Why Calvinist, Catholics, Others, Do NOT Have Saving Faith

[God's Truth]

I am definitely seeking the Truth.

That also is major. If you are seeking God’s Truth and not some religions truth, then you are discussing with someone who did that and knows.

But since we both have equal right to read the Scriptures and let the Holy Spirit guide us, neither one of us has the authority to tell the other person that they are wrong.

The Holy Spirit is given to those who OBEY. Catholics do not obey. I know that sounds tough, but they do not obey, and I can prove that easily.

You stated that a "worshipping kiss" on the feet is condemned in the Bible. Where is that at?

You are not speaking the exact truth. I never said a “worshipping kiss”.

However, despite your false quote, I will not concentrate on that, I will speak about what Jesus speaks about and that is humbleness. You cannot ever be a mere man and have someone kissing your feet. That is plain and simple.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

You say they did not have all the letters and books all at once, as we do now, but you fail to understand that they might even of had MORE than what we have. They might have had more books and letters. You must deal with that because it is nonsense to keep arguing about it.

I have already dealt with that when I admitted that the writings of Clement were around, the Didache, etc.

But by saying that they had even more writings and some didn't make it into the New Testament does not change the fact that much of the New Testament wasn't written for decades after the death of Jesus Christ.

And how is "more" better anyways if it isn't inspired Scripture?

You are also mixing up my saying they had the New Testament as if I were saying they had the New Testament BOOK exactly as we have it, limited in number but perfect as it is. Having the New Testament does NOT mean having the Bible exactly how we have it now. Having the New Testament is about hearing the truth of the New Testament, whether having it read to you, you reading it to yourself, or just hearing it orally by the apostles themselves.

Ok. But you never said that before. You just said "They had the New Testament". If you are talking about the New Covenant that Jesus instituted, then sure, I agree. I don't disagree with that at all.

You keep bringing up the year 43 A.D., and you bring up other years. It does not matter because you do not know the year for sure and you do not know of other books and letters that they had seen that we did not see. Which makes NO DIFFERENCE.

It makes a difference if we claim they had a New Testament right from the start because they couldn't have because it took decades before all of the New Testament books were even written. The reason I brought up 43 A.D. is because most scholars do not believe one word of the New Testament was written before then.

Now, if you mean they had the New Covenant...that is something different and I agree.

You are mixing up the fact that what we have in the Holy Bible the New Testament and it is the letters and books that the first century Christians had---they definitely shared them as was COMMANDED.

Sure. But they couldn't share them before they were written and that was a process that took decades. When you say "the first century Christians had"...well, only those living towards the end of the first century had them all because before that...they weren't all written yet.

Again, having the New Testament is not about the first Christians having the Holy Bible exactly as we have now. That is just nonsense to say that those who were preached to by the apostles themselves did not have the New Testament because it was orally.

Again, I think you must mean the New Covenant, not the New Testament. I agree with you is that is what you mean.

Not only that, it is worthless for you to go on about how long it took and who had which letter and books to share, for they could have had much more than what we have today.

I'm not sure I see how having more means anything if it wasn't inspired Scripture.

It isn't worthless to talk about how long it took for the letters and books of the New Testament to be written. They are inspired Scripture and other documents, like the Didache, for example, while being instructive as to how the 1st century Church lived, were not inspired Scripture.

I think you need to get a grasp on what exactly you are trying to prove or disprove, because you are not making any kind of case for the truth.

I think I am. Although, since you have clarified that by New Testament you meant New Covenant (I think from what I have read above), we are in agreement for the most part, I think.

Yes, they had the New Covenant right from the very beginning of Christianity because that is what Jesus instituted.

The letter to the Corinthians was from Paul to the first Christians in Corinth. We get to see exactly what they were taught.

They got to share those exact teachings to those in other other churches in other cities, and vice versa.

Yes and no, I think. Some of Paul's letter didn't make it into the New Testament Scripture. And much was taught orally as you mentioned above. Most of the letters in the New Testament were written to address problems that arose in those communities.

So we can see what was taught in those letters. But that isn't the only thing and everything that was taught.

Think about what you are saying when you say they didn't have the New Testament as we have it.

