks that a figurehead who they've likely never met before is as important as the people who raised them or the ones they are raising, that's their prerogative.

I don't.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

BossHog wrote: If they earned so, yes, they would go to a -far better place-.

Uhm, theologically, u don't earn salvation. idk whether I'm preaching to the chior, but... Slavation comes through faith in Jesus alone... Faith that he died on the cross for our sins, which we can not atone(make up) for ourselves. And faith that He was buried and raised from the dead 3 days later. It is through belief in this alone that one enters heaven. NOT by one's works... "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23

BossHog wrote:I didn't dispute the claim, or underestimate it's truth... doesn't mean that I agree with it nor should feel the same way myself.

If someone thinks that a figurehead who they've likely never met before is as important as the people who raised them or the ones they are raising, that's their prerogative.

I don't.

It's difficult to explain, especially to a Canadien right now. Suppose THE national icon passed away (I tried to think of anyone that transcended all boundaries, but unfortunately, right now I can't. 20 years ago I would have said Gretzky but now???).

Now multiply this adoration by ten-fold due to "beliefs" rather that simple fanhood and you'll get an idea of what's happening among Catholics.

Besides those who feel a religious tie to him, others see this as a passing of the defining political figure of our generation.

John Paul II played an as large, if not larger, role in the demise of the US's nemesis, the USSR, than Reagan. With Canada not really being an active participant in the Cold War, I can see how this may be overlooked, but it does play on the American psyche, especially after Reagan's recent passing.

Hog Heaven wrote

Salvation comes through faith in Jesus alone... Faith that he died on the cross for our sins, which we can not atone(make up) for ourselves. And faith that He was buried and raised from the dead 3 days later. It is through belief in this alone that one enters heaven. NOT by one's works...

Grace, justification by faith or by works, is a much-disputed theological issue. It goes back, easily, all the way to Pelagius and Augustine. You can find St Augustine's attack on Pelagius somewhere on the web. They destroyed the writings of Pelagious, but you can get a hint by the snippets that Augustine quotes and criticizes.

*

For a spirited debate, see the essays between Erasmus and Luther, which was in paperback 30 years ago when I was in college studying the Rennaisance and Reformation.

- "Faith without works is dead"

- "By my works, I will show you my faith". I think both of those are in the spirit of St James.

- "The James is an episle of straw. Only St. Paul counts". That's a (very rough) summary of Luther's position.

**

Wow, I never thought we'd be discussing justification by faith and works on HogsNet!!!



**

By the way, welcome back, RIC.

curveball wrote: It's difficult to explain, especially to a Canadien right now. Suppose THE national icon passed away (I tried to think of anyone that transcended all boundaries, but unfortunately, right now I can't. 20 years ago I would have said Gretzky but now???).

Now multiply this adoration by ten-fold due to "beliefs" rather that simple fanhood and you'll get an idea of what's happening among Catholics.

Besides those who feel a religious tie to him, others see this as a passing of the defining political figure of our generation.

John Paul II played an as large, if not larger, role in the demise of the US's nemesis, the USSR, than Reagan. With Canada not really being an active participant in the Cold War, I can see how this may be overlooked, but it does play on the American psyche, especially after Reagan's recent passing.

What does being Canadian have to do with it? I assure you there are lots of Canadian catholics that likely disagree with me.

The political prowess of a pope is what should say me? Why... his prowess as a religious figure didn't.

I assure you... my nationality has no bearing on my thoughts on the pope. Besides, despite the fact that I live in Canada, I have dual citizenship with England. But I do get a kick out of of when Americans cast all Candians with the same brush when we have as much of a 'melting pot' here as you do in the US. Come on people... now we're 'profiling' for the sake of rationalizing your own personal feelings.

I assure you... with American citizenship being the only difference in my personna, I'd feel exactly the same.

To be honest... having been raised a catholic and having gone to a catholic school all of my life... I didn't feel any different then either. I guess that's why there's no place for me in the catholic church... or any other church. I just see this 'mindset' as being a cumulative product of who I am, not one particular aspect of my personality.

