Vatican: Non-Catholics 'wounded' by not recognizing pope

[dswoodley]

Evidently, the Roman Catholic leadership continues to not grasp some of the finer points of why the Reformation happened. Not that I expect a different point of view from the Catholic Church, but why even bring this up and make an issue of it, nearly 500 years after millions of Catholics told the Pope to stuff it.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html

"The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ.

The Vatican said other churches are "wounded" since they do not recognize the primacy of the pope.

A 16-page document, prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict used to head, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a "wound" since they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.

But the document said the "wound is still more profound" in the Protestant denominations -- a view likely to further complicate relations with Protestants.

"Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them," it said.

The Vatican text, which restates the controversial document "Dominus Iesus" issued by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2000, said the Church wanted to stress this point because some Catholic theologians continued to misunderstand it.

Ratzinger was elected Pope in April 2005. The document is his second strong reaffirmation of Catholic tradition in four days, following a decree on Saturday restoring the old Latin Mass alongside the modern liturgy.

The document stressed that dialogue with other Christians remained "one of the priorities of the Catholic Church."

The document, issued by Benedict's successor in doctrinal matters, Cardinal William Levada, complemented the Latin Mass decree in aiming to correct what it called "erroneous or ambiguous" interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which took place from 1962 to 1965.

Church modernizers interpreted the Council as a break from the past while conservatives, like Benedict, see it in continuity with 2,000 years of Catholic tradition.

The document said the Council's opening to other faiths recognized there were "many elements of sanctification and truth" in other Christian denominations, but stressed only Catholicism had all the elements to be Christ's Church fully.

The text refers to "ecclesial communities originating from the Reformation," a term used to refer to Protestants and Anglicans. Father Augustine Di Noia, under-secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the document did not alter the commitment for ecumenical dialogue, but aimed to assert Catholic identity in those talks.

"The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment," Di Noia told Vatican radio.

"But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be." "

[FFTT]

What a bunch of self delusional lies.

All they want is to keep the collection plate filled.

[Lau]

I'm a non-catholic and I recognise the pope. He's the dude in the hat. :)

[iSaint]

The Vatican said other churches are "wounded" since they do not recognize the primacy of the pope.



As I understand, Jesus loves the wounded. ;)

[srf4real]

I'm a non-catholic and I recognise the pope. He's the dude in the hat. :)
Lol! I never could get into all of that middle-man pope, Mary, saint this and that, stuff. It's like street level drugs... stepped on so many times that there's hardly any product left in it for the little guy. It is much better to know the source!;)

[joekix]

as the late richard jeni said, "fighting over religion, is like fighting over who has the better imaginary friend." :D

[joepunk]

*hears a shot in the dark*

Oh they got me...

*clutches hands over heart*

...in...in the leg

[kretzy]

Well I'm Ukrainian Catholic (apparently) and I don't really have any time for the notion of Papacy. I especially don't like this new one. The previous one seemed like a nice guy at least and it was evident he did a lot of good.

The idea that someone who has committed their life to a faith which preaches giving everything to the poor and living a humble existence and yet they live so opulently just seems wrong.

Anways, more to the point...many of the Eastern rite Catholic Churches were really Orthodox but due historical event many affiliated themselves with the Roman Catholic Church for mostly political reasons. Because of this I don't think the Pope's ever had that much of a following in that part of the world. That being said I don't think anyone's been "wounded" by not recognising him.

[nbs2]

I don't think the statement is too far off. Taking the divinity of Christ as a base, you have have a conundrum for most Protestants. Either the RC church was the church of Christ or it wasn't.

If it was - then the Reformation was a split from the truth and the churches that grew out of it can contain only partial truth as none of them have all the truth of the RC.

If it wasn't - then the Reformation was a split from a false church that had none of the authority of Christ. And if you derive your authority and divine nature from something which isn't divine...well 50% of 0 is still 0.

So, under the expected presumption by the RC authorities that the RC church is true, it's understandable that the Protestant churches would be wounded. I'm surprised they felt that they needed to bother putting it in writing...

[srf4real]

Religion is for people who are scared of going to hell... true faith in Christ is for those who've already been there.:cool:

[xsedrinam]

Further pontification does little to prevent sinking into the quicksand of irrelevance. The Roman Catholic Church is trying to avoid the inevitable and, in releasing such statements, only contributes to the disconnect. Kiss the ring of the Pope, or face being deemed as wounded? By whom and for whom? Let he who is without stones cast the first sin.

[aquajet]

Kiss the ring of the Pope, or face being deemed as wounded?

Seems to me, this is bordering on idolatry, if not outrightly so. And we all know how God feels about that...

[SMM]

Further pontification does little to prevent sinking into the quicksand of irrelevance. The Roman Catholic Church is trying to avoid the inevitable and, in releasing such statements, only contributes to the disconnect. Kiss the ring of the Pope, or face being deemed as wounded? By whom and for whom? Let he who is without stones cast the first sin.

I was going to blow-thru your post (after reading it) but decided to post under it.

I was raised in the Catholic Church. I went to Catholic school, and was even an alterboy. It has been so long ago, Mass was in Latin. I liked the antiquity of the Church. I liked knowing it was the original Christian church, and that gave it special status (to me back then). I used to love the high mass being sang in Latin. It really was a beautiful experience for a young person.

As I reached puberty, things changed. First of all, I was kicked out of Catholic school (something about dogshit in a girls purse). Then the mass went to english. All of a sudden, it lost all of it luster.

I can understand why others may still feel the attraction. I can also imagine the church leadership wanting to re-capture the attraction of what the church once had. Maybe it still has it, but not as much in America? I do not know.