Well, I have. When you said New Testament I am thinking of the 27 books in the Bible.

If you meant the New Covenant and its teachings, that is something different and I agree with you.

Peace.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

Right; and, you know now from the Bible that you should not drop to your knees at the sight of an angel. We are taught now not to do that.



Since the New Testament, Jesus explains changes to us. Don’t you acknowledge that?

Of course I acknowledge that.

I just can't remember where Jesus said that bowing as a sign of respect is a no-no.

We have Peter and John explaining not to fall at someone’s feet…this is a spiritual concern. We are not talking about laying at the feet of a dying loved one, we are talking about falling at the feet of someone from the spiritual world teaching us spiritual things.

I don't think it was Peter, I think it was Luke.

Ummm...I don't quite get what you are saying here so I'm just gonna say ok and move on.

I hope that is ok with you.

Peace.

 

[God's Truth]

Ok. But that is a span of at least 40 years and maybe even 60 years for their lifetimes. (40 A.D. - 70 or 90 A.D.)

If they had the New Testament from the beginning....when was that beginning?

If we pick a date prior to the writing of the last book of the New Testament, then they couldn't of had the New Testament.

If we pick a date after the writing of the last book of the New Testament, then the beginning would be 70 A.D. or later.



I will grant you that the word "worship" could mean to just pay respect to someone.

If that is what Cornelius intended, it could be that Peter refused that out of humility.

If Cornelius was worshipping in the literal sense we think of it today, Peter refused it because he isn't divine.

We have to remember, though, that in the middle and far east, especially 2000 years ago, bowing to others as a sign of respect was common practice. I think it still is today in the far east.



Well, not that many people get visited by angels and whenever they do they are afraid. So Cornelius' state of mind was probably that something big and important was going on. His actions were probably affected by that encounter.

Obviously I am speculating. I've never been visited by an angel that I know of. I think it would probably affect me for quite some time if I was, though.

Also, if we read the passage more carefully we'll see that Peter doesn't call it worship. The author does, that would be Luke.



So? Are you suggesting that bowing to someone was an acceptable practice until Jesus came to earth and after that it is not?

How do you get that idea?

That would mean that the two angels who let Lot bow to them didn't know that he shouldn't be doing that.

That doesn't make sense.



I'm afraid not. The text says that fell down "to worship or and worshipped."

And Peter didn't say that.

Just because I hold to a different interpretation than you, doesn't mean I am making excuses.

I could say the exact same thing to you. I could say that you are making excuses for not seeing the Truth about honor and respect.

I am definitely seeking the Truth.

I think what we have here is a classic case of "I never said you stole the money."

I think there is plenty of evidence in the Bible that bowing before someone doesn't mean worshipping. It means showing respect or honor.

You think there is plenty of evidence in the Bible to show that bowing means worship.

But since we both have equal right to read the Scriptures and let the Holy Spirit guide us, neither one of us has the authority to tell the other person that they are wrong.

We can disagree. But we can't tell the other that they are wrong.



Well, that would be odd since I don't live in the far east or middle east and I'm not living 2000 years ago either.

I would probably say, "Hey, in the Far East they bow and such, in France (I think), they kiss cheeks, over here.....we just smile and shake hands or hug."

But that doesn't mean that it wasn't a practice back then. And as far as showing that respect to the Pope, well, that has always been very rare and I don't even know that that is the practice today. I think it is a kiss on the hand more today.



When the Bible says that they "fell down to worship".

And if we are going to agree to answer questions you have some you haven't answered for me yet:

You stated that Catholics don't "break bread" like the first century Christians did. I asked you how you do that. Maybe you have got that right. Well, how do you "break bread" where you worship?

Malachi says incense will be offered to Him in all nations. I asked you if your church uses incense.
Well, does it?

You stated that a "worshipping kiss" on the feet is condemned in the Bible. Where is that at?



Well, to sum this up. The Bible is clear from the writings of Paul that we are to honor and respect others.

Basically, you have a problem with that honor and respect being shown through the kissing of feet which rarely if even ever happens anymore.

Other people do not have a problem with honor and respect being shown that way.

Even if you are absolutely right and Catholics should not show honor that way. So what?

