What is the correct way to address the Pope? What is the origin of the title "Pope"?

-- Alan Robert Myers (savestheday4all@aol.com), May 07, 2003

Answers

"Your holiness" if in person,

"Holy Father" if written

Additionally, if writing a bishop it's "Excellency" while a Cardinal is refered to as "Eminence".

Main Entry: em·i·nence Pronunciation: 'e-m&-n&n(t)s Function: noun Date: 15th century 1 : a position of prominence or superiority 2 : one that is eminent , prominent, or lofty: as a : an anatomical protuberance (as on a bone) b : a person of high rank or attainments - - often used as a title for a cardinal c : a natural elevation

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 07, 2003.

Here we call a Bishop 'My Lord', and an Archbishop 'Your Grace'. We do call a Cardinal Your Eminence though.

-- (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 07, 2003.

Jmj

Would that be in Great Britain, Sara? (I've noticed that you have frequently referred to "here" and "this country," without ever specifying the name. I do see the "uk" in your e-mail address, though.)

Alan, you also asked about "the origin of the title, 'Pope.'"

The dictionary derivation is as follows:
----- pope [Middle English, from Old English papa, from Late Latin, from Latin, meaning 'father'(title of bishops), from Greek pappas.

So we see that it goes back to the Greek of the Catholicism of the first centuries, when it was applied to the bishops (successors of the Apostles). At a certain point, the Greek/Latin word, "pappas/papa," ceased to be applied to any of the bishops except the bishop of Rome (the pope, the "Holy Father").

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.

Yes John, I'm in Great Britain :-)

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 08, 2003.

Erase my responses all you want he still is not the HOLY FATHER. That is a title for GOD and GOD alone. This is not Catholic Bashing it is a fact you people need to WAKE UP!!!!!!! The time is drawing near Jesus will return and when he does will you call the POPE holy father in front of his face. I DO NOT THINK SO.............. wake up WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!

-- John Page (johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), January 06, 2004.

Explain why not, John. Is your opinion binding on members of the Catholic Church? Or are you consumed with zeal for Our Father's glory? I doubt it.

We call the Pope His Holiness and Holy Father for good reason. He is a successor to the apostle Saint Peter. (Don't tell us otherwise.)

He is a holy man. His office in Christ's Church is holy. He is our spiritual father, so, Holy Father is fitting to his position. And, why WAKE UP, to answer silly charges like yours? I would rather wake up with a smile! Thank You, Lord! We praise You for Your glory; we worship You!

This is a prayer frequently said by our Holy Father Pope John Paul II, celebrating Holy Mass. HE worships God. We worship God. The Catholic Church teaches us to worship ONLY God. So, what's your problem?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2004.

My opinion means nothing to you as yours means nothing to me. My pastor is a messenger for the one and only HOLY FATHER sir. I am sure your pope is a good man but Holy Father thats absurd. We can have this little argument until the end of time and You will never understand me nor I you. As far as PETER prove it to me Mr. Chavez and don't tell me to read your little Catholic Encyclopedia, God gave us the only Encyclopedia we need use that one to prove it.I'll tell you otherwise until the end my brother. The pope may be a HOLY MAN but he is not the holy father and thats the way it is and don't tell me otherwise!!!!!!!

-- John Page (johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), January 06, 2004.

The Bible shows us that the Apostles - both Peter and Paul - thought of themselves as spiritual fathers to those over whom they held pastoral responsibility. No doubt the other Apostles did likewise. The Bible also tells us to seek after holiness, and to be holy even as our Father in heaven is holy. Therefore the term "father" is clearly applicable to those in positions of pastoral headship, and the term "holy" is applicable to any Christian who is actually living according to the fullness of the teachings of Christ. Therefore the title "holy father" is entirely appropriate for the man God has placed in headship over His entire Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 06, 2004.

Isn't this the Boss who said, ''This is not Catholic Bashing it is a fact you people need to WAKE UP,''--? ? ?

Not bashing? Can he bash any worse? And the pretensions: ''My pastor is a messenger for the one and only HOLY FATHER sir!''

Is he a messenger pigeon? A telegram boy? A postman?

No, just a self- ordained minister who CALLS himself your ''pastor''. What kind of flock has pastors who teach distortions of God's Holy Word? The one and only ''meetin' house'' --? There's a flock for you, with wool pulled over their eyes by their pastors. WAKE UP, Catholic-basher. Sleepy head! Come and rejoin the Church of your blessed ancestors.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2004.

/

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2004.

Real classy there Mr. Chavez I don't even know what that was all about but whatever you need to do to hide your ignorance go ahead and do it. You could not prove anything to me and you knew it so you get mad and retort with anger. What a joke you are sir!!! I do not agree with you or the way you worship nor do you agree with me but there are many other catholics on these threads whom I have had civil conversations with. Make fun of me if you want too make fun of my "meetin"place it's all good. Your a class act and i'm sure your POPE would be proud of you.

-- John Page (johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), January 06, 2004.

Paul, although I still in my own personal opinion think that we should call anyone HOLY FATHER but the holy father himself I appreciate what you had to say and how you said it. I my self am lost on the fact of PETER and PAUL and how they became Catholic. I am not saying they were Baptist or Methodist either I have asked and asked for someone anyone to prove that to me. I was under the impression they were Jewish as was JESUS. I guess when I get back to my "meetin" place as the good Catholic Mr. Chavez calls it I'll ask my messenger pigeon of a pastor to explain it to me in detail. Anyway thank you for you kind response and may the LORD be with you ALWAYS.

-- John Page (johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), January 06, 2004.

Good luck;
Might as well ask your pastor who ordained him while you're there, John. It's a long time since the Catholic Church ordained one of your pastors. You have to go back before the so-called reformation, and in those days they were ordained Catholic priests.

Just about all who now call themselves born again Christians come from Catholic stock. You yourself have Catholic ancestors, Mr. Page. Your surname tells us you have European roots.

You might not appreciate my sarcastic replies, Sir. But you have them coming, I think, for the way you insult our Holy Father. Before you arrive making snide remarks about others' faith, put yourself in their place.

And when you come demanding PROOF; expect others to request proof of your own reasons for believing.
Catholics usually have a very deep faith in all our Church has brought us from the historical past, and can give you an excellent account of it. But you must ask respectfully. Particularly when referring to the Pope. He's not fair game for your knife in the back bigot-style.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2004.

The Apostles had to be Catholic because they were Christian, and history plainly reveals that no Christian church but the Catholic Church existed on this planet prior to the 11th century. Neither schism nor denominationalism had yet appeared. Therefore, every Christian who lived before that time was necessarily Catholic.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 06, 2004.

Eugene, you humor me, I did not insult the HOLY Father or the Pope I simply said he was a holy man not the holy father and now I am a bigot and apparently you know everything so why do you talk to anyone except yourself. I have seen a few of your posts on the other threads and you insult everyone who is not catholic and you even insult some of the catholics. I know Jesus eugene and thats really all that matters so your snide remarks do not bother me as I said before you humor me. I in fact can't wait to see what you say next I know it won't be of any substance but I know I will at least get to chuckle for a bit. You don't get it eugene I as a protestant do not care if the catholic church ordained my pastor or not so quit with that please. I am not sorry I offended you eugene I am only sorry that you are offended. Let me be a bit more serious for a second I know that people were born to disagree or at least it seems that way. I also know that there are good God fearing Catholics and Protestants alike and there will be both in HEAVEN and HELL so we should spend our time here together with love and compassion in stead of insults and barbs. So with that being said I hope that you will try a little harder to understand people that are diffrent than you and I will do the same. You are my brother in christ eugene whether you like it or not and brothers often disagree but they are still brothers.

-- John Page (johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), January 07, 2004.

so we should spend our time here together with love and compassion in stead of insults and barbs.

So please don't come onto a Catholic forum and insert yourself into a thread and say we should not address the Pope by the title we have been addressing the office for hundreds of years. Seriously, if you are curious about why we address him in that fashion, ask it as a question, don't PREACH as if you know something we don't. It is really quite insulting. I am sure you wouldn't want us doing that in a Protestant forum. (I know some do).

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 07, 2004.

You are right and I am SORRY.

-- John Page (johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), January 07, 2004.

John,
Apology accepted.

Where are you having problems figuring out that Peter was Catholic? Is it:

1) That you don't think Peter was told to lead the Church by Christ? [as it is recorded in scripture]
2) That you don't believe the early Church was the same Church as we call Catholic today? [we can show a direct line of popes and bishops leading from Peter to today].
3) or something else?

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 07, 2004.

Well I do beleive that Jesus said that Peter would be the rock he would build his church upon. I would have to see from something other than the Catholic encyclopedia the lineage from Peter to the present day catholic church. I'm just talking from a personal standpoint now leaving you being catholic and me being protestant out of this. Here are a few other things that I do not understand. I believe that Jesus is the way the truth and the life because thats what the Bible has stated clearly. I do not believe in LIMBO for the simple fact that the Bible does not say there is a place called Limbo and purgatory is bogus to me as well for the same reason. I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and he is the only one because the Bible say's that also. It does not in any book of the Bible say that Mary was born of a virgin. All of this leads me to this It seems to me that if I were to believe as you do that GODS word infact has error to it and I personnaly do not believe that. I am not Flaming or being hateful I am just telling you how I feel. I can't after reading my Bible see anyone being an advocate for me with God except Jesus Christ not Mary not Peter and not Paul for the same simple fact that I have read my Bible and it say's exactly that. That also leads me to believe that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has indeed added and taken away from God's word which is also in conflict with the Bible. I know you have heard it all a million times and you will hear it a million more probably but the things you believe in my opinion do not coincide with what I read in the Bible. Please do not take offense to anything I have said I am just trying to understand Catholics and hopeing you understand me.

-- John Page (john.page@yahoo.com), January 07, 2004.

John, I'll address some of your concerns and allow others to fully address your points. It would be easier though if you started a new thread for each question.

Well I do beleive that Jesus said that Peter would be the rock he would build his church upon. I would have to see from something other than the Catholic encyclopedia the lineage from Peter to the present day catholic church. I'm just talking from a personal standpoint now leaving you being catholic and me being protestant out of this.

Perhaps there are some non-Cathholic historical documents that show this lineage but it only makes sense that the Catholic Church would have the valid documentation as it is Her leader.

A little off subject, but how about if you read the early Church fathers (I'm talking as early as 110 A.D. here) calling themselves Catholic. We could show you those documents/quotes if you care to read them.

Here are a few other things that I do not understand. I believe that Jesus is the way the truth and the life because thats what the Bible has stated clearly. I do not believe in LIMBO for the simple fact that the Bible does not say there is a place called Limbo and purgatory is bogus to me as well for the same reason.

Did Jesus open the gates of Heaven for us or not? What happened to those souls who died before Jesus offered Himself for us? I believe this is what is referred to as the Limbo of the Fathers. Do you believe they were in Hell prior to Jesus' sacrifice. As for purgatory, it is in the Bible. For one thing, Jesus stated that nothing unclean will enter Heaven. And St. Paul tells us that we are all sinners. Doesn't sound too promising to me. Lastly, not the word itself, but the idea of it is definitely spelled out in Maccabbees. Perhaps you use a version of the Bible that is missing 7 books. Books chosen by the Catholic Church as inspired along with the rest of the canon. If you do, let me know and I'll show you an online version that has the complete Bible.

I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and he is the only one because the Bible say's that also. It does not in any book of the Bible say that Mary was born of a virgin.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary was born of a virgin. Perhaps you are thinking of the Immaculate Conception. This teaching that Mary was born without original sin (i.e. saved by Jesus at Her conception - yes before He was born as a God/man).

All of this leads me to this It seems to me that if I were to believe as you do that GODS word infact has error to it and I personnaly do not believe that. I am not Flaming or being hateful I am just telling you how I feel.
...
Please do not take offense to anything I have said I am just trying to understand Catholics and hopeing you understand me.

As you can see, you have misunderstood what the Catholic Church teaches, or at least some of it. Seriously, start a new thread on each topic you would like to learn more of. You will eventually find out that nothing the Catholic Church teaches is anti-biblical. However, there are some things from Sacred Tradition that are extra- biblical, meaning not specifically spelled out (for instance, the Immaculate Conception). Just like the word Trinity is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. But if you take these teachings in context with the Bible, then they are only logical extensions that the Holy Spirit taught the Church (as Jesus said would happen).

God Bless

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), January 07, 2004.

I'm glad You responded to John Page so very clearly, Glenn. For a minute I'd considered replying; but I hesitated. I haven't hit it off well with this good protestant, so he'll probably resent whatever I say now. That's my fault, I realise.

Mr. Page didn't try to dispute his Catholic roots at all; for what reasons who knows? But he seems adamant enough denying the apostles were the world's original Catholics. Let's assume John thinks what non- Catholics typically think: where is this written in my BIBLE? So much so, Mr. Page demands the proof but NOT from any ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' presumably since that's spurious proof he won't take seriously. (It's another Catholic lie.)

The Bible that we all know was written for God by Catholics, set in an authoritative canon by Catholics, meticulously copied and guarded for 20 centuries by Catholics; --is not spurious. As we can all agree. --He sees nothing in there to hint at these facts. How come?

''[I] am lost on the fact of PETER and PAUL and how they became Catholic. I am not saying they were Baptist or Methodist either I have asked and asked for someone anyone to prove that to me. I was under the impression they were Jewish as was JESUS.''

John Page left in a huff; and wants to ''ask his minister'' about the possibility Catholics might have been actual apostles ? ? ?

We only need one guess to tell him what his minister will say about that.

He had the impression they were ''Jewish''. (That much he can gather from Bible study.) Why can't he find it in the Bible, then: this was the Jewish Church that Jesus founded! It says so in the Holy Bible!

Yeah! ANYTHING, as long as it isn't any Church of his own blessed ancestors; and of the bad guys who call a mere mortal ''Holy Father''. I'm sure his ministers will suggest exactly THAT.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 07, 2004.

John,
For ease in discussion, I will refer you to other threads you can respond to.

Well I do believe that Jesus said that Peter would be the rock he would build his church upon. I would have to see from something other than the Catholic encyclopedia the lineage from Peter to the present day catholic church. I'm just talking from a personal standpoint now leaving you being catholic and me being protestant out of this.

You would have to go to the early Church documents to find the information. I am not sure if secular historians even cared about early Church leaders. The thread to Faith really has the information and quotes from the early Church leaders linking the lineage of the Popes to Peter. If it is missing something, please respond in this thread and it will be answered.

Here are a few other things that I do not understand. I believe that Jesus is the way the truth and the life because that’s what the Bible has stated clearly. I do not believe in LIMBO for the simple fact that the Bible does not say there is a place called Limbo and purgatory is bogus to me as well for the same reason.

Limbo is not a place Catholics have to believe in. Purgatory is. Limbo for unbaptized children (limbus puerorum) is not a dogma of the Church, although it has been the opinion of many theologians over the years. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1261), the question is left open, but the hope is expressed "that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism." The Church commits unbaptized children to the mercy of God in her funeral rites for them, relying on the "great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them.'"

I would suggest you read this thread about purgatory and respond to it with any unanswered questions.

By the way, we Catholics also believe in God’s word. Which does not conflict with any Catholic teaching.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 07, 2004.

reposting threads: The thread to Faith really has the information and quotes from the early Church leaders linking the lineage of the Popes to Peter. If it is missing something, please respond in this thread and it will be answered.

I would suggest you read this thread about purgatory and respond to it with any unanswered questions.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 07, 2004.

The thread to Faith really has the information and quotes from the early Church leaders linking the lineage of the Popes to Peter. If it is missing something, please respond in this thread and it will be answered.

I would suggest you read this thread about purgatory and respond to it with any unanswered questions.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 07, 2004.

Mr.Chavez, For what it is worth I am sorry for coming here and making you mad I realize that how I came off was with total direspect to the way you believe and for that I apologize. I am really intrested in the truth whatever it may be and even though I don't agree with some of the things you beleive I should not have been so insensitive with my choice of words. I am sure your a fine man and I can see that you stand on your beliefs so again I apologize. I am not some idiot redneck trying to cause trouble just standing on my beliefs as I have been taught and learned from reading. I hope that in our future conversations if there are any we can remain civil and maybe I can learn some new things and hopefully I can show that all of us protestants are not bad people. Again I apologize to you and hope you forgive me.

-- John Page (johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), January 07, 2004.

That's excellent, John,
I wasn't mad, just confrontational. I mirrored your own confrontational tone: ''WAKE UP!!!!!''

What's more, I don't think for one minute protestants are bad people. I have respect for many of them, despite believing they are tragicly misled.

I bought a LIFE magazine edition last year dedicated to John Paul II our Pope. In the first pages is a foreword written by Dr. Billy Graham, in which he makes some very considerate comments about the Pope. He stated that over the years he and our Holy Father have become good friends in Christ. I've enjoyed (in parts) his crusades when they were televised; why not? He was a wonderful speaker and clearly a man of his convictions. Incidentally, Dr. Graham even quoted the words of Saint Ignatius loyola in one address to his audience that I watched. So whatever he may be he's far from a bigot. He is in fact a refined and saintly man.

Thanks for extending the hand of friendship. You owed no real apologies, I don't stand on formalities.

When it becomes necessary, though; I can be blunt. Rightly or not, I take that privilege straight from the commands of Jesus Christ, who said: ''You are neither hot nor cold; you are lukewarm. And I am about to vomit you out of my mouth.'' I truly think God wants us blunt and outspoken if we are called to stand up for the Holy Catholic Church. --Call me hot, then.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 07, 2004.

You are truely Hot!!!!! and no matter what are diffrences are I can respect the fact that you beleive them with out wavering. May the lord be with you always. John

-- John Page (johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), January 07, 2004.

Hello folks hope you all are well. I have been doing some reading so I wouldn't be as ignorant about things when I come to talk to you so here it goes. Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon earth for one is your father which is in heaven". Now I have come here with nothing but respect and mean no harm to anyone here. We have had discussions on this subject and I found this verse to be very intresting for sure. I respectfully ask for clarification regarding this verse and how you address the pope as Holy Father. Thanks in advance to your kind response. Jesus be with you..... John

-- John Page (johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), January 14, 2004.

Hey John,

The wider passage you quote also says not to call anyone 'teacher' or 'master'. Have you ever referred to someone as teacher, how about doctor (doctor means teacher in Latin)? Mister is a version of master. My point is, that no one takes Jesus to be forbidding the use of certain words in those other cases so why here. It would be silly. In fact if we don't use the words they lose meaning. Nobody thinks that we should not call our biological father father. Jesus did not mean that. With all this said then, what does Jesus mean? He is saying that we should not replace God with men. We should not replace God's teaching authority with men. That does not mean we can't have human teachers, or even call them such, just that we need to keep them in their place. Likewise, we must not attribute to men the Fathership of God.

This is why the Apostles (Peter an Paul already mentioned on this tract) referred to themselves as fathers. They were not setting themselves up as God replacements, but they were in a very real way spiritual fathers. Indeed, their spiritual fathership flows from the Fathership of God. It is in this way that Catholics use the word (or at least we should!).

Hope that helps.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), January 14, 2004.

Thanks for your response I was not being critical I was just wanting a person of the catholic faith to explain how they viewed that verse in relation to the pope. Thank you sir, and God bless!!!!

-- John Page (johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), January 14, 2004.

No problem. I hope I did not sound confrontational. I read the previous problems and tried to be as nice as possible. Even my friends tell me I am hard to get along with, though. If you want more on this, there is an extended tract at www.catholic.com in the library section. I believe it is called 'Call no man father'. I'm to lazy to go check right now though.

Anyway, God Bless, Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), January 14, 2004.

No you were very nice and my friends say the same about me (lol). You take care and hopefully we will get to talk again soon. God Bless John.

-- John Page (Johnnyrnr@yahoo.com), January 14, 2004.