[xsedrinam]

I was going to blow-thru your post (after reading it) but decided to post under it.
With that, you've already placed yourself in a small minority of MR of posters. :)

I was raised in the Catholic Church. I went to Catholic school, and was even an alterboy. It has been so long ago, Mass was in Latin. I liked the antiquity of the Church. I liked knowing it was the original Christian church, and that gave it special status (to me back then). I used to love the high mass being sang in Latin. It really was a beautiful experience for a young person.
Status and its exclusive, self propagating religious system seemed to be the very thing which vexed the Jesus of the N.T. record, if I recall correctly.


As I reached puberty, things changed. First of all, I was kicked out of Catholic school (something about dogshit in a girls purse). Then the mass went to english. All of a sudden, it lost all of it luster.
Was the lackluster the result that you now understood what was being said, and didn't buy into it? Or was it that you had simply bought in to the packaging and never examined the contents? I'm not being smug or attempting to be patronizingly cute here.

This has to be to some degree the rationale behind RC's decline and their desperation to reinforce positions with regard to:

•authority
•redefining the priesthood
•condoms and birth control
•homosexuality
•the role of women in the Church


I can understand why others may still feel the attraction. I can also imagine the church leadership wanting to re-capture the attraction of what the church once had. Maybe it still has it, but not as much in America? I do not know.
Thus my use of the term "irrelevant". Any post modern organization, religious or not, whose memories are greater than their dreams is a generation away from extinction.

[Queso]

Seems to me, this is bordering on idolatry, if not outrightly so. And we all know how God feels about that...
I've always wondered about how the idolatry of the Catholic Church gets past their doctrine filter. Not only do their churches all have statues of Christ, statues of the Virgin Mary and even sometimes statues of various saints, but you'll even see people kneeling before them offering prayers. This to me makes the Church polytheistic in nature, which surely goes completely against the first commandment. Or does the Trinity, in itself just a clever way of getting around the polytheism charge, now extend into Mary, St. Peter, Mother Teresa etc.?

However, considering this is religion we're talking about, my expecting any form of reason or logic out of it is probably asking too much. All I know for certain is the time I visited the Vatican, the massive concentration of wealth on display quite sickened me, even surpassing the feelings of revulsion British Cathedrals inspire.

[FFTT]

In a time where religious extremism is causing so much misery, this
official statement from the Catholic church just adds fuel to the fire.

The Roman Catholic Church was never the TRUE church of Jesus Christ.

[arkitect]

A 16-page document, prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict used to head, etc etc"

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or as it used to be known: Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition

Inquisition… see also under: Heresy, Torture, Torquemada, Burning at the stake, Trial of Galileo…

Oh yes, "new" pope Benedict ex head of the Inquisition. No wonder the "true" church is taking a few steps back toward the Middle Ages

[dswoodley]

In a time where religious extremism is causing so much misery, this
official statement from the Catholic church just adds fuel to the fire.

The Roman Catholic Church was never the TRUE church of Jesus Christ.

Agreed, I don't think it's man's place to make or offer that judgment. It sounds pretty desperate to me. I am married to catholic and go to catholic mass every week (I'm a methodist). Can't wait to hear this weekend how I am less of a christian.

[nbs2]

Agreed, I don't think it's man's place to make offer that judgment. It sounds pretty desperate to me. I am married to catholic and go to catholic mass every week (I'm a methodist). Can't wait to hear this weekend how I am less of a christian.

Meh, it's not that bad. I'm used to hearing that from the Methodists.;)

[pseudobrit]

The Roman Catholic Church was never the TRUE church of Jesus Christ.

:rolleyes:

[skunk]

In a spot of linguistic irony, the French for "wounded" is "blessé".

[dswoodley]

In a spot of linguistic irony, the French for "wounded" is "blessé".

Count me blessé then!

[adrianblaine]

Agreed, I don't think it's man's place to make or offer that judgment. It sounds pretty desperate to me. I am married to catholic and go to catholic mass every week (I'm a methodist). Can't wait to hear this weekend how I am less of a christian.

That's the crazy part. It may not be man's place to make that judgment, but it is the Pope's apparently.

Makes no sense to me. Personally I don't ever remember reading Christ saying he left a human in charge while He is gone...

I definitely am not of the opinion that Catholics are not based on at least part truth, but I also think no Christian based religion has everything right.

[dswoodley]

That's the crazy part. It may not be man's place to make that judgment, but it is the Pope's apparently.

Makes no sense to me. Personally I don't ever remember reading Christ saying he left a human in charge while He is gone...

I definitely am not of the opinion that Catholics are not based on at least part truth, but I also think no Christian based religion has everything right.

For centuries Catholics pointed to the Saint Peter/Rock thing to defend the Pope's authority, but even they back off of it to some degree nowadays.

[adrianblaine]

For centuries Catholics pointed to the Saint Peter/Rock thing to defend the Pope's authority, but even they back off of it to some degree nowadays.

Yeah, I know the text.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

But it seems a long shot to use this one sentence to justify the authority of the Pope. Also, from what I've learned, Peter comes from the Greek word for rock (petra), but that the word Christ used to describe the "rock" He will build His church on is closer to the word for pebble.

[dswoodley]

Yeah, I know the text.



But it seems a long shot to use this one sentence to justify the authority of the Pope. Also, from what I've learned, Peter comes from the Greek word for rock (petra), but that the word Christ used to describe the "rock" He will build His church on is closer to the word for pebble.

It loses something going from the orginal sentence construction to the modern translation, but one theory is Peter and "the rock" are interchangably the same. He was refering to Peter both times.

[xsedrinam]

In a spot of linguistic irony, the French for "wounded" is "blessé".

Blessé me, father, for I have sinned. With the same French irony applied, would granting absolution involve a franchise? :D

[nbs2]

That's the crazy part. It may not be man's place to make that judgment, but it is the Pope's apparently.

Makes no sense to me. Personally I don't ever remember reading Christ saying he left a human in charge while He is gone...

I definitely am not of the opinion that Catholics are not based on at least part truth, but I also think no Christian based religion has everything right.