That is what is called a "practice" or "custom".

That is not a matter of faith or morals. It is a matter of showing respect. And it certainly isn't worshipping because nobody believes the Pope to be a diety.



I can't because I cannot know what was in their minds and the Bible doesn't say that.

But I can show you that the Bible records that they fell down to worship versus other places where people bow down but not to worship and it is perfectly acceptable.


The New Testament has new guidelines and regulations. We have Peter and John telling us not to fall at the feet of mere men and angels.



Or our interpretations do not agree and neither one of us has the right to tell the other they are wrong.

It is a "I never said you stole the money" situtation.

And to be honest, it isn't even a doctrine of the Catholic Faith. It is a man-made custom or practice that was used rarely at certain times and as such is changeable.

Doctrines of the Catholic Faith are those things that are given to us by God and they are not changeable.

I think it would be much more productive to focus on doctrines versus customs. There is a big difference.

I can't do any more posts this long. It is too difficult and I think there might be a rule against it.

I will try to be briefer.

Peace.

 

[God's Truth]

Well, to sum this up. The Bible is clear from the writings of Paul that we are to honor and respect others.

We are to obey God first and only.

Basically, you have a problem with that honor and respect being shown through the kissing of feet which rarely if even ever happens anymore.

Don’t try to demean God’s Word. Raise it up and highly exalt it.

That is what is called a "practice" or "custom".

Jesus says your practice; your customs NULLIFY HIS WORD.

That is not a matter of faith or morals. It is a matter of showing respect. And it certainly isn't worshipping because nobody believes the Pope to be a diety..

God and Jesus are to be obeyed, and that happens when you do what he says.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

That also is major. If you are seeking God’s Truth and not some religions truth, then you are discussing with someone who did that and knows.

Ok. Cool. :thumb:

The Holy Spirit is given to those who OBEY. Catholics do not obey.

No Catholics obey? None at all? Wouldn't you have to be omnicient to know that?

I know that sounds tough, but they do not obey, and I can prove that easily.

Well, I do appreciate your honesty and straightforwardness about your thoughts on that.

Let's regroup and start with one example. Just one.

Maybe I could be the Catholic that doesn't obey. Tell me in one way that I don't. (And just so you know, I've never met the Pope and never kissed his feet. )

You are not speaking the exact truth. I never said a “worshipping kiss”.

I am afraid you did and here is the quote:

You are making excuses on why your choice denomination kisses the feet of their pope.

That is NOT the holy kiss Paul was speaking of, it is the worshiping kiss on the feet that was rebuked, and you will not come to the truth about it.

Cornelius bowed in reverence, and so did John to the angel---and it is WRONG to do. Period.

No if, and, but, or maybe.

I'd have to look back for the post #. Maybe #108...I can't remember now.

However, despite your false quote,

It isn't a false quote. But don't worry, if you are like me, these conversations are so much more difficult in typing than in speaking face to face and it can be very hard to remember exactly what was said.

Besides, we are covering quite a large variety of topics along the way. I don't know about you, but my head starts to hurt.

But I do, sincerely, appreciate the conversation.

I will not concentrate on that, I will speak about what Jesus speaks about and that is humbleness. You cannot ever be a mere man and have someone kissing your feet. That is plain and simple.

I disagree.

Peace.

 

[Brother Ducky]

Jesus is the Savior of the whole world. That means all have a chance to be saved.

If Jesus is the savior of the whole world, and if the "whole world" means all humans, then either all are saved or Jesus is not the savior of the world.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

Again, when I say they had the New Testament, they had the New Testament. I am not talking about their having the Holy Bible exactly as we do now. We have some of the letters that they had, and some of the books, but they might have had much more than what we have. They had the apostles themselves preaching and teaching them, so they did have the New Testament. It is not like someone comes up to you and says they want to teach you the New Testament of God and you not really know if you can believe them or not because you do not have the written word for yourself. However, the people could check the scriptures of the Old Testament, AND, God TESTIFIED to what the disciples taught, He testified to it by miracles and signs. You would believe someone if you were healed or someone you love was healed in a miraculous way.

That is major. I am so glad that you can see that.


