The Church Thread: Chapter I Verse I

[JDCrimson]

In my understanding and acceptance...

In the beginning there was God and and He desired a relationship with Man created in his own image. There was already separate, God's Will and Self Will, evidence by the devil, a fallen angel, desiring to be God, was cast down to earth. The bonding of 2 wills is the essence of love. With only one will there is no love. Thus, God is love and desired love himself. It is in Man's nature to ponder and know a higher being.

God and Man were in perfect union in love in the Garden of Eden. That is until, the devil tempted and poisoned man's will with the desire to be all knowing like God.

Sin entered the picture through this tempting. Sin infected Man's will, nature, and environment as Man was the caretaker of the Earth. Sin infects the the smallest element of fiber, thought, action, and event.

God has used several attempts to reconcile Man to him in a loving union. First the flood and then with conclusion the casting of the devil into Hell.

God through Christ has been (and is) the only way to restore us, Man, through our forgiveness and washing away of sin into a loving union with Him. God uses our Sin, the Sin of this world, to turn us back toward a loving union with Him. This, to me, explains the afflictions upon the Egyptians while bonding the Israelites. Before Christ, this atonement was ordered through sacrifice with Christ being the final sacrifice.

The premature death of a child, imo, is a product of our Sin nature and world, not an overt act of God. Believing this way turns us toward God in healing and restoration rather away from God in anger and resentment.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

In my understanding and acceptance...

In the beginning there was God and and He desired a relationship with Man created in his own image. There was already separate, God's Will and Self Will, evidence by the devil, a fallen angel, desiring to be God, was cast down to earth. The bonding of 2 wills is the essence of love. With only one will there is no love. Thus, God is love and desired love himself. It is in Man's nature to ponder and know a higher being.

God and Man were in perfect union in love in the Garden of Eden. That is until, the devil tempted and poisoned man's will with the desire to be all knowing like God.

Sin entered the picture through this tempting. Sin infected Man's will, nature, and environment as Man was the caretaker of the Earth. Sin infects the the smallest element of fiber, thought, action, and event.

God has used several attempts to reconcile Man to him in a loving union. First the flood and then with conclusion the casting of the devil into Hell.

God through Christ has been (and is) the only way to restore us, Man, through our forgiveness and washing away of sin into a loving union with Him. God uses our Sin, the Sin of this world, to turn us back toward a loving union with Him. This, to me, explains the afflictions upon the Egyptians while bonding the Israelites. Before Christ, this atonement was ordered through sacrifice with Christ being the final sacrifice.

The premature death of a child, imo, is a product of our Sin nature and world, not an overt act of God. Believing this way turns us toward God in healing and restoration rather away from God in anger and resentment.

Those who struggle with what God allows and doesn't allow strangely enough don't struggle with God deciding to give them independence to make their own choices. I guess we expect God to give us the ability to make our own choices but to take away any bad consequences from choices we make. How convenient of us. LOL!

"Hey, God, would you mind giving me my own independent will so I can make choices apart from you, but when I make stupid choices that bring bad consequences, can you just fix it like it never happened? That way, I can keep making stupid choices and never have to worry about anything bad happening to me. I really think you owe that to me "

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The most mind numbing thing to me about myself on this whole issue has to be:
a) goes to seminary to be better informed on these issues for 8 years
b) never discusses subjects he learned in seminary ever again (13 years now)

I know this subject isn't about me, but it's one of those things where I USED TO spend literal hours discussing this stuff with people - diplomatically in some cases - and after finishing studying all those things, never opened my mouth about it again.

Caveat before I continue: I am not referring to ANYONE or ANYTHING said in this thread.

Too much, though, particularly in the churches was more of the same type of arguments that are held about politics and, to be blunt, most are BAD FAITH arguments at some level (not all just to be clear). There were times I felt that it was a case of "me, the church attendee is going to square off with the seminary student/graduate and see if I can rattle him." But I also found this: most people have already made their minds up about a subject and no amount of "no, this doesn't work this way" will ever change them. Let me add that this thread has been a healthy and delightful exception to that point.

The number of hours I spent going through the Greek New Testament, parsing nouns/verbs/participles, all that came out of it to be honest with you was the same level of frustration I experienced when I majored in Music as an undergrad: the more you learn about any subject, the more you realize how little you actually know about it.