Can't address the last part and the first seems to have already been discussed. As for the middle -

There is some argument that there was authority. First you have the Great Commission - Christ sent his disciples to preach unto all the world (or some similar phraseology). On top of that, there are various parts of Acts (especially) that indicate that certain followers of Christ had authority to act in his name and to perform works. Certainly Paul could be argued to have had the authority to govern much of the church, as his letters of counsel to many of the various "churches" (branches all adhering to central tenants) indicate that he had a level of spiritual authority beyond those held by the locals.

So, while there is no direct statement of "Hey James, watch this place until I get back," it can be inferred. Then again, for any Christian to argue that all the important things that Jesus said he could have said in a little over half an hour is strange enough - yet most of them do.:rolleyes: Seriously, one day find a book with everything Jesus said in the four gospels. Even with the overlap, if you read his statements, you should be done in under 30 minutes...

[mpw]

I'm a non-catholic and I recognise the pope. He's the dude in the hat. :)
:D Oh well done, I saw this thread and felt my blood start to boil with my dislike of bible-bashing numpties and you managed to totally defuse this situation before I had a chance to rant.

[srf4real]

Wounded? Yeah, just like Christ was wounded by the Jews.

[Mr. Anderson]

Regardless of the philosophical debate on this whole issue, my first reaction was "where are they going with this and what are they trying to prove?" Taking a hard line on who's in the club and who's not doesn't make much sense today - they're not going to scare people into returning to the true faith this way and only widen the rift between all the Christian faiths. Bleh...

D

[adrianblaine]

There is some argument that there was authority. First you have the Great Commission - Christ sent his disciples to preach unto all the world (or some similar phraseology). On top of that, there are various parts of Acts (especially) that indicate that certain followers of Christ had authority to act in his name and to perform works. Certainly Paul could be argued to have had the authority to govern much of the church, as his letters of counsel to many of the various "churches" (branches all adhering to central tenants) indicate that he had a level of spiritual authority beyond those held by the locals.

So, while there is no direct statement of "Hey James, watch this place until I get back," it can be inferred. Then again, for any Christian to argue that all the important things that Jesus said he could have said in a little over half an hour is strange enough - yet most of them do.:rolleyes: Seriously, one day find a book with everything Jesus said in the four gospels. Even with the overlap, if you read his statements, you should be done in under 30 minutes...

I agree with what you wrote and it makes sense. My only "beef" with the Pope is, while Christ may have left people "in charge" (in a way), he did not give them authority, for example, to excommunicate someone. I believe that is not for a human to decide, yet the Pope supposedly has this power. My personal belief is that some Popes won't be in heaven, and some who've been "excommunicated" will be there. "Belonging" to a certain church doesn't mean anything in the end IMO.

[mpw]

..."Belonging" to a certain church doesn't mean anything in the end IMO.

I totally agree with you 100%.... except the bit about there being a God and stuff.

[adrianblaine]

I totally agree with you 100%.... except the bit about there being a God and stuff.

Don't tell the Pope that, or you might be more than wounded ;)

[FFTT]

Take the top 10 Christian, Jew and Muslim leaders and lock them in a padded cell and be done with it.

[xsedrinam]

Seriously, one day find a book with everything Jesus said in the four gospels. Even with the overlap, if you read his statements, you should be done in under 30 minutes...
Which serves to illustrate he wasn't a politician. ;)

[66217]

My only "beef" with the Pope is, while Christ may have left people "in charge" (in a way), he did not give them authority, for example, to excommunicate someone. I believe that is not for a human to decide, yet the Pope supposedly has this power. My personal belief is that some Popes won't be in heaven, and some who've been "excommunicated" will be there.

When Jesus instituted the sacrament of forgiveness, he said:

“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that 'by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:15-18).

So he do gave the authority for the disciples (what we could call now the priests) to or to not forgive sins.

And it could be taken for granted that some Popes aren't in heaven, specially the ones of the Middle-Age, they were quite barbaric ones.
And also being excommunicated doesn't means you'll go to hell, it only means you are no longer part of the Catholic Church. You don't need to be catholic to go to heaven.

Obviously, this would seem as pure **** to anyone who does not believes in God, but this the point of view of catholics.;)

[adrianblaine]

And also being excommunicated doesn't means you'll go to hell, it only means you are no longer part of the Catholic Church. You don't need to be catholic to go to heaven.

I am sorry if I misunderstood. I'm used to some people (of my own religion) saying that if you aren't part of the "correct" religion, you won't be going to heaven (which I think is ludicrous), so I guess I thought other religions, or their parishioners thought that as well.


So he do gave the authority for the disciples (what we could call now the priests) to or to not forgive sins.


To me it sounds like we all are able to forgive each other, not certain people. Almost all other texts that talk about forgiveness refer to receiving through Jesus.

[66217]

I am sorry if I misunderstood. I'm used to some people (of my own religion) saying that if you aren't part of the "correct" religion, you won't be going to heaven (which I think is ludicrous), so I guess I thought other religions, or their parishioners thought that as well.

Us Catholics don't believe that you can only go to heaven if you are catholic. We do believe it makes things simpler, and that we are the ONE church Jesus founded, but not that if you aren't catholic you are going to hell.

To me it sounds like we all are able to forgive each other, not certain people. Almost all other texts that talk about forgiveness refer to receiving through Jesus.

With forgiveness I meant the Sacrament of Forgiveness (not really sure what is the correct name for it in english). Priests represent Jesus, that's why you go to them for confession.

[adrianblaine]

Us Catholics don't believe that you can only go to heaven if you are catholic. We do believe it makes things simpler, and that we are the ONE church Jesus founded, but not that if you aren't catholic you are going to hell.

I thought I had heard something like this though. I'm sure every religion has something like this buried somewhere...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

"In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

I'm not saying every catholic believes this 100%, but I do have a hard time thinking any religion can proclaim this, simply because I don't think any Christian religion is (exactly) right.


