I have read the following claim on several sources. Is the following an actual quote of a previous pope, and if so, what is the response of the people here to such a declaration ?

Pope Nicholas said, "I am all in all and above all, so that God Himself, and I, the Vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do...Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God what can you make me but God?...I then, being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all Gods. Wherefore, no marvel if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ." (Decret. Par. Distinct 96. Ch. 7 Edit. Lugd. 1661)

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), March 16, 2003

Answers

Here is one such page that contains it and other quotes from popes throughout the centuries. I am interested to know what the people here feel about such quotations.

The site is : http://www.geociti es.com/cfpchurch/pope.html

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), March 16, 2003.

Looks like Pope Nicholas had no problem with self esteem. Remember not to judge a statement made in the past by today's standards. What was the time when this was said? Who said it (Which Nick?)? Who was he speaking to? and on and on... Maybe Pope Nick was addressing a king(nobleman)who wished to say that he was greater than the Pope, and was trying to exert power over Christ's vicar. Other than saying that he should be made a God, Pope Nick isn't too far off from his job description! This is not how our current Pope feels about his papacy and I dare say that any future pope would not be so self proclaimed. There were 5 Nick's --Pope Nicholas (106th pope St. Nicholas the great 858-867);NicholasII (1058-1061); Nicholas III (1277- 1280);Nicholas IV (1288-1292);Nicholas V (1447-1455);

-- patrick (patrick@truth.com), March 16, 2003.

Dear Oliver,

The sites on which such quotes appear generally also offer the opinion that the Pope is either the beast of Revelation, or the Antichrist. So much for the reliability of such sites. You can find these sites easily by doing a search for "Decret. Par. Distinct 96", which they repeatedly list as the source of this "quote". Such a search will not bring up any Catholic sites, because this obscure reference has no meaning in Catholic history, and I have never been able to find out what it supposedly means, from any Catholic history site, Catholic documents site, Catholic apologetics site, or anti- Catholic site. If you come across any explanation for this cryptic reference, I would be truly interested in hearing what it supposedly means.

Regards, Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 16, 2003.

That quote comes from an anti Catholic Presbyterian Website! Using things out of context isn't helpful bud.

-- patrick (Patrick@truth.com), March 16, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Paul and Patrick.

I have never seen this "quotation" before, so I have no idea if it is (1) a complete forgery, (2) an inaccurate translation of an actual document, or (3) an accurate translation of an actual document.
I would say that the odds are minuscule that #3 is the case. Why? Because it contradicts ancient Catholic doctrine [something popes don't do], and because it would be a world-famous [or rather, "world-infamous"] statement if it were legitimate, instead of being relegated to some few dungeons of anti-Catholicism on the Internet.

Factors to keep in mind:
----- Four of the five Popes Nicholas were Italian, the other French. These popes almost certainly wrote documents in Latin -- certainly not in English. Thus the "quotation" (if it is one) is actually an attempt at a translation.
----- Errors (sometimes whoppers) tend to creep into translations, even good ones.
----- Errors get worse when translations are done by anti-Catholics, who will turn phrases in the worst possible light. The translation above (if it is one) may have been done by a 17th-century Brit (probably an anti-Catholic), since the note refers to the year 1661.
----- Errors get still worse when translations go through two languages. One of the Popes Nicholas may have written a "decretal" (note the abbreviation "Decret.") in Latin. This may have been translated into French. Note the phrase "Edit. Lugd.", which purportedly refers to an edition published in Lyon (France). ----- Other supposed official Catholic documents have been exposed as forgeries during the history of the Church.

Oliver, I don't think that the list of "quotations" at your linked site are worth the powder it would take to blow them to hell. I will not spend time commenting on any of the other "quotations." I recommend that you rely on serious scholarship instead of bigoted sites.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 17, 2003.

John, you state that you do not know whether the quotes are true or authentic, however, and I'm not suprised by this in the least, you assume that they are false. It seems that when Catholics in general are unsure about claims that may put the Catholic church in bad light, they assume that they must be absolutely false by default.

There are quite a number of quotes listed there. Can you really confidently say that such quotes were never spoken or written ? Is it because the quotations listed take the glory away from God ? As Patrick said, if the popes did say as such, it wouldn't have been far off the job description. That's absolutely right, and yet it doesn't seem to phase Patrick in the least that such quotations could have been made when we take them in serious light.

The pope's well known title is Vicar of Christ which means someone acting in the place of Christ. Anyone know what this is translated to Greek ?