======================================

Let me give one example about what I mean, one I experienced in church multiple times to the point it left me frustrated, chagrined, and baffled, and it concerns the subject of Calvinism, which almost nobody who pillories REALLY understands beyond verbiage and terms (to be fair, the same can be said about me with, say, Catholicism or Islam....it's just I have the smarts to keep my mouth shut).

One of the five main pillars of Calvinism (in the acronym TULIP) is Limited Atonement, the idea that Jesus ONLY FULL PAID the price of sin and purchased salvation for "the elect" (no, I will not debate that subject at this time). Whether one endorses or rejects that viewpoint is not my concern here, my concern is the METHOD of how this is done.

I grew up (speaking of subjects up for debate) largely among Southern Baptists. And even though a large number of Southern Baptists are totally ignorant of the fact their denomination was largely Calvinistic in its founding (William Carey, one of their best-known missionaries with a seminary named after him, was an unwavering Calvinist), if you want to get an SBC-type really angry, just talk about limited atonement even as a theoretical idea. They will get hostile and utterly enraged over concepts of predestination, election, and limited atonement to the point no discussion is possible. What they almost always show is their American 19th century based denomination's ideas with no critical analysis at all.

Invariably, they will make the assertion that 1 John 2:1-2 says Jesus died "for the whole world." But do you know what they will NOT do?
1) explain what propitiation actually is
2) explain how John uses the word "world" throughout his letters
3) go actually read the mountains of materials Calvinists have written on that subject

More than once I've gotten, "Well, Calvin should have read the Bible in 1 John 2:2." Well, uh, he did and unlike modern folks, he read it in the original language. He wrote quite a bit on it; good look finding it with a search since he mostly wrote before the Bible was broken down by verses in 1551.

I'm not arguing for the viewpoint; I'm arguing against BAD METHODS used to justify viewpoints that are pretty shallow. I understand not everyone is going to be as passionate about the ideas as I once was and that's okay. But I also found that too many times, they WERE passionate as well as arrogant and in all honesty didn't know what they were talking about, too. From the "God wrote the KJV" folks to "Obama is the Antichrist" (or Kissinger/Clinton/etc - my personal favorite being Ronald Wilson Reagan's name was 6 letters-6 letters-6 letters), too many strong viewpoints, not enough humility, which seminary pounded into me ironically.

When my ex and I taught Youth Sunday School, we did the EXACT OPPOSITE of what many religious parents do: we let them ask uncomfortable questions, like how does this line up with the dinosaurs or doesn't the Bible say the earth is 6,000 years old (no, not even close) or how can a loving God send people to eternal Hell yadda yadda. To me, it was like a prosecuting attorney: I'd rather be heard on the subject even if they disagree with me BEFORE some "hey, did you know the bible bans shellfish" snark shows up when they go to college and goes with the old, "All the changes in the Bible" (that don't really amount to a hill of beans and is far overstated).

 

[Padreruf]

And once more Selma has the last word...LOL. Thanks for showing us in vivid fashion the limits of our intelligence.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

And once more Selma has the last word...LOL. Thanks for showing us in vivid fashion the limits of our intelligence.

1 Corinthians 1:20-25

 

[Bamabuzzard]

The most mind numbing thing to me about myself on this whole issue has to be:
a) goes to seminary to be better informed on these issues for 8 years
b) never discusses subjects he learned in seminary ever again (13 years now)

I know this subject isn't about me, but it's one of those things where I USED TO spend literal hours discussing this stuff with people - diplomatically in some cases - and after finishing studying all those things, never opened my mouth about it again.

Caveat before I continue: I am not referring to ANYONE or ANYTHING said in this thread.

Too much, though, particularly in the churches was more of the same type of arguments that are held about politics and, to be blunt, most are BAD FAITH arguments at some level (not all just to be clear). There were times I felt that it was a case of "me, the church attendee is going to square off with the seminary student/graduate and see if I can rattle him." But I also found this: most people have already made their minds up about a subject and no amount of "no, this doesn't work this way" will ever change them. Let me add that this thread has been a healthy and delightful exception to that point.

The number of hours I spent going through the Greek New Testament, parsing nouns/verbs/participles, all that came out of it to be honest with you was the same level of frustration I experienced when I majored in Music as an undergrad: the more you learn about any subject, the more you realize how little you actually know about it.