With forgiveness I meant the Sacrament of Forgiveness (not really sure what is the correct name for it in english). Priests represent Jesus, that's why you go to them for confession.

I think it is the Sacrament of Penance. I've just grown up with a different view of it, that's all. I do know confessing to even just a friend helps in many ways. Adds some accountability and makes me not want to do it again...

[Queso]

The letters of Paul do not automatically confer special status on him. I'm sure the various early church groups all wrote letters to each other, but Paul's location in Rome meant his version of the religion was more likely to be adopted by the Empire, since it granted prominence to the Imperial capital. Had he been in Corinth and someone else in Rome, we most likely would never have heard of him.

On a related note as a matter of interest, what justification does the Catholic Church use for the location of the Vatican? Why isn't it in Jerusalem for example?

[nbs2]

The letters of Paul do not automatically confer special status on him. I'm sure the various early church groups all wrote letters to each other, but Paul's location in Rome meant his version of the religion was more likely to be adopted by the Empire, since it granted prominence to the Imperial capital. Had he been in Corinth and someone else in Rome, we most likely would never have heard of him.

On a related note as a matter of interest, what justification does the Catholic Church use for the location of the Vatican? Why isn't it in Jerusalem for example?

I think his location in Rome did assist Paul, and it's place of centralized power may have been one of the primary reasons for moving it to Rome (plus Jerusalem was leveled by Nero).

But, going through Acts and some of the letters, you see evidence of his authority. The letters could be discounted, since he wrote them (or at least dictated), but Acts indicates that Paul held something of a higher authority than others. I think the general understanding is that Paul was responsible for much of the teaching and correcting in the early church. Wheil he may have taught, for him to correct would indicate authority would need to be given him somehow (remember that he was very much anti-Christian when we first meet him as Saul).

I'm sure that all the churches wrote letters to each other, but Paul seems to have been the source of guidance, often bucking the status quo enough that his counsel may have (in a short term view) hurt the church more than it helped. The Romans, for example, were cool with the Jews, but in working to push off vestiges of Judaism, Christianity became more a seperate religion - and a non-approved by Rome one at that. Regardless of how it's romanticized, the reason Christians were fed to the lions wasn't because they were Christians - it was because the religion wasn't approved and therefore was automatically classified as a subversive group. All the subversives got killed.

[66217]

I'm not saying every catholic believes this 100%, but I do have a hard time thinking any religion can proclaim this, simply because I don't think any Christian religion is (exactly) right.


...would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

The part where it says refuse is of great importance here.

Not being part of certain society doesn't means you are refusing to be part of it.

The Catholic Church would never say that someone is in Hell, never. What we have are saints, who are people who are in Heaven.

I found this statement from the Pope:
In his general audience on November 30, Pope Benedict XVI said that whoever "seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent," will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith ("Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope," Zenit, Nov. 30).

[skunk]

I think his location in Rome did assist Paul, and it's place of centralized power may have been one of the primary reasons for moving it to Rome (plus Jerusalem was leveled by Nero).Jerusalem was levelled not by Nero, but by Titus, after Nero's death. Why Rome was chosen was clearly because the chief religious officer of the Empire (curiously enough called the Pontifex Maximus or "chief bridgemaker") was based in Rome. Though Peter was the first Christian to adopt the title, it seems to have stuck with the office ever since.

[killerrobot]

I've just got problems all over the place with this article...

First, find the word Catholic in the Bible. Doesn't exist because JC didn't found the Catholic Church, nor did Peter or any of the other "disciples" because they were all persecuted and died and/or were killed shortly after while predicating Christ's teachings.

Even if it were linked somehow, find the word Pope in the Bible. That idea didn't even exist until the fifth century AD. On top of it, doesn't it seem odd that the Pope is elected by other people and not God?

Not trying to slam anyone's religion, just venting because the Pope just called all other religions false. Not really going to help out the whole world peace situation with that kind of attitude. Maybe, with the help of GW Bush, he can start another crusade.:rolleyes:

[imac/cheese]

The letters of Paul do not automatically confer special status on him. I'm sure the various early church groups all wrote letters to each other, but Paul's location in Rome meant his version of the religion was more likely to be adopted by the Empire, since it granted prominence to the Imperial capital. Had he been in Corinth and someone else in Rome, we most likely would never have heard of him.

On a related note as a matter of interest, what justification does the Catholic Church use for the location of the Vatican? Why isn't it in Jerusalem for example?

Paul was not in Rome when he wrote the majority of his letters.

The following is a lit of generally accepted locations for where Paul wrote each of the epistles.

Romans => Corinth
1st Corinthians => Ephesus
2nd Corinthians => Macedonia
Galatians => Jerusalem or Corinth
Ephesians => Rome
Philippians => Rome
Colossians => Rome
1st Thessalonians => Corinth
2nd Thessalonians => Corinth
1st Timothy => Macedonia
2nd Timothy => Rome
Titus => Epirus
Philemon => Rome

Paul's influenece on the religion was not because he wrote letters from Rome but because he founded most of the churches that he wrote those letters to during his missionary journeys. The letters clarify his teachings to those churches and correct misunderstandings that the churches had. Paul didn't even make it to Rome until the very end of his service to the Lord and he was a prisoner while he was there, though he did have a lot of opportunities to preach the Gospel to the Roman soldiers that were continually guarding him.

[nbs2]

Jerusalem was levelled not by Nero, but by Titus, after Nero's death. Why Rome was chosen was clearly because the chief religious officer of the Empire (curiously enough called the Pontifex Maximus or "chief bridgemaker") was based in Rome. Though Peter was the first Christian to adopt the title, it seems to have stuck with the office ever since.

