"Prank" Call lesson: Is it true or a Myth that Catholics do what the Pope tell them to do.?

The Peace of God to all that belong to the Light,
Dear Readers,

One of the principal rhetoric arguments used to criticize the way Catholics think has been in America traditionally, especially coming from certain sectarian Christian Protestant groups, but also from agnostic groups, is to claim that they just do only what the Pope say to them to do.

Well we know the Pope is the maximum Catholic authority but that argument it is many times absolutely exaggerated, as a matter of fact it is extremely unlikely that a person that is Catholic in its entire life span has any chance to be able to talk in person just for a minute or two with the Pope, or even to receive a personal letter from him, so how can he say or tell to each of person how to handle his life problems or decisions?

If you don't believe this is the case, check what happened to a man that wrote a letter to the HH Pope Francis I, and he received not just one but three times along few minutes phone calls from the Pope himself, and of course he was thinking in the first two that somebody was playing him a Joke, that it was a kind of prank call, and Hanged up the call after to listen the magical words: I am the Pope calling you.

Here is the story:

www.today.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...


At the third call our friend of course intrigued of the insistence of the "Jocker" decided to pay more attention and give him the benefit of the doubt just to find that it was indeed the Pope who was in the other side of the line calling him, for incredible that it appears, and so he became part of the so exclusive minority of Catholics that once have had the Pope talking directly to them about his own problems and difficulties.

So this is a good example that not all what it is said commonly is really true, and many "truths" are usually half truths or even less than that.

Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Is it true or a Myth that Catholics do what the Pope tell them to do.?

Since the Pope is regarded as "The vicar of Christ".

the pope, with reference to his claim to stand in the place of Jesus Christ and possess His authority in the church.

Dictionary

I would say it is no myth that a self proclaiming Catholic must consider the words of the Pope as if they were the words of Christ himself.

There are many instances of the Pope making a proclamation that has no biblical basis.
Such as saying Mary never died but was 'taken up'. That is stated nowhere in the Bible.

Many dogmas of the Catholic faith, such as calling someone father, infant sprinkle Baptism, and using the term 'vicar of Christ' are against what the bible says.

Another example how man made religion has corrupted the words of Christ. One of satans specialties.

Please don't take this as Catholic bashing. I know Catholics who I am sure are followers of Christ. In fact they are better at following the words of Christ than I am.
Just examples of how man has 'added' to what Christ taught for earthly, (evil), reasons.

a reply to: stosh64

Another example how man made religion has corrupted the words of Christ. One of satans specialties.

Wouldn't we need to have the words of Christ, before we know if they have been corrupted? Seriously. I'm not trying to be an ass. What we have now is faith that what has been written are the words of Christ. Not definitive evidence. So what the pope says may be closer to the truth of what Christ has to say than we know. Catholicism, at one time, was the very face and voice of Christianity upon the earth. Rumor has it much history was hidden or re-written during that time. As well as many dissenting voices silenced.

More on topic: This reminds of the time they showed George Bush calling someone on the news, and him trying to convince the person it was really him.

a reply to: stosh64

I really don't know what are your sources, but the fact is that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth in the sense not that he replaces Jesus, but he is his ambassador on earth in terms of theology and particularly in doctrine, in other words in how to interpret correctly faith aspects.

This authority also applies in to decide about who can receive absolution of certain sins, that does not include of course capital ones, provided that there is genuine repentance, penance and if that is the case reparation of any damages caused to others in while committing those faults.

That authority is indeed biblical, it is written on the scriptures that Jesus granted such authority to St Peter, that was the very first Pope, since Pope means nothing else than Bishop of Rome, the city for which This apostle of Jesus lived as head of the church the rest of his life until suffer death.

'I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven' [St. Matt 16:19].

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

It has been my observation that many Catholics (by birth and baptism) don't read their bible ,don't go to church ,and are very confused about what and why they believe the things they do . The RCC has been called out on many historical issues in the past that they refuse to open their library up to scholars to examine .This could be another attempt by them to counter some of the recent topics on the subject as of late .imo

a reply to: the2ofusr1

it's not just Catholics. All religions have people who claim to be of the faith. And are clearly not, I don't think it's fair to judge an entire people over a fees actions but then I guess when everyone loves the government to no end this is the posting you get.

a reply to: 5thNovember

I agree and could have put that qualifier in but because this was about the RCC I left it to that . I don't judge all Catholics as being the same and will say that the same laxness shows up in the many other denominations as well .My life's experience was very close to the RCC and said Roman Catholics .

a reply to: The angel of light

If one pope claims limbo is the place where unbaptized infants go, but another pope does away with limbo, both saying it is the authority of Christ to do so, then is limbo a real place at all?