Lets really put all our opinions aside for a moment and contemplate this thought. Can *anyone* act in the place of Christ ? Could Peter ? Could Paul ? Paul himself said "Did Paul die for you ? Did Apollos die for you ?"

Further to this line of thought, let us consider the way the doctrine of the papacy works. We are all familiar with the Church's claims of the rock being Peter. How about the whole matter of ex- cathedra ? Basically it means that only in the matter of doctrine and faith is the pope infallible. In living he could very well be a nasty brute.

All of the popes starting from the first supposed pope Peter, were all sinners. Let me ask you this, Can their really be a substitute for Christ on this Earth ? Was Christ about doctrine or was He about living as one with the Father ?

If the pope were truly a vicar of Christ, a substitute on Earth whilest Christ is in Heaven, then none of the popes should ever sin. However, the Catholic Church defends herself by saying that they never claim the pope to be sinless, let alone say truthful things all the time, but only to speak infallibly when it comes to doctrine.

Let's wake up people, there's a spiritual warfare out there. Can there be a substitute for Christ ? And if so, can one who only speaks in truth on faith and doctrine, yet still be a vile sinner be a substitute for Christ ? Is this what the church is built on ?

Consider the two trees - tree of knowledge, tree of life. I would liken the matter of doctrine to the tree of knowledge, wihlest I would liken the matter of the divine life to the tree of life. This is echoed by Paul saying "the letter kills". Do we not realise that Christ as the last Adam, became the life giving Spirit ?

Instead, supposedly the Holy Spirit is only able to make one person on the earth at one time able to speak infallibly and yet not able to cause him not to sin.

What we have in the world is a church of billions of people who look to a man, the vicar of Christ as the supreme one, even as their Father (pope means Father).In the meantime, we annoying non-catholic christians" look to God alone as the author and perfecter of our faith. We look to God alone for forgiveness of sins and we look to God alone to supply our need.

If Catholics claim Peter to be the rock, and claim their church is built on the rock, whilest non-catholics claim the church is built on Christ, what can Catholics say about non-catholics ? I tell you, one is built on sand, the other is built on rock. Which is which ? Is Christ the rock or the sand ? Is man rock or sand ? What do you think the sand really is ?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), March 17, 2003.

Oliver, indeed I did say that the job description is just about stated by this questionable quote but you never answered any of my questions...

Secondly, nobody is worried about it because it is taken out of context.

Thirdly, we say that the pope is a REPRESENTATIVE of Christ... The vicar is Peter. Peter died and so that office is handed off to new Popes. A vicar is a roman catholic ecclesiastic who has been entrusted with teh pastoral care or certain people in an area. Since the Catholic Church is Universal, the Bishop of Rome has that responsibility given unto him.

Never has a Catholic believed the Pope to be Christ.

Get your facts straight before you start throwing mud at the CATHOLIC site! If you want to talk General 20,000 different denomination christianity go to another site.

You are most welcome here if you wish to learn about Catholicism but you are not welcome to be here with your dissenting posts. We expect more professionalism from adults.

-- patrick (patrick@truth.com), March 17, 2003.

A vicar is not a "substitute". There is no substitute for Christ. A vicar is an officially appointed representative, who has been delegated the power of acting with the authority of the delegator, in the physical absence of the latter.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 17, 2003.

Jmj

Oliver, that marks twice in 24 hours that you have "lost it." And that is once too many times for me to tolerate.

Please read Patrick's message to you and notice his righteous anger. He has left at least 30 posts here since his arrival, and this is the first time he has shown anger. It is because you have made yourself obnoxious. And Patrick doesn't even realize that you are a fallen-away Catholic who has been coming to this forum for a few months. He probably doesn't know that, in all that time, you have not softened your anti-Catholic stance -- but instead have been coming out with more and more offensive posts.

Oliver, after all this time, how can you demonstrate so much lack of knowledge of what we Catholics believe? Weren't you taught anything about Catholicism when you were in the Church? Haven't you read the Catechism (or any apologetics sites, or lots of threads in our archives) during these months that you have been here with us? Have you ignored all those things that would have educated you because you are here with a nefarious purpose -- i.e., to attract other Catholics into the heresy into which you yourself fell? Yes, I fear so. As the saying goes, "Misery loves company."

Well, I for one would like to ask you to drop your proselytism totally and immediately -- or to leave, if you cannot drop it. You are reliving the "forum career" of Tim the Baptist. He was here from about September, 2002, into Janary, 2003, before being asked to leave (by the moderator) because Tim had carried on in just the same way that you have been doing.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 18, 2003.