Didn't know that. Interesting stuff indeed. As for the Nero thing, I just remembered that Nero ws the cross-heavy one - I just gave credit for a bit more. *wait for it, wait for it* Besides, they're both dead, I dont' think they'll care. *groan*

First, find the word Catholic in the Bible. Doesn't exist because JC didn't found the Catholic Church, nor did Peter or any of the other "disciples" because they were all persecuted and died and/or were killed shortly after while predicating Christ's teachings.

Even if it were linked somehow, find the word Pope in the Bible. That idea didn't even exist until the fifth century AD. On top of it, doesn't it seem odd that the Pope is elected by other people and not God?

Not trying to slam anyone's religion, just venting because the Pope just called all other religions false. Not really going to help out the whole world peace situation with that kind of attitude. Maybe, with the help of GW Bush, he can start another crusade.:rolleyes:

Because it isn't explicitly stated in the Bible, that doesn't cut the authority (if the RC does have the authority to act in the name of God). Or are you a Bible literalist. Refusing to grant literal authenticity to the Bible cuts both ways.

Anyway, I don't see what is wrong with El Papa calling out the splinters that came off of the RC. It didn't seem like he was going after the unaffiliateds. Moreover, I think people are born and shaped and have beliefs that are inherent to their being - kind of a nature/nurture combo. If he really does believe that the RC path is the only path to salvation (although I don't think he said that - the guy really knows his RC doctrine), who are we to persecute or attack him for that belief?

[calculus]

On a related note as a matter of interest, what justification does the Catholic Church use for the location of the Vatican? Why isn't it in Jerusalem for example?

Because it would be too far for the pope to commute?

[killerrobot]

If he really does believe that the RC path is the only path to salvation (although I don't think he said that - the guy really knows his RC doctrine), who are we to persecute or attack him for that belief?

So if an Ayatollah calls all other religions wrong who is right, the Pope or the Ayatollah? What if a protestant leader does the same thing? What if a .....

If Martin Luther thought the Catholic church was corrupt and founded his own, back whenever, how is his theology less than that of the RC? He was obviously well read, and moral enough to put a stop to it.

And I'll answer your question with another question, who is the Pope to persecute or attack break off religions?

[nbs2]

So if an Ayatollah calls all other religions wrong who is right, the Pope or the Ayatollah? What if a protestant leader does the same thing? What if a .....

If Martin Luther thought the Catholic church was corrupt and founded his own, back whenever, how is his theology less than that of the RC? He was obviously well read, and moral enough to put a stop to it.

And I'll answer your question with another question, who is the Pope to persecute or attack break off religions?

1) Doesn't matter - if each believe they are right, then so long as they do not deny the others the ability to worship as they choose.

2) It's sticky, but under the assumption that the RC church had the authority to act in the name of God (which authority ML never denied - he just wanted things to go back the way they used to be), to break away from the authority of God is to rebel against God. It's a tought cookie to swallow, but you you believe in the RC system as I assume Papita does, I can't see how that can be read any other way.

3) All Benedict seems to be doing here is asking those that have broken off through the centuries to ask themselves how they can consider themselves complete. If the RC church has the truth, then by splintering off the other groups can't have all the truth. It would be impossible because it would demand that God have two differing truths. Point being, I don't see an attack or persecution by the Pontiff. If folks want to believe the RC is wrong, they can go ahead - he ain't stopping them from doing so or expressing those beliefs. I just wonder why folks believe that he can't express his.

And let's not get into the past actions of the church. If we do that, I can't think of a single group of any type on the planet that would have the moral authority to comment.

[killerrobot]

@nbs2
All very good points.

It just seems awkward that the Pope is saying this and the only people that will probably pay any attention to it are those that are RC and already following the Pope.:confused:

[dswoodley]

I've just got problems all over the place with this article...

First, find the word Catholic in the Bible. Doesn't exist because JC didn't found the Catholic Church, nor did Peter or any of the other "disciples" because they were all persecuted and died and/or were killed shortly after while predicating Christ's teachings.



Catholic simply means universal. the church was open to all willing to join it, Jesus said as much.

[killerrobot]

Catholic simply means universal. the church was open to all willing to join it, Jesus said as much.

Isn't that true of all religions (except for the Jesus part)?

[dswoodley]

Isn't that true of all religions (except for the Jesus part)?

yes more than likely, but what's your point? Also, I'm pretty sure Jesus is the founder of all christian faiths - catholics included.

[nbs2]

@nbs2
All very good points.

It just seems awkward that the Pope is saying this and the only people that will probably pay any attention to it are those that are RC and already following the Pope.:confused:

Thanks.

I think you hit the crux of the comments. Add this to the liturgy changes and it all makes sense. The RC church has been bleeding members for a while, especially in more developed contries. While the goal of most (I would say all, but there are always exceptions) religions is the help one another, much of that help does require funding. Without the wealth of the developed nations, it becomes difficult to sustain operations - especially if less developed areas are growing.

More than anything, this is seems rah-rah discourse - motivating RCs to stay and become active participants once again.

yes more than likely, but what's your point? Also, I'm pretty sure Jesus is the founder of all christian faiths - catholics included.

All Christian faiths? I can think of a good number of examples that seem to run counter to Christian values. I'd wager dollars to doughnuts that I could get someone on the board to tell me that my church wasn't founded by Christ.

[killerrobot]

yes more than likely, but what's your point? Also, I'm pretty sure Jesus is the founder of all christian faiths - catholics included.

My point was what was your point, but now that your point is what was mine, we're pointless....

[dswoodley]

My point was what was your point, but now that your point is what was mine, we're pointless....

Well my point was to clarify why you wouldn't find the word catholic in the Bible. The origins of that word and the founding of the Christian faith are really not related.

[dswoodley]

All Christian faiths? I can think of a good number of examples that seem to run counter to Christian values. I'd wager dollars to doughnuts that I could get someone on the board to tell me that my church wasn't founded by Christ.

I can't think of a single Christian faith that would exist if Christ hadn't. Can you? That fact has nothing to do with Christian values. Why did you even bring that up?

I can find someone to tell me the world is flat, doesn't make it true.

[Queso]

I'd wager dollars to doughnuts that I could get someone on the board to tell me that my church wasn't founded by Christ.
Personally I'd argue that you could fire that right back at them. No proof that Jesus existed outside of the Bible. For all you know, they could have just made him up as a character in a play which then got taken seriously.

That's not what's important though is it? How you use the doctrine attributed to Jesus is. All that be nice to each other stuff is a good thing in my book :)

[imac/cheese]

The letters of Paul do not automatically confer special status on him. I'm sure the various early church groups all wrote letters to each other, but Paul's location in Rome meant his version of the religion was more likely to be adopted by the Empire, since it granted prominence to the Imperial capital. Had he been in Corinth and someone else in Rome, we most likely would never have heard of him.

On a related note as a matter of interest, what justification does the Catholic Church use for the location of the Vatican? Why isn't it in Jerusalem for example?

Personally I'd argue that you could fire that right back at them. No proof that Jesus existed outside of the Bible. For all you know, they could have just made him up as a character in a play which then got taken seriously.

That's not what's important though is it? How you use the doctrine attributed to Jesus is. All that be nice to each other stuff is a good thing in my book :)

Well I can't just let that comment go unanswered..

Josephus, a Jewish Historian

At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

Tacitus, a Roman Historian

". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

The Bible, as a historical work, is also one of the most reliable and consistent sources available. There are more copies of the Bible from times closer to when the actual events happened then nearly any other accepted historical text of that time.

[killerrobot]

Well my point was to clarify why you wouldn't find the word catholic in the Bible. The origins of that word and the founding of the Christian faith are really not related.

Are you trying to say Christian means Catholic?
I think you can say all Catholics are Christian (because they believe in Christ), but you can't say all Christians are Catholic.
So yeah, that was kind of my point as to why you wouldn't find the word Catholic in the Bible.

[dswoodley]

Are you trying to say Christian means Catholic?
I think you can say all Catholics are Christian (because they believe in Christ), but you can't say all Christians are Catholic.
So yeah, that was kind of my point as to why you wouldn't find the word Catholic in the Bible.

Not at all, that hasn't been true for several hundreds of years obviously. I think we are on the same page now.

[Queso]

The Testimonium Flavianum? Pur-lease. How come translations prior to the fourth century didn't contain that passage then, as evidenced by Origen, a Christian scholar who studied the Antiquities in the third century, completely failing to mention what one would consider its most significant passage to someone of that faith? And how about that the passage completely interrupts the textual flow of the rest of book 18, almost as if it was inserted later? Sorry, but I call BS on that source.

And Nero's persecution of the Christians is pretty much historical fact and not open to discussion. Tacitus is referring to Christians and their beliefs, not proof of Jesus. I mean, come on. The man wasn't even born until 30 years after Jesus was supposed to have lived.

[dswoodley]

The Testimonium Flavianum? Pur-lease. How come translations prior to the fourth century didn't contain that passage then, as evidenced by Origen, a Christian scholar who studied the Antiquities in the third century, completely failing to mention what one would consider its most significant passage to someone of that faith? And how about that the passage completely interrupts the textual flow of the rest of book 18, almost as if it was inserted later? Sorry, but I call BS on that source.

And Nero's persecution of the Christians is pretty much historical fact and not open to discussion. Tacitus is referring to Christians and their beliefs, not proof of Jesus. I mean, come on. The man wasn't even born until 30 years after Jesus was suppose to have lived.

Ooooo, good stuff here. Still, i think given the diverse number of sources that went into the NT, not to mention those that were left out, it seems clear someone named Yeshu in the Holy Land caused quite a stir by challenging orthodox jewish beliefs and left quite an impression on a handful of admirers/followers and likely was annointed (Gr. "khristos") by them.

[skunk]

Wounded? Yeah, just like Christ was wounded by the Jews.Just what is this supposed to mean?

[skunk]

Also, I'm pretty sure Jesus is the founder of all christian faiths - catholics included.Doesn't the "founder" of a faith have by definition to have some intent to found? Jesus may be the alleged deity to whom all christian faiths trace their teachings, but he had nothing to do with their foundation. Any "ekklesia" to which he may or may not have made reference, of course, would have been simply an ad hoc gathering of those who followed his teachings, not an organised or hierarchical "church" in any sense.

[dswoodley]

Just what is this supposed to mean?

I took it as anti-semitic claptrap - that's how it sounds. Matthew 27:25? That was put to rest by most christians a long time ago. I really hope I am wrong.

[dswoodley]

Doesn't the "founder" of a faith have by definition to have some intent to found? Jesus may be the alleged deity to whom all christian faiths trace their teachings, but he had nothing to do with their foundation. Any "ekklesia" to which he may or may not have made reference, of course, would have been simply an ad hoc gathering of those who followed his teachings, not an organised or hierarchical "church" in any sense.

I think it was clear he wanted others to follow after his example which was a clear break from Jewish orthodoxy, a new standard of faith. Does this constitute "founding"? In my mind yes.

[pseudobrit]

So yeah, that was kind of my point as to why you wouldn't find the word Catholic in the Bible.

Nor can you find the modern title of any other denomination mentioned by name.

So there must be no legitimate Christians then. :rolleyes:

[mpw]

Well I can't just let that comment go unanswered..

Josephus, a Jewish Historian

At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

Tacitus, a Roman Historian

". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

The Bible, as a historical work, is also one of the most reliable and consistent sources available. There are more copies of the Bible from times closer to when the actual events happened then nearly any other accepted historical text of that time.

I call FAKE. Show a camera phone photo of Jesus in a lift and then we'll talk: Pictures, or it didn't happen.