Did Jesus change with every pope?

a reply to: WarminIndy

I'm pretty sure Jesus would be turning in his grave at the state of modern religion.

Or he would if he wasnt in theory just chillin somewhere post-resurrection.

originally posted by: stosh64
I would say it is no myth that a self proclaiming Catholic must consider the words of the Pope as if they were the words of Christ himself.

No Catholics do NOT have to take the words of the pope as from Christ Himself. The church teaches that the pope is a fallible human being and does not speak for Christ. It teaches that he is infallible when he speaks on theological matters EX-CATHEDRA. Info Here .

There are many instances of the Pope making a proclamation that has no biblical basis. Such as saying Mary never died but was 'taken up'. That is stated nowhere in the Bible.

So what? The bible itself says that not all truth is in within it and the bible itself says to hold onto sacred traditions that have been passed down.

Many dogmas of the Catholic faith, such as calling someone father, infant sprinkle Baptism, and using the term 'vicar of Christ' are against what the bible says.

Nope.

- MANY people in the bible call others father and son.
Examples

- Catholics do not sprinkle infant baptism. They have a pouring baptism and they baptize 'entire families' just like the baptisms in the bible. Info Here

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture

- There is nothing in the bible that says the head of Jesus church on earth can't be referred to as the 'vicar of Christ'. Considering that Jesus Himself put a man in charge of His church on earth, and gave that man full authority (Matthew 16:18-19), that indeed makes Him the 'vicar of Christ's church'.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: stosh64
I would say it is no myth that a self proclaiming Catholic must consider the words of the Pope as if they were the words of Christ himself.

No Catholics do NOT have to take the words of the pope as from Christ Himself. The church teaches that the pope is a fallible human being and does not speak for Christ. It teaches that he is infallible when he speaks on theological matters EX-CATHEDRA. Info Here .

There are many instances of the Pope making a proclamation that has no biblical basis. Such as saying Mary never died but was 'taken up'. That is stated nowhere in the Bible.

So what? The bible itself says that not all truth is in within it and the bible itself says to hold onto sacred traditions that have been passed down.

Many dogmas of the Catholic faith, such as calling someone father, infant sprinkle Baptism, and using the term 'vicar of Christ' are against what the bible says.

Nope.

- MANY people in the bible call others father and son.
Examples

- Catholics do not sprinkle infant baptism. They have a pouring baptism and they baptize 'entire families' just like the baptisms in the bible. Info Here

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture

- There is nothing in the bible that says the head of Jesus church on earth can't be referred to as the 'vicar of Christ'. Considering that Jesus Himself put a man in charge of His church on earth, and gave that man full authority (Matthew 16:18-19), that indeed makes Him the 'vicar of Christ's church'.

I think that most non-Catholics watch the many who are Catholic spend a lot of money buying holy water and rosaries that was blessed by the Pope and wonder why they do that.

The message that comes across is that somehow these objects are so blessed that they become talismans. From our perspective, it seems unnecessary to think that one needs those things in the first place. It may be a matter of faith to Catholics, and that is what we question.

Why kiss the Pope's ring if it is just a piece of metal and carries nothing magical about it? But because it is what the Pope wears, then somehow there is magical thinking involved, that they are more blessed by this human being more than the regular believer is.

I get the idea that his office is perceived as being worthy of great respect to Catholics, but beyond that, why did people buy pieces of bones of what they believed were saints and all the holy water and rosaries?

That's what we see and don't understand the value placed onto that.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I think that most non-Catholics watch the many who are Catholic spend a lot of money buying holy water and rosaries that was blessed by the Pope and wonder why they do that.

Holy water is free. It's just water with a blessing. Rosaries are a meditation tool and cost a small amount of money (not 'a lot') but you never can pay for a blessing. If a blessed object is sold, then the blessing 'goes away'. The object, because it was involved in a money deal, has lost it's blessing. This is catholic teaching.

Why kiss the Pope's ring if it is just a piece of metal and carries nothing magical about it?

There is nothing magical about the popes ring, nor any other bishops ring. Catholics do not believe in magic. Magic is a sin against the first commandment as stated in the Catholic Catechism Catholic Catechism - see catechism #2115.