That is right; it is exactly what I am saying, for we are to be humble always. This is so important what you just said about Peter was being humble. This is major. Being humble is a teaching of Jesus. Without humbleness, we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

And at the same time, the Bible in multiple places instructs people to give honor or even double-honor to those who deserve it.

I can find the Scripture verses if you want me to but I am about to have to leave for awhile.

Peace.

 

[God's Truth]

Amen.

Hey GT,

We are failing miserably at focusing on one topic.

People are probably laughing their heads off at us.

Want to regroup and focus on just one of the topics we have been tossing around?

Back to the Pope or something else?

It would also make for shorter posts.

Peace to you.

You are writing with a lot of words. You do write good things, but then contradict yourself. I believe you do not have the Truth and that you are still searching...or should I say you are as a godly person who needs to keep searching and your searching as of yet has not resulted in a relationship with God.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

Thanks for explaining about your screen name. Someone I once knew really liked the book the Hobbit and gave it to me to read. I tried but just couldn't get into it.

You could try the first movie, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey". It is part of a trilogy. It leads into the "Lord of the Rings" Trilogy.

Some people cannot get into it. And then there are freaks like me who just love it!!

As for interpretations of the Bible...

The apostles from the New Testament received all the truth we need to guide us to eternal life. All we need to guide us to eternal life is written down in the Scriptures: John 16:13; 2 Peter 1:3; Acts 20:20, 27; Matthew 28:20; I Corinthians 14:37; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.

God’s word is understandable even to a young child. How from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, see 2 Timothy 3:15. We do not need elected men to interpret God’s word for us, but we are to check the scriptures to check out those claiming to be teachers, see Mark 7:14; 2 Timothy 3:15, 16, 17; John 20:30, 31; Acts 17:11; and, Psalm 119:105. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Jesus tells us how to have wisdom and understanding. See John 14:21 The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him."

Psalm 119:100 I have more understanding than the elders, for I obey your precepts.

Proverbs 3:32 For the LORD detests the perverse but takes the upright into his confidence.

Proverbs 1:23 Repent at my rebuke! Then I will pour out my thoughts to you, I will make known to you my teachings.

See Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.

John 7:17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

John 8:30 While he was saying these things, many people believed in him. 31Then Jesus said to those Judeans who had believed him, "If you continue to follow my teaching, you are really my disciples

2 Timothy 2:25 correcting opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance and then knowledge of the truth.

Luke 11:28 He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."

The saying that "all we need to guide us to eternal life is written down in the Scriptures" is not Scriptural.

None of the verses you quoted above say that. The Bible doesn't say that anywhere.

There is a sense in which Catholics will agree with you. It is called the sufficiency of Scripture.

But when we agree with you on that, what we are agreeing on is a tradition.

Because the Bible nowhere says that everything we need would be written down.

Peace.

 

[God's Truth]

I have to go for now. I am not interested in many words. I am interest in many words of wisdom that do not make it hard.

I hope to be back soon and will weed through all the words that do not make for the righteousness that comes from God., because righteousness that comes come God are by obeying His words...by obeying what He says to do and what He says not to do.

Obeying the words of mere men, like the Catholics, or the Mormons, or the Baptists, or the Pentecosts, etc, etc, etc, etc....is NOTHING. We have to check on what they say. We have to check out what they say and if it is God's words...some might be and some might not be... but we have to get rid of the words that ARE NOT from God. That would entail leaving the Catholic religion, the Mormon religion, the Baptists religion, the Pentecostals, etc.

Do you only want God's Truth?

 

[God's Truth]

You could try the first movie, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey". It is part of a trilogy. It leads into the "Lord of the Rings" Trilogy.

Some people cannot get into it. And then there are freaks like me who just love it!!



The saying that "all we need to guide us to eternal life is written down in the Scriptures" is not Scriptural.

None of the verses you quoted above say that. The Bible doesn't say that anywhere.

There is a sense in which Catholics will agree with you. It is called the sufficiency of Scripture.

But when we agree with you on that, what we are agreeing on is a tradition.

Because the Bible nowhere says that everything we need would be written down.

Peace.

I know, the Catholics go against what I say. You admitted that and defending that MEANS NOTHING except that you, and the Catholics, go against what IS written.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

You are writing with a lot of words. You do write good things, but then contradict yourself. I believe you do not have the Truth and that you are still searching...or should I say you are as a godly person who needs to keep searching and your searching as of yet has not resulted in a relationship with God.

I know I have trouble with being concise.

And oftentimes it is hard for me to remember what was said earlier. I don't navigate that well around these threads like some people do who can multi-quote and stuff in a single response.

Can you give me an example of where I contradicted myself?

Peace.

 

[God's Truth]

I know I have trouble with being concise.

And oftentimes it is hard for me to remember what was said earlier. I don't navigate that well around these threads like some people do who can multi-quote and stuff in a single response.

Can you give me an example of where I contradicted myself?

Peace.

Let us just keep going forward.

 

[God's Truth]

What have you admitted to before? You admitted that Peter was showing humility when he told Cornelius not to fall at his feet.

So let us agree that that is good and we too should tell anyone who attempt to do that should tell us 'no', and that goes for the Catholic's pope.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

I know, the Catholics go against what I say. You admitted that and defending that MEANS NOTHING except that you, and the Catholics, go against what IS written.

With all due respect, GT, you are not infallible and I am sure that you wouldn't admit to being so.

If Catholics go against what you say, so what? You could be wrong in your interpretations of Scripture.

I've already pointed out numerous times that you have claimed that the Bible teaches something even though it is not written.

Like the "worshipping kiss" for example, or the claim that "everything that we need has been written down."

Catholics do not go against what is written, they go against false interpretations of what is written. And all Christians should, I think.

You and I are very similar, I think, in that we love God and Jesus, we love to study and discuss the Scriptures, we both seek the Truth.

The difference I see between us is interpretation. I think it is pretty obvious that we have a "I never said you stole the money" problem.

Same words. Different interpretations.

But neither one of us has the authority to say the other is wrong. Different, yes. Wrong, no.

But Jesus left us His Church, with His authority, to teach all things to all nations and He even told them in Luke 10:16 :"Whoever listens to you, listens to Me. But whoever rejects you, rejects Me..."

That is pretty clear that the leaders of Jesus' Church have authority and some pretty strong authority at that.

We can see that authority again in Matthew 18.

Peace.

 

[God's Truth]

With all due respect, GT, you are not infallible and I am sure that you wouldn't admit to being so.

If Catholics go against what you say, so what? You could be wrong in your interpretations of Scripture.

I've already pointed out numerous times that you have claimed that the Bible teaches something even though it is not written.

I never ever said that. That is you adding and subtracting, just like the Catholic's do. Such a wicked thing masquerading as light.
Give the scriptures that I gave THAT YOU GO AGAINST. Stop being lazy. Your mere denial and attacks mean nothing but lost humanity.

Like the "worshipping kiss" for example, or the claim that "everything that we need has been written down."

Give where I say what you quote me as saying. Give where I say a "worshipping kiss".

Catholics do not go against what is written, they go against false interpretations of what is written. And all Christians should, I think.

That is what we are here to discuss. You need to stop proclaiming defeat when you have not defeated, and never ever will.

You and I are very similar, I think, in that we love God and Jesus, we love to study and discuss the Scriptures, we both seek the Truth.

That is what I did and I have found God's Truth. You have found the Catholic denomination.

The difference I see between us is interpretation. I think it is pretty obvious that we have a "I never said you stole the money" problem.

Right there, what you say, it proves you are not after God's Truth but are rather after teachings from men.

Same words. Different interpretations.

No way, Hell no.

But neither one of us has the authority to say the other is wrong. Different, yes. Wrong, no.

You are throwing your brain and heart and soul to the Catholic's pope, and that does NOT mean you are right, it means you are dead wrong.

But Jesus left us His Church, with His authority, to teach all things to all nations and He even told them in Luke 10:16 :"Whoever listens to you, listens to Me. But whoever rejects you, rejects Me..."

Jesus' body IS THE CHURCH, but you deny that, so you deny Christ and the truth.

That is pretty clear that the leaders of Jesus' Church have authority and some pretty strong authority at that.

So sad, so pathetic, so without, more than you might ever know.