[dswoodley]

I call FAKE. Show a camera phone photo of Jesus in a lift and then we'll talk: Pictures, or it didn't happen.

I guess nothing happened then and no one lived before 1826!:eek:

[pseudobrit]

I guess nothing happened then and no one lived before 1826!:eek:

Camera phones in 1826? I call BS. Pics or it didn't happen.

[dswoodley]

Camera phones in 1826? I call BS. Pics or it didn't happen.

my mistake, photography in 1826, camera phones in what? 2002? Crud, I have a bad feeling about this...

[Osarkon]

I'm a non-catholic and I recognise the pope. He's the dude in the hat. :)

That's given me the best laugh i've had all day and for that I thank you :D

[dcv]

I'm a non-catholic and I recognise the pope. He's the dude in the hat. :)

:D


But if he got into a mini with a bunch of his pope friends you wouldn't be able to recognise him ;)

[skunk]

But if he got into a mini with a bunch of his pope friends you wouldn't be able to recognise him ;)I think he favours a longer hemline.

[nbs2]

I can't think of a single Christian faith that would exist if Christ hadn't. Can you? That fact has nothing to do with Christian values. Why did you even bring that up?

Because there are groups that exist paying nominal lip service to Christ while their hearts are alienated. My point was that just because a groups asserts that they believe in the Nicene Christ doesn't mean that they are Christians. And yet, those folks are more likely to be treated as Christians by the Christian community at large than those who don't believe in the Nicene Christ. Many of the groups in that former set use Christ as a mask for their own devices, many of the groups in the latter are told by so-called Christians that "their Christ" isn't good enough.

Very touchy subject for me, and I'm afraid it's going to get even touchier over the coming months.

[matthew24]

I am a former catholic, and love them dearly, but how is it possible that the Pope still misses this one:

Jesus in Matt. 23:8-12 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Col. 1:18 And he (-Christ-) is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Here the the Vatican commits blasphemy.

Very sad.

[66217]

I am a former catholic, and love them dearly, but how is it possible that the Pope still misses this one:





Here the the Vatican commits blasphemy.

Very sad.

Blasphemy??

Dude, any organization need a leader. The Pope is never saying he is Christ or the Father.
If you are catholic you should know that the Pope "represents" Christ, but the Pope is not Christ, and the church has never intended to say so.

And you forget the fact that Christ named Peter the first Pope.

[matthew24]

Blasphemy??

Dude, any organization need a leader. The Pope is never saying he is Christ or the Father.
If you are catholic you should know that the Pope "represents" Christ, but the Pope is not Christ, and the church has never intended to say so.

And you forget the fact that Christ named Peter the first Pope.

- Christ never instituted the papacy.
- Like the scripture I quoted, Christ is still the head of the Church.
- God/Jesus is represented on this earth through the Holy Spirit, who dwells in born-again believers.

[66217]

- Christ never instituted the papacy.

Christ do made Peter the "rock" of the church. Pope means patriarch, vicar, and Peter was the patriarch of the church in the Earth.

- Like the scripture I quoted, Christ is still the head of the Church.


And who said he wasn't?
That doesn't means that the church does not needs someone to guide them.

- God/Jesus is represented on this earth through the Holy Spirit, who dwells in born-again believers.

But humans still need human guidance. The Pope never said he was Christ, or that he was taking the place of the Holy Spirit.

[matthew24]

Christ do made Peter the "rock" of the church. Pope means patriarch, vicar, and Peter was the patriarch of the church in the Earth.

We do differ here. ( Most interesting link is The origin of the Catholic Church (http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.htm) )
Comment on Matthew 16:18 (http://www.gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html)

The Roman Catholic Church uses the argument that Peter is the rock to which Jesus referred as evidence that it is the one true church. As we have seen, Peter being the rock is not the only valid interpretation of this verse. Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church (http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.htm) is not in the teachings of Peter, or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).

And who said he wasn't?
That doesn't means that the church does not needs someone to guide them.

There is local authority in the churches only not on a global level.

But humans still need human guidance. The Pope never said he was Christ, or that he was taking the place of the Holy Spirit.

1Tim. 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
1John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

The pope is called 'Holy Father' within the RC-Church, here Matthew 23 comes into play.

[66217]

@ matthew24

I was going to make a very large reply, but instead I preferred not to.:)

My point is that not because it does not appears on the Bible it is not true. Not because Christ didn't specifically used the words "Pope" it means Peter was never the head of the church after christ departed. Not because baptism only appears to be given to the adults in the Bible means that it is incorrect to baptise the children. And not because the Bible says the world was created in 7 days it was technically created in 7 days. It could have been perfectly been created in millions and millions of years as consequence of the big ban, and that doesn't means the Bible is incorrect, but more the fact that the Bible was written with figurative language in some, if not most, parts.

And I don't see why you say it is not okay to have a global leader of the Church. I agree, Christ is the founder and the one we all should see as a leader, but the church is a HUMAN organizations, and as it, it needs humans organizing it, it needs a human leader.

[pseudobrit]

Here the the Vatican commits blasphemy.

Very sad.

Nice of you to take a time out from gay bashing to **** on my religion. Thanks for the hate.
:rolleyes:

[matthew24]

Nice of you to take a time out from gay bashing to **** on my religion. Thanks for the hate.
:rolleyes:

Excuse me, where was I guilty of 'gay-bashing'?

Nevertheless I can not approve or accept gay-marriage.

I don't like those inaccurate 'throw arounds'.

Certain part of the RC faith do have strong tensions with doctrine, painful but true. I certainly do not hate RC, because I do have a RC background. Please try to be a bit careful.

[nbs2]

Here the the Vatican commits blasphemy.

Very sad.

So wait - are you saying, between this and some of the later posts, that we need no authority beyond the local levels and that Christ is running the church through all of us (or ministers)?

This is interesting, as it brings up some questions I'm curious for your take on.