VERY few Catholics actually kiss a bishops ring. But for those who take part of that ancient practice - Why Catholics Kiss a Bishops Ring It's an acknowledgement of Matthew 16:18-19 where JESUS Himself set up His Church and gave authority to His church.

why did people buy pieces of bones of what they believed were saints and all the holy water and rosaries?

Very few Catholics have first class relics. Bones of saints are called first class relics. I myself have a few. St. Jerome Emiliani, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, St. Dismas and Blessed Kateri Tecawitha. I gave my husband a first class relic of St. James (the lesser) for Christmas this year. I was able to get it from Rome. First Class Relics - Info here

Keep in mind what the Church says about relics. It doesn’t say there is some magical power in them. There is nothing in the relic itself, whether a bone of the apostle Peter or water from Lourdes, that has any curative ability. The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of God’s miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture.

The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life: "So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet" (2 Kgs. 13:20-21). This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!

Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).

If these aren’t examples of the use of relics, what are? In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophet’s bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds

Holy Water - Holy water is used in scriptural ritual. Numbers 5:17 - "And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water." The practice of making the sign of the cross after dipping a finger in holy water is a reminder of baptism and of baptismal promises made. And no, Catholics don't 'spend a lot of money' on Holy Water. It's completely free and available in fonts at the front of just about all Catholic churches, everywhere.

Rosaries - tools to keep track of the meditations of the rosary. They are holy meditations on the life of Jesus and His mother as taught by scripture and sacred tradition. The prayers are scriptural. Info Here. I still try to pray my rosary and do the meditations every day. It's a good way to keep Jesus foremost in my thoughts and it helps keep me centered. Many rosaries are free. Many cost money. Depends on the rosary. Most Catholics don't pray the rosary anymore. My husband and I still do. 11% of Catholics pray the rosary

a reply to: FlyersFan

I think that there is a disconnect between the two sides.

Non-Catholics tend to view all of that as unnecessary. While Catholics use them, it is because it is part of Catholic culture.

I have met Catholics who have bought holy water and blessed rosaries. At this site you can buy holy water.

Water from the Mother Cabrini Spring 5 Ounces Sale Price: $11.95

And this one you can get into a spray. Like I said, non-Catholics see this and think it not only unnecessary, but silly as well.

I think that if that is part of Catholic culture, then why not? But I'm not every non-Catholic.

I think that by now one could consider it a culture. No offense intended.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I have met Catholics who have bought holy water and blessed rosaries.

And when they buy them, the 'blessing' goes away. It is no longer considered to be 'blessed'. That's catholic teaching in the catechism. But some Catholics don't know that. They haven't read their catechism.

I think that by now one could consider it a culture. No offense intended.

Sure. Some do these things because of culture. Some because they understand the religion behind it.

If non-catholics want to think it's silly ... that's fine. I think that many things the protestants do are absurd and I find their churches to be like empty warehouses.

Catholics who pray the rosary see it as a meditation tool. Catholics who use holy water see it as a reminder of baptismal promises. These things are helpful with prayer and meditation. If noncatholics don't want to use them ... that's their choice. But noncatholics should be respectful of those who find the tools helpful in their prayer life towards God.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I have met Catholics who have bought holy water and blessed rosaries.

And when they buy them, the 'blessing' goes away. It is no longer considered to be 'blessed'. That's catholic teaching in the catechism. But some Catholics don't know that. They haven't read their catechism.

I think that by now one could consider it a culture. No offense intended.

Sure. Some do these things because of culture. Some because they understand the religion behind it.

If non-catholics want to think it's silly ... that's fine. I think that many things the protestants do are absurd and I find their churches to be like empty warehouses.

Catholics who pray the rosary see it as a meditation tool. Catholics who use holy water see it as a reminder of baptismal promises. These things are helpful with prayer and meditation. If noncatholics don't want to use them ... that's their choice. But noncatholics should be respectful of those who find the tools helpful in their prayer life towards God.

I do not disagree with you.

I just saw today at Family Dollar they are now selling Buddha lawn statues. The curly haired one was much better than the laughing one. I even considered buying a Hamza Hand to hang up, some of them are really cool.

How is it that Catholics don't know their catechism? When I was in school, as a non-Catholic, the rest of the 95% Catholic kids had Catechism class every Wednesday night. Is this modern generation of Catholics not going? That would be sad in my opinion.

I think that whatever works, then use it. But most Protestants have no idea of Catholic culture nor realize that it is. Maybe you should start a blog to talk about these things just so people would know what the Catechism really says?

That might be very helpful.