======================================

Let me give one example about what I mean, one I experienced in church multiple times to the point it left me frustrated, chagrined, and baffled, and it concerns the subject of Calvinism, which almost nobody who pillories REALLY understands beyond verbiage and terms (to be fair, the same can be said about me with, say, Catholicism or Islam....it's just I have the smarts to keep my mouth shut).

One of the five main pillars of Calvinism (in the acronym TULIP) is Limited Atonement, the idea that Jesus ONLY FULL PAID the price of sin and purchased salvation for "the elect" (no, I will not debate that subject at this time). Whether one endorses or rejects that viewpoint is not my concern here, my concern is the METHOD of how this is done.

I grew up (speaking of subjects up for debate) largely among Southern Baptists. And even though a large number of Southern Baptists are totally ignorant of the fact their denomination was largely Calvinistic in its founding (William Carey, one of their best-known missionaries with a seminary named after him, was an unwavering Calvinist), if you want to get an SBC-type really angry, just talk about limited atonement even as a theoretical idea. They will get hostile and utterly enraged over concepts of predestination, election, and limited atonement to the point no discussion is possible. What they almost always show is their American 19th century based denomination's ideas with no critical analysis at all.

Invariably, they will make the assertion that 1 John 2:1-2 says Jesus died "for the whole world." But do you know what they will NOT do?
1) explain what propitiation actually is
2) explain how John uses the word "world" throughout his letters
3) go actually read the mountains of materials Calvinists have written on that subject

More than once I've gotten, "Well, Calvin should have read the Bible in 1 John 2:2." Well, uh, he did and unlike modern folks, he read it in the original language. He wrote quite a bit on it; good look finding it with a search since he mostly wrote before the Bible was broken down by verses in 1551.

I'm not arguing for the viewpoint; I'm arguing against BAD METHODS used to justify viewpoints that are pretty shallow. I understand not everyone is going to be as passionate about the ideas as I once was and that's okay. But I also found that too many times, they WERE passionate as well as arrogant and in all honesty didn't know what they were talking about, too. From the "God wrote the KJV" folks to "Obama is the Antichrist" (or Kissinger/Clinton/etc - my personal favorite being Ronald Wilson Reagan's name was 6 letters-6 letters-6 letters), too many strong viewpoints, not enough humility, which seminary pounded into me ironically.

When my ex and I taught Youth Sunday School, we did the EXACT OPPOSITE of what many religious parents do: we let them ask uncomfortable questions, like how does this line up with the dinosaurs or doesn't the Bible say the earth is 6,000 years old (no, not even close) or how can a loving God send people to eternal Hell yadda yadda. To me, it was like a prosecuting attorney: I'd rather be heard on the subject even if they disagree with me BEFORE some "hey, did you know the bible bans shellfish" snark shows up when they go to college and goes with the old, "All the changes in the Bible" (that don't really amount to a hill of beans and is far overstated).

Great post, Selma. The last bolded item confuses me as well. I've heard from detractors of the Bible about "all the changes," yet when I research them, they don't amount to a hill of beans and are inconsequential. So I'm not sure what I'm missing or they're missing.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

And once more Selma has the last word...LOL. Thanks for showing us in vivid fashion the limits of our intelligence.

I hope I don't generalize too much but SO MUCH of Bible study/discussion/reading and sharing honestly seems to turn into people reading a legal document in the small print and looking for some loophole. I'm not referring to private study so much as group dynamics.

I attended my ex-mother-in-law's funeral last February and had the misfortune of sitting down with her husband of the last 35 years of her life who wanted to argue over what the Bible says (or doesn't say) about drinking. He was 79 (he's 80 now), obviously had suffered a big loss and suffers the "baggage" (tongue in cheek) of a Roman Catholic upbringing in south Louisiana in the 50s. (We ALL have baggage, folks, no offense is intended).

He wanted to argue over when Jesus turned the water into wine (John 2) and something not covered at all, the alcoholic content. This guy never asks a question without wanting to argue, which is why I never liked going to see him, but you're stuck with family and it's a funeral. And I'm TRYING to be kind because I know everyone is under stress.

So I made the mistake of being intellectually honest. I made the point that YES, it was wine, but it should also be noted that the wine content of that particular time was substantially diluted with about 15 parts water. It wasn't some lethal level of alcoholic content but it also was NOT grape juice. And he then began to argue like every fundamentalist you've ever known, "Well, it doesn't say that anywhere!" Why would it? John wrote that in the first century when they knew this, so why would have to mention something like that just because a dunderhead in the 21st century didn't know it?

