/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

>>575045

There's a lot to go over there and to think about but one thing stood out to me quite quickly

> Kiss: The kissing of the pope's foot — the characteristic act of reverence by which all the faithful do honour to him as the vicar of Christ — is found as early as the eighth century. We read that Emperor Justinian II paid this respect to Pope Constantine (708-16) (Anastasius Bibl. in P.L., CXXVIII 949). Even at an earlier date Emperor Justin had prostrated himself before Pope John I (523-6; op. cit., 515), and Justinian I before Agapetus (535-6; op. cit., 551). The pope, it may be added, ranks as the first of Christian princes, and in Catholic countries his ambassadors have precedence over other members of the diplomatic body.

> Acts 10: 25 25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Why did the first Pope tell people not to bow down or give him undue reverence, but then centuries later Popes decided it was totally ok? Now you could suggest that it's totally ok so long as no worshiping occurs, but Peter clearly said stand up. He didn't say "i'm totally fine with you giving me reverence and bowing down before me, just don't go too far". And as was admitted, this practice doesn't seem to have appeared until centuries after Peter.

>>575067

I think most people do it as a sign of respect and humility not the the man himself, but to the position he holds as Vicar of Christ. Peter also likely thought that Cornelius would worship/adore him and reminded Cornelius that he is just a man (but also the Pope).

If we look at the Vulgate:

The Latin Vulgate (382-405): 25 Et factum est cum introisset Petrus, obvius venit ei Cornelius, et procidens ad pedes ejus adoravit. (adored)

Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV): 25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshiped him.

>>575067

>Why did the first Pope tell people not to bow down or give him undue reverence, but then centuries later Popes decided it was totally ok?

Because the Catholics who do it now know that the Pope is just a man, and do so because of reverence to his position as Vicar of Christ. In Acts he was making a point to Cornelius, who was not accustomed to the fact you can bow down to something that isn't a divinity.

Do you think Kings in the past thought themselves as gods? People did not have any problem bowing down to them while not considering them gods, neither did Bible-thumping protestants.

> And as was admitted

by whom? Just because you don't find a written reference earlier does not mean it was not always practice

The Papacy is indeed a stumbling block to Rome's relations with other Christian traditions (and this was true before there even was a schism between East and West). Maybe the office of the Pope doesn't exist to be a stumbling block, but concretely, this is what it has been for centuries.

I won't stay here to argue back against Catholic arguments, I'm just saddened by this difficulty that separates many Christians from one another.

>>575067

He was worshipping Peter as a god. It wasn't uncommon for gentiles to think the apostles are gods sent on earth, during the early evangelization.

Catholics obviously do not worship the Pope as a god.

Kissing the Pope's feet as a requirement strongly offended the Orthodox delegates at Florence though. The Ecumenical Patriarch in particular threatened to go back home as soon as he was told he had to do that.

>>575087

I just think it's strange that the first Pope, in order to prevent people worshiping him, discouraged them from bowing down before him. If these other men were successors to Peter, why did they not also follow in his fashion, so as to prevent any worshiping being done? Clearly bowing was not nessecary for Peter, why should it be nessecary for any other Pope? Considering that there have indeed been proud and arrogant Popes, maybe discouraging this sort of thing might have had better results.

>>575097

In Europe bowing accumulated different connotations by the Middle Ages. People began to do that to honor their feudal lords and any member of the aristocracy as well as church officials such as even lowly abbots. Couple that with bishops actually owning feifdoms and being feudal lords themselves and it would have been weird for them to refuse to accept bows. Comparing Peter's reaction in the ancient world to a tradition that goes back to Middle Ages I think the difference you can attribute to cultural and historical context. Would you insist that the Pope refuse to accept bows if he had to move the Holy See to Japan?

>>575099

I can see the practical logic behind doing that, but it still rubs me the wrong way. I mean the model for the way to live a Christian life is Christ himself. The King of the universe itself, and he lived an incredibly humble life. But apparently the vicar of Christ needs to emulate wordly worldly kings rather than Christ in order to impress people.

I posted this in another thread, but since the thread was mostly about race it’ll probably be ignored.

From the CCC: The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.

The modern Catholic Church believes that denying people basic human rights in regards to religion is immoral. This would imply that the Catholic Church in the past performed evil acts when it carried out or approved the execution of heretics and infidels. If the Catholic Church is truly guided by the Holy Spirit, why is its message so confused? Why is the Papacy so useless when it comes to problems like this?

>>575374

Christ didn't tell someone not to wash his feet with perfume worth a years wages in fact he praised her for it. Whilst Judas who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing was the only one to condemn it.

>>575042

Popes are successors of st. Peter, their duty is to guard the doctrine st. Peter and the other Apostles taught. That is their foremost duty. Popes are also men, just like st. Peter made a mistake and was rebuked by st. Paul, so did popes in the past make mistakes.

The ultimate authority of st. Peter comes from Christ's words that he will be the foundation of His Church. The oldest extra Biblical document we have is the 3rd pope solving a problem in Corinth when the congregation there asked him to solve it. They did not ask Constantinople, they did not ask the Apostle John who was alive at the time and not very far from Corinth, they asked 'the leader of the Church in Rome'.