We can see that authority again in Matthew 18.

Peace.

See you later. I hope we can keep discussing. I must go for now. Think about this, do you want God's Truth, or do you want some religion's truth?

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

What have you admitted to before? You admitted that Peter was showing humility when he told Cornelius not to fall at his feet.

So let us agree that that is good and we too should tell anyone who attempt to do that should tell us 'no', and that goes for the Catholic's pope.

Here is a link that explains your very question a little bit. And might even show a Pope himself saying what you are requesting.

https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=8341114

Peace.

 

[Bard_the_Bowman]

I never ever said that. That is you adding and subtracting, just like the Catholic's do. Such a wicked thing masquerading as light.
Give the scriptures that I gave THAT YOU GO AGAINST. Stop being lazy. Your mere denial and attacks mean nothing but lost humanity.

Ok, I'm a little confused but I'll try.

You said:

I know, the Catholics go against what I say.

I realize that you never claimed to be infallible.

My point was, that unless you are infallible...well, then so what if Catholics go against what you say?

In other words, what would make your interpretation better than any one else's?

That is the point I was trying to make. I apologize for the confusion.

I can't give Scriptures for some of your claims because there is no Scripture for them.

It isn't the Scriptures I disagree with, it is your interpretation of them.

Here are two examples:

I cannot find a Scripture that says that everything that we need will be written down.
I cannot find a Scripture that says that it is a worshipping kiss that was rebuked.

If you can show me those Scriptures, I will have been corrected. That's ok. (Won't be the first time or last for me.)

Give where I say what you quote me as saying. Give where I say a "worshipping kiss".

I already did that. Go back and look at your post #108. It's no biggie. Our conversation has covered a lot and it gets confusing. At least for me it does.

That is what we are here to discuss. You need to stop proclaiming defeat when you have not defeated, and never ever will.

What? You are putting words in my mouth. When did I proclaim defeat on something?

That is what I did and I have found God's Truth. You have found the Catholic denomination.

Sorry, no. I found Jesus' Church. The one that He founded in the 1st century. The one He said He would always be with.

Right there, what you say, it proves you are not after God's Truth but are rather after teachings from men.

Ok, just stop it, GT. That proves no such thing.

What it proves is that people can read the same words in the Bible and reach different conclusions. Our very discussion proves that and, although we may be the only two left in this thread, anybody who reads our words will see that that is the case.

Tell me, how can you be so sure that it isn't I who am after God's Truth and that you are the one after the teachings of men?

No way, Hell no.

Oh absolutely. Go back to our very first discussion about "the gates of hell". That is proof of it right there. Don' t deny it. It is true.

You are throwing your brain and heart and soul to the Catholic's pope, and that does NOT mean you are right, it means you are dead wrong.

You are guessing. You cannot know those things without claiming omniscience. You are wrong.

My mind, heart, soul, and strength...my every heartbeat and breath given to me by God...I try to offer right back to Him.

I fail. Miserably. But I try to do that nonetheless.

Jesus' body IS THE CHURCH, but you deny that, so you deny Christ and the truth.

Stop it. Now I have to post this, then go back and find the post where I stated that very thing before you did and then come back here and paste it in.

Ok. Found it. Post #79. After you said "Jesus is the Church" I responded with:

Jesus is the Head of the Church. Christians are His body. He isn't the whole Church.

See? No denial that in the Church, Jesus is the Head and we are the Body.

When you accuse me of denying that, you are not being honest and you are putting words in my mouth again. I never said that.

So sad, so pathetic, so without, more than you might ever know.

It sounds like a break from our discussion would be good.

You seem to be on the verge of name-calling.

See you later. I hope we can keep discussing. I must go for now. Think about this, do you want God's Truth, or do you want some religion's truth?

I want God's Truth. I am just not convinced that your interpretations are it.

I do wish you Peace.

 

[Robert Pate]

Here is a link that explains your very question a little bit. And might even show a Pope himself saying what you are requesting.

https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=8341114

Peace.

Your link is about worshiping the pope by kissing his feet. The pope is not Jesus Christ even though he thinks that he is. He is just another sinner, a hypocrite sinner just like GT.