He got wound up over what to me is nothing, and I just let it go. He DID apologize later, which was rare, but this is my point: the whole conversation was stupid and started by his own motivational fallacy of "all these idiots around here who are in my Baptist church are WRONG when they say thou shalt not drink."


It got to where my DISCUSSION of theology sets right alongside "discussions" of abortion - everyone has made up their minds and its more a case of who thinks their point quicker to get the "you're no Jack Kennedy" moment than it is an honest, truth seeking journey.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Great post, Selma. The last bolded item confuses me as well. I've heard from detractors of the Bible about "all the changes," yet when I research them, they don't amount to a hill of beans and are inconsequential. So I'm not sure what I'm missing or they're missing.

I don't think you're missing anything - provided you know about it.

I think what causes the problem is that the flashpoint of argument for skeptics and believers both concerns the Bible itself, which makes sense since the existence of God cannot be proven nor disproven by empirical means (it all comes down to deductions). So both sides IN GENERAL (in America anyway) focus upon the "inerrancy" of the Bible to prove their point, which in all honesty I consider both ill-informed and a mistake. After all, let's ASSUME the English Bible had nothing that seemed to contradict or be in error; do you REALLY believe for one moment the skeptic is going to be satisfied? No, because the next step in that argument is to say, "Well, there are plenty of textbooks with no errors but that doesn't make them authoritative or inspired!"

And here's a brutal truth: the average "Christian" has no idea about how we got the Bible or the process involved or the reality of humans being involved with the process both of writing and distributing. If - like me - you grew up with a KJV that had no notes or footnotes, you just read it and hope to apply it. Then you get an updated one or a different version and you have little notes at the end of Mark or at 1 John 5:7 (my thesis was on that). And that becomes the introduction to "someone changed the Bible." And the fond claim is to say there were over 400,000 changes in the manuscripts we now have (a little less than 6K Greek, over 8K Latin - but most are nowhere close to complete copies). Well, yeah, because some use the nomina sacra and shorten THEOS (God) to TS and most are spelling errors or words out of order. (True story: I was collating Philippians 1 about 15 years ago, and the manuscript I had had inverted what are now called verses 16 and 17, all because of a concept called homoioteleuton, where a line ends with the same word as another one and the scribe's eye jumps down and picks it up at the wrong place. Every word was there, it was just out of order).

Skeptics (tend to) overstate the problems of (seeming, maybe?) contradictions in the Bible while believers (tend to) minimize or deny them. Let's face it: most of the so-called changes don't amount to anything at all, a point even Ehrman concedes. But I also don't think we help ourselves by denying there are at a minimum some tensions that aren't easily resolved. And in the end, even perfect resolution to every problem is not going to make any skeptic say, "Wow, I'm convinced, God exists" - not on the basis of a written text.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Fatalism and Free Will: How Good Friday Changed Everything | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

I am sure some philosopher much brainier than me has worked this all out, but it occurs to me that before Good Friday the world was different. Yes, we use religious language and say, "Mankind was locked in sin" and "Jesus died to save us from our sins" but for many people these religious phrases

dwightlongenecker.com

Happy Good Friday, all! I found this article this morning and I felt it was good enough to share!

 

[CrimsonJazz]

The Papal Conclave Is A Battle For Western Civilization

On one side are the aging liberal revolutionaries. On the other side are faithful cardinals determined to protect the Catholic faith.

thefederalist.com

What’s certain, however, is that the conclave will be a contest between two competing visions of Catholicism. On one side are the aging liberal boomers, who came up in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council and whose vision for the church is decidedly modern. They think everything that came before Vatican II is bad and that ripping out the altar rails, selling off the icons, and banning Gregorian chant and polyphony in favor of tambourines and guitars was a great improvement. They believe in erasing the differences between the laity and clergy, ignoring or destroying Sacred Tradition, and deemphasizing or outright denying the reality of sin. Francis was one of them, and there are many others in the College of Cardinals. They have done their work with zeal, and much has been lost.

It remains to be seen whether the meeting represented a reconciliation. There’s no doubt, however, that the liberalism of Francis is passing away. In almost every way, Francis during his 12-year pontificate became the living representative of post-Vatican II Catholicism. He was decidedly more concerned with globalist liberal priorities like climate change and mass migration than with defending the hard lines of the Catholic faith against a world that would like nothing more than to blur or erase them altogether. Indeed, he himself often blurred those lines with imprecise or reckless comments — about gay marriage, about the moral standing of Catholic politicians who promote abortion, about Catholic tradition and teaching itself. His vehement attacks on the Traditional Latin Mass and the young, conservative-minded Catholics who are drawn to it set Francis against what is obviously the future of the church.

In America, somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 adults were baptized into the Catholic Church at Easter this year. Record numbers were baptized in France. In England, Catholics now outnumber Anglicans. These converts are coming not because of hazy liberal nostrums about “accompaniment” or “synodality” but because they’re drawn to what they believe is the solid and unchanging truth of the Catholic faith. Many of them were inspired by the Traditional Latin Mass that Francis so despised. They are the future of the Catholic Church.

Fascinating article here. I knew that there was an ongoing resurgence among the younger set in this country, but I had no idea that this was happening in France and England, too. In any case, I found this article to be rather thought-provoking. I can understand why non-Catholic Christians might collectively shrug their shoulders over the conclave, but I can also understand why they might be watching with intense interest as well. This could have a legitimate impact on the West as a whole.

 

[Padreruf]

The Papal Conclave Is A Battle For Western Civilization

On one side are the aging liberal revolutionaries. On the other side are faithful cardinals determined to protect the Catholic faith.

thefederalist.com

Fascinating article here. I knew that there was an ongoing resurgence among the younger set in this country, but I had no idea that this was happening in France and England, too. In any case, I found this article to be rather thought-provoking. I can understand why non-Catholic Christians might collectively shrug their shoulders over the conclave, but I can also understand why they might be watching with intense interest as well. This could have a legitimate impact on the West as a whole.

I found this article to be written from a perspective that is partial to the author's belief and bears little or nothing of editorial non-partisanship. The info I have seen credits the rebirth of the Catholic Church to the immigration of Hispanic Catholics, not to some resurgence among lapsed or new believers. He categorizes Pope Francis in such pejorative terms as to make him unrecognizable in the greater world. I suppose he would want Pope Benedict to return -- he left because the church was dying under his leadership.

I do believe that having the depth and mooring of a historic religious perspective is essential to a solid moral, spiritual and mental foundation and a successful life. However, maintaining the icons of the past and trying to infuse them with meaning has never worked well from what I have seen.

I realize that this is neither my war nor my battle. However, when I read something as distorted as this I have to respond. He is correct about one thing: this will be an election that sets the tone for the future of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

I found this article to be written from a perspective that is partial to the author's belief and bears little or nothing of editorial non-partisanship. The info I have seen credits the rebirth of the Catholic Church to the immigration of Hispanic Catholics, not to some resurgence among lapsed or new believers. He categorizes Pope Francis in such pejorative terms as to make him unrecognizable in the greater world. I suppose he would want Pope Benedict to return -- he left because the church was dying under his leadership.

Perhaps from a North American stance, but that doesn't explain what is happening in France or England. Nor does it explain the sudden popularity of the traditional Latin mass. Truth be told, the church has been dying a slow death for years and there is no singular cause. The sex scandal was certainly a huge part, as has been the modernization movement pointed out in the article. Christianity in general is not doing particularly well world-wide and clearly bending the fabric of the faith itself toward secularization has done nothing to help. I maintain it has actually contributed to the problem, but that's just my opinion.

I do believe that having the depth and mooring of a historic religious perspective is essential to a solid moral, spiritual and mental foundation and a successful life. However, maintaining the icons of the past and trying to infuse them with meaning has never worked well from what I have seen.

Interesting point. I wonder if you might expand on this a little. One of the most beautiful things you will ever see is an old-style mass where the incense is going and sacred music is being sung. Exposure to the non-denominational store-front churches that used to be grocery stores really turned me off. I get it, some people get more out of guitars and tambourines and I say go with what works for you. It just isn't for me and never will be.

I realize that this is neither my war nor my battle. However, when I read something as distorted as this I have to respond. He is correct about one thing: this will be an election that sets the tone for the future of the Roman Catholic Church.

Perhaps or perhaps as the author believes, it could set the tone for much more. Let us say that someone is elected who really knows how to kick the church back into gear. This sort of thing is contagious, you know. If Catholics worldwide really catch fire, look for a lot of that renewed faith and excitement to start catching with the non-Catholic brethren as well.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Christianity in general is not doing particularly well world-wide

Small point of correction - Christianity is actually growing rapidly world wide, it's just not doing particularly well in 'historically Christian' western Europe or the US.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Small point of correction - Christianity is actually growing rapidly world wide, it's just not doing particularly well in 'historically Christian' western Europe or the US.

Fair point. In Africa, Christianity is spreading fast, but persecution is very high in some places.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Small point of correction - Christianity is actually growing rapidly world wide, it's just not doing particularly well in 'historically Christian' western Europe or the US.

Yes, globally Christianity is growing at a rapid pace. The places the U.S. has historically sent missionaries to are now sending missionaries to the U.S. How ironic...

 

[oldtimetider]

I've enjoyed the sharings here. In my own journey of seeking, I've found that the only thing I feel certain about is my own uncertainty. It strikes me that I have long sought answers to questions that simply may be unanswerable in this life. I've gradually become more comfortable with that.... coming to terms with the idea that it's okay not to know, particularly in regards to "why" questions.
Along tbose lines, I've recently considered that the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" in today's times may be our screens. We go to our screens for validation and the algorythms feed us information that is prefiltered through the lens of our own opinions. We come away feeling entirely too certain and struggle to avoid becoming judmental because of it. Maybe.

 

[Crimson1967]

Yes, globally Christianity is growing at a rapid pace. The places the U.S. has historically sent missionaries to are now sending missionaries to the U.S. How ironic...

Many think the next pope will be African due to the church’s reach there.

 

[Crimson1967]

The Papal Conclave Is A Battle For Western Civilization

On one side are the aging liberal revolutionaries. On the other side are faithful cardinals determined to protect the Catholic faith.

thefederalist.com

Fascinating article here. I knew that there was an ongoing resurgence among the younger set in this country, but I had no idea that this was happening in France and England, too. In any case, I found this article to be rather thought-provoking. I can understand why non-Catholic Christians might collectively shrug their shoulders over the conclave, but I can also understand why they might be watching with intense interest as well. This could have a legitimate impact on the West as a whole.

I’m not Catholic but the whole process fascinates me. I am a history buff and the deep history of the Catholic Church and its traditions are interesting to me. Much like the royal family in England, not something that I am a part of but it’s hard to ignore the rich history.

The next pope will be the latest in a long line going back to the first one who was commissioned by Jesus himself. Can’t beat that.

 

[Padreruf]

I’m not Catholic but the whole process fascinates me. I am a history buff and the deep history of the Catholic Church and its traditions are interesting to me. Much like the royal family in England, not something that I am a part of but it’s hard to ignore the rich history.

The next pope will be the latest in a long line going back to the first one who was commissioned by Jesus himself. Can’t beat that.

Possibly...will respond to that and CrimsonJazz request later...suffice it to say that in an age of dramatic change such as we are experiencing, we all need an anchor to keep us moored. I have found that historic faith (not knowledge) and trust in Christ does that for me. Following the way of Christ (discipleship) is the key..."He who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes." D. Bonhoeffer.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

I’m not Catholic but the whole process fascinates me. I am a history buff and the deep history of the Catholic Church and its traditions are interesting to me. Much like the royal family in England, not something that I am a part of but it’s hard to ignore the rich history.

The next pope will be the latest in a long line going back to the first one who was commissioned by Jesus himself. Can’t beat that.

I'm fascinated by their traditions and process as well but, just out of curiosity. It is one reason why I really enjoyed the movie "Conclave", even though it takes some dramatic liberties with the process.

I also believe that many of these traditions are not Biblical or a stretch of scripture teachings. Catholicism still maintains that anyone who rejects the authority of the Pope is cursed to hell. That is not biblical at all. The Bible teaches that faith in Jesus Christ is all that is needed to be redeemed and spend eternity in Heaven. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you must also believe in a man elected to his position by other men.

While they fascinate me, I also think some of their traditions are borderline crazy. Like the way they put Mary on a pedestal, believing she lived a sinless life when there is no Biblical evidence to support that belief. The Bible is pretty clear that Jesus is the only one to lead a sinless life. During the life of Jesus, he accused the Pharisees of upholding their traditions and rituals over scripture. I think many of the rituals and traditions in the Catholic church do the same thing where adherence to those rituals is almost more important than belief in Jesus.

Here is one article, of many that you can find online, that tries to answer the question through scripture. What does the Bible say about the pope / papacy? | GotQuestions.org