Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"Pope Benedict XVI resigns due to age and declining health"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/11/pope-benedict-xvi-resigns-age
I trust it is not too much of a leap to lump PB in with this.
[edit:from 'jump' to the word I wanted, 'lump'...sigh]
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Isn't PaulB older than Pope Benedict ????
Roger
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
nah,paulb is only 21.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
don't think paul will go for it, havng trouble with his joints, all that kneeling then waving at people would be too much
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
not a problem howard,rumor has it that he has gone bionic.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
What's that Brian? Robo-Pope?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
@ tom.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Whether you are a Christian, a Catholic, an atheist or whatever, I believe the office of the Holy Father deserves some respect, which it is not getting on this thread.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
That has told you boys, be respectful to the old man of god.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Posts:2,3,4,5,6 and 7 centre upon my inclusion of PaulB in the list of possible successors. The Office itself is the subject of #1 only. Posts 8 & 9 are aimed squarely, if not fairly, at frolicsome Forum members.
I'm sure comments upon the Office itself can continue at any time.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Why was my comment not fair did you not understand the wink smiley Tom, I thought the earlier comments were funny
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Mea-culpa Jan.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 744- Registered: 20 Mar 2012
- Posts: 412
Quite right PG. Wonder if they would take the mickey out of other religious leaders without being accused of all the usual old palava
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Presumably Peter, you feel that God doesn't have a sense of humour.
I'm a Christian and pleased to admit it.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i thought the joke was about paul not the pontiff.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Sorry but for me religious leaders of any persuasion are ordinary people, so like politicians and royalty we can have a joke about them so long as the decency line is not crossed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Yes I agree, just thought I'd get the wooden spoon out for a change.
And God definitely has a sense of humour. But whether He can laugh at himself or not is another matter.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
humor is a sinsere form of flatery.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Tom, to present the subject correctly, anyone presenting themselves as candidate for pope in the Vatican, would have to claim to be the Successor of Saint Peter.
The person who the Vatican says is St. Peter's first successor is Linus, followed by every pope thereafter, with the exception of a few anti-popes.
My studies show me that St. Mark the Evangelist is St. Peter's Successor, as he wrote the first version of the Gospel, that which Peter the Apostle taught him.
Peter did not write a version of the Gospel, even though he was one of the twelve disciples of Jesus, whereas Mark was not a direct disciple of Jesus. Hence Mark wrote what Peter told him.
Peter also called Mark his "son". This in New Testament language has the spiritual meaning of disciple and successor.
In fact Linus did not write a version of the Gospel nor was he mentioned by Peter.
So Peter's Successor must be St. Mark the Evangelist, and on his version of the Gospel Matthew and Luke later structured each their own respective version of the Gospel, thus "succeeding" St. Mark and continuing his Apostolic mission.
Hence the term "synoptic Gospels".
St. John wrote his own version of the Gospel, following his own scheme, for which reason it is not "synoptic", meaning it is not structured on St. Mark's Petrine version. Being one of the twelve disciples of Jesus, St. John did not need to "succeed" Peter, having followed Jesus directly as one of the Twelve.
Without the four versions of the Gospel, the Christian Church would have failed.
And as none of the popes, starting with Linus, ever wrote a version of the Gospel, or indeed any piece of Scripture, none of them can be considered Peter's Successor.
The Vatican does not recognise any author of the New Testament as the successor of Saint Peter.
Incidentally, Linus, who is mentioned casually by St. Paul in one of his Epistles, never claimed to be either "pope", "successor of St. Peter", "holy father" or any other fanciful title that later was given to the popes.
It is reckoned that the Vatican first used the title "pope" around the fifth or sixth century, and that the Liber Pontificalis, possibly initiated around the sixth century (historians are not exactly sure when), ascribed to Roman bishops the title of "pope" and "successor of St. Peter", long after they had died, going all the way back to Linus, but leaving out all the Evangelists.
Linus, who lived in the first century, possibly would have turned in his grave had he known what would happen about 500 years later when the Liber Pontificalis (the book of the popes) was initiated. He certainly never gave his consent to being placed above St. Mark.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson