Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The real Pope Francis?? (Read 15746 times)

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #1 –
Just for the record: there's no "Pope Francis I" as has been repeated in that article. The authors should be better informed.

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #2 –
How do you mean?

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #3 –
There's no Pope Francis I as long as there is no Pope Francis II. He's officially called Pope Francis.

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Frenzie on

How do you mean?


Hmmmm--- It takes a Protestant to figure this out?

OK, here goes: There is no Pope Francis 1 because they don't start putting numbers after the name until there's a second Pope by that name. Pope John Paul ll followed the short-lived Pope John Paul.

So-- he is Pope Francis. No numbers unless and until Pope Francis ll comes to the throne.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Barulheira on
There's no Pope Francis I as long as there is no Pope Francis II. He's officially called Pope Francis.

And surely he's called something like Franciscus or possibly Francesco, not Francis?

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on
There is no Pope Francis 1 because they don't start putting numbers after the name until there's a second Pope by that name.

Pope Francis does not use it. They did. There's also no "Czech Republic".

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Frenzie on

And surely he's called something like Franciscus or possibly Francesco, not Francis?

As far as I know, Popes' names are usually translated. "Pope Francis" fits well in English.
Here we call him "Papa Francisco".

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #7 –
A bit daft that stuff about names and numbers. The article however does raise interesting questions rather than a pointless wander.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #8 –
When there is a Francis[cus] II the current Francis[cus] will retroactively become Francis[cus] I. Assuming an infinite procession of popes there will be a Francis[cus] II, so the article is merely futureproofing.

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #9 –
Quote from: jax on
Assuming an infinite procession of popes there will be a Francis[cus] II, so the article is merely futureproofing.

Agreed. It's mildly silly at worst, quite clever at best.

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #10 –
Calling the Pope "Francis I" is as silly as calling you "Frenzie I", "jax I", "rjhowie I", and as futureproofing as writing down "on September 30, 2015" instead of "today".

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #11 –
You are still swerving the points.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Barulheira on

Calling the Pope "Francis I" is as silly as calling you "Frenzie I", "jax I", "rjhowie I", and as futureproofing as writing down "on September 30, 2015" instead of "today".

No sillier than calling me Frenzie II.

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #13 –
Really. :)

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #14 –
The Papacy is the most Absolutist of Monarchic Institutions and protestant or atheist considerations don't reach the Heavens.

Now that everything got clear, a word for missionary work - Popes are called the way they desire. Period.
In nomine Pater, Figli et Spirit Sanctum, Amen.
:)

:lol:

:zzz:
A matter of attitude.

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Barulheira on

Calling the Pope "Francis I" is as silly as calling you "Frenzie I", "jax I", "rjhowie I", and as futureproofing as writing down "on September 30, 2015" instead of "today".

True. Better refer to me as jax 0.

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #16 –
Quote from: jax on
True. Better refer to me as jax 0.
Shouldn't that be Jax 1.0? :)
I'll await future releases — unless you'd rather be known as a beta release…
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #17 –
I totally agree with Belfrager on the strong and tota monarchial style but what it has to do with Christianity claiming false titles and being Caesar at the same time? And just think of all those Popes like the Borgias AND others time after time who were as corrupt as Hell. Fornication, mistresses, boiling folk in oil, burning people. Not surprised we had a Reformation as the garden needed cleansing as so choked with weeds!. Countries with a subseqent strong Protestant involvement became more progressive and enlightened.  :knight:
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #18 –
Quote from: rjhowie on
mistresses

Says the follower of the one that had and killed seven wives and created a "church" to be allowed to keep on doing it...
Quote from: rjhowie on

being Caesar at the same time?

Says the subject of a Queen that is, simultaneously, the head of such "church"...

Spare my patience rjhowie.
A matter of attitude.

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #20 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

Quote from: rjhowie on
mistresses

Says the follower of the one that had and killed seven wives and created a "church" to be allowed to keep on doing it...
Quote from: rjhowie on

being Caesar at the same time?

Says the subject of a Queen that is, simultaneously, the head of such "church"...

Spare my patience rjhowie.


That would be the Church of England you are talking about - you need to get your insults straight.

King Henry VIII did not kill all his wives. He did however liberate England from a busybody old fart in Rome.



String I

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #21 –
Go Henry!

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #22 –
Quote from: string on
King Henry VIII did not kill all his wives.

Ohh... he just killed a few of them...  and that Ana Bolena was asking for it...
Saxons at their best.
A matter of attitude.

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #23 –
Let's have a few facts, shall we? Henry Vlll had 6 wives, not 7. This is what became of them.

He had to separate from the RC church to have his first marriage annulled--- the Pope wouldn't do it, so he formed his own church. Catherine of Aragon died of natural causes. Anne Boleyn died of having her head lopped off for adultery. Jane Seymour died in childbed, having given birth to the sickly Edward. Anne of Cleves was divorced, outlived the king and in fact was the last of Henry's queens to die-- natural causes. Catherine Howard had her head removed--- adultery.
Catherine Parr was widowed, being his wife at the time of his demise. Her death-- natural causes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wives_of_Henry_VIII

No doubt that Henry was a piece of work. But that might be forgiven him since there seem to have been more sinners than saints in positions of power in those days. For that matter, there's an abundance of sinners in power today. In the RC church and in Protestant circles too---don't hog, there's plenty of sinners to go around.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: The real Pope Francis??

Reply #24 –
Well excuse me string but I am NOT Anglican Church of England which is not exactly news is it?? And anyway the Church of England down there does not have "ambassadors" across the world (that's what Popish Vatican reps are as well you know. And although the Church of England is a bit this and a bit that the Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT like the Pope, does not have that power nor does that church act like the political-religious Caesar  of Popes and Vatican. The Church of Rome top acts like a Sovereign State and a Church. As for me I have been life long Presbyterian and up until now the national Church of Scotland but moving to the Free Church of Scotland. Our Reformation up here was more genuine as it came from the people and NOT a King like over the Border. Indeed our Reformation leader stated directly that there "are twa Kings and twa Kingdoms in Scotland" thus meaning a separation. If that is still beyond your limited knowledge the monarchial kingdom and the kingdom of heaven - through the church. The Monarch has NO power over the Kirk up here and the Monarchial rep to the annual General Assembly of ministers and elders he/she has to sit up in the audience gallery.  Your trouble my friend is a wee bit of information flannelled on means nothing.

As for using the word "insult" is typical of the co-called liberal mind to cover ignorance. Indeed you have insulted history and fact!
"Quit you like men:be strong"