One last thing on the politics. you're also completely ignoring the fact that during the cold war Canada was as much of a target as the US was due to our close geographical proximity. We lived and died by the American sword at the time. Do you really want to argue about how long it would have taken for a cold war power to decide that they would attack the U.S via Canada? Come on. Just because some jerkoff Canadian prime minister stuck his head in the sand when the US asked for help with Iraq, doesn't mean that it's always been that way. I assure you, it was not a decision that was indicative of how the Canadian people felt. Don Cherry (Canadian hockey coaching legend) probably worded it best... 'If your buddy gets in a fight at the bar, it doesn't matter whether you agree or not... you back him.' Perhaps a primitive take, but pretty much captures the sentiment of the country.

lastly, I'm not casting aspersions on those who feel differently to me, i guess it's just a Canadian's job to be devil's advocate.

Danged Bucketheads!!

BH, I used your Canuckian heritage to illustrate several points (poorly obviously).

While Canada may have been a de facto participant in the Cold War, your government never vilified the Soviet Union to the extent the US did. The "Evil Empire" never shook the spirits of the average Canadien citizen as it did in the States.

John Paul II's Polish heritage and his first trip behind the Iron Curtain as Pope energized Walesa's movement and ultimately led to the demise of our arch-nemesis. Reagan's arms race escalation being the other major factor in their downfall. (Although some would argue that the inherent flaws in their ideaology made collapse inevitable).


I've never insinuated that Canada has a uniform culture. As a matter of fact, given your lax immigration laws, you are probably more diverse than the States, specifically in your urban areas.

curveball wrote:BH, I used your Canuckian heritage to illustrate several points (poorly obviously).
I've never insinuated that Canada has a uniform culture. As a matter of fact, given your lax immigration laws, you are probably more diverse than the States, specifically in your urban areas.

Oh, boy. This is going to Smack. You say 'diversity' like it's the plague.
Anyway, we "born Catholics" who are no longer in the 401k of the biggest business of all pretty much view John Paul as a celebrity, nothing more. His death has no more effect on me than any other celebrity.
In fact, I think it's official. I've seen more coverage of his corpse in four days than I ever saw of the living, breathing Pope.

No uniform Canadiaan culture, eh? What's this aboot, anyway??

Note: for accent or expectations, I have no problems in Trono. My parents retired to South Carolina, and I find that South Carolinians have trouble with my mixed Washinton/ New York accent. I have to pause while they try to understand me.

*

By the way, tell Don Cherry that Canadians already pitched in during that strange bar fight in Tehren 25 year ago. The assistant US ambassador was out shopping when the Iranians took the US embassy. He went to the most trustworthy place, the Canadian embassy, where they hid him, gave him false papers, a disguise, and slipped him out of the country.

Thanks again.

And if this goes any longer, I'll describe how my Dad served in the Navy Reserves, with other Redskin fans from the Washington Navy Yard, in a squadron that patrolled from Nova Scotia to Guantanamo with order to sink any warring vessel that did not come from a country that had possessions in North America. Hitler turned purple, but he couldn't do much about it without declaring war on the US.

It has been a two-way friendship, at least since a bunch of drunken American militia decided to win hearts and minds by burning York (=Trono) during the War of 1812.

Anyway, this dispute still puzzles me. (And it's bed-time, so my typing is frazzled.

[Just corrected a little.]

curveball wrote:I've never insinuated that Canada has a uniform culture. As a matter of fact, given your lax immigration laws, you are probably more diverse than the States, specifically in your urban areas.

You mean those immigration laws that the US ignored, allowing 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers into your country

Maybe we could talk the Canadian government into implementing 'sanctuary' policies so that we can free illegals who had broken our laws. Then, we could just let 80,000 convicted murderers, rapists, drug dealers and child molesters who served prison time back into the streets too.

How about we get this thread back to the pope and if someone wants to start an immigration thread they can.

The Pope is still Dead.

NC43Hog wrote:The Pope is still Dead.

More after the break...