First, are you asserting that all of the important events of the foundational Christian era are found in the Bible?

Second, are you asserting that we no longer need any new guidance from God?

Third, are you asserting that any control beyond the local leadership crosses the line and can be treated as blaspheme towards Christ?

Nice of you to take a time out from gay bashing to **** on my religion. Thanks for the hate.
:rolleyes:

Don't worry, he crapped on mine too. I know his kind - at least he considers you Christian (although under his mindset - I don't know if I want to be in the same category as him;)).

[matthew24]

So wait - are you saying, between this and some of the later posts, that we need no authority beyond the local levels and that Christ is running the church through all of us (or ministers)?

Yes, but some remarks,
- There is local authority (pastors) and regional authority (apostles).
- Leaders are called to serve young-christians and bring them to maturity, which means every Christian developes a healthy form of independance by which they can serve others themself. By 'healthy form of independance' I mean that a Christian gets confident in the personal guidance in his life of the Holy Spirit.

First, are you asserting that all of the important events of the foundational Christian era are found in the Bible?

Yes, all basic doctrines are there.

Second, are you asserting that we no longer need any new guidance from God?

No: We are dependent on recognized authority, personal guidance of the Spirit, both supported by the Scriptures.

Third, are you asserting that any control beyond the local leadership crosses the line and can be treated as blaspheme towards Christ?

Leadership must be established and be supported by scripture. Papacy is not supported by scripture and thus spirit-filled believers do not submit to the authority of the pope. (Matthew 23)

Remark, I don't like the word control, because we are called to be free, and the personal relationship with God of every individual believer needs to be respected. At the same time God does use his leaders to correct individuals.

[nbs2]

- There is local authority (pastors) and regional authority (apostles).

So who are these apostles and who selects them? Are they called by God or chosen by their fellow men (whose claim to authority rests on having earned a degree)? And, if each of these apostles has solely regional authority, I'm sure that they must understand the needs of their constituency. As each area might have different needs, there may be conflicting guidance. In that event - who takes precedence or is the word of God going to vary based on your location?

[matthew24]

So who are these apostles and who selects them? Are they called by God or chosen by their fellow men (whose claim to authority rests on having earned a degree)? And, if each of these apostles has solely regional authority, I'm sure that they must understand the needs of their constituency. As each area might have different needs, there may be conflicting guidance. In that event - who takes precedence or is the word of God going to vary based on your location?

Sorry, for the two stage respond in my former post, I had some difficulty editing. The Ultimate authority in the church comes from Christ through the Holy Spirit. Leaders, in the Church do have delegated authority from God, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit they can annoint/appoint other leaders.
We need to be very careful not to institutionate the Church through appointing leaders without any confirmation from the Spirit of God.
Self-appointed leaders in the body of Christ are a very great danger.

[Queso]

Leaders, in the Church do have delegated authority from God, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit they can annoint/appoint other leaders.
Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but haven't you just described the Conclave that elects a Pope?

As they would see it I mean

[nbs2]

Yes, all basic doctrines are there.

No: We are dependent on recognized authority, personal guidance of the Spirit, both supported by the Scriptures.

Leadership must be established and be supported by scripture. Papacy is not supported by scripture and thus spirit-filled believers do not submit to the authority of the pope. (Matthew 23)


So everything important that Jesus said could be said in 30 minutes? It seems like the ministry ran about 2 years, 11 months, 29 days, 23 hours and 30 minutes longer than it needed to. Unless of course, there are teachings that we can still learn.

If we can recieve personal guidance, shouldn't that guidance apply to ourselves only? What authority do I have to get guidance or revelation for you? None - I have no special relationship or authority. Unless it is clearly spelled out to the contrary, my duty is to love God and love my fellow man, without regard for what they have done or do. Are there actions that the scriptures clearly condem and therefore I am obligates to condem the sin? Yes. But it isn't my place to elucidate beyond what has been taught. I am curious to know what this "recognized authority" you refer to is. If it is the ministers of churches - where do they gain their authority?

Also, what authority is supported by scripture? I see a church in which there is one an that has been called to lead the church, John indicates that after Christ, Peter took over. Even the Jews always had someone who was "most in charge" - the presiding high priest. Anyhow, I can't really defend the papacy as I am not RC and don't have as complete an appreciation of the structure those more intimate. But in my own personal beliefs, I see that Christ was/is/will be the head fo the church. But, he appointed servents on earth to act in his stead. To teach and preach the gospel, converting by appealing to the faith of those who hear - denying none the right to worship and not worship as they so choose, appreciating the good that each person and institution has to offer, never being prideful. I see that he called apostles to lead the church, to serve as authority to the whole world, not to piece it up like the leftovers of Alexander the Great's Macedonia.

What I don't see is a church that was left to it's own interpretation of scripture that wasn't later rebuked. The Corinthians tried that, and they became the branch from hell, struggling to even stay as normal as the secularists. Much like many Christians today seem to be the freakiest among us, there the believers were chill with a guy marrying his father's wife (may not have been his mom, but still got shades of Oedipus), while no normal member of society would have even thought about doing any such thing. With the abundence in independent churches, you have a lot of stangeness that Christians try and let slide - after all, they believe in Christ, so they can't be bad. After all, as long as there is faith, they're saved. It seems as if the secularists seem to have a better grasp of the idea that works are a demonstration of who you really are, of the inner soul.

[srf4real]

Just what is this supposed to mean?

I took it as anti-semitic claptrap - that's how it sounds. Matthew 27:25? That was put to rest by most christians a long time ago. I really hope I am wrong.

Jesus Christ was rejected by the Israelites 2,000 years ago, though he was the fulfillment of their prophets and law. The RC church continues to reject many of His followers because they do not conform to their religion and doctrine... similar to the way Christ did not conform to the expectations of the pharisees and saduccees of His time.
I do not hold the Jews as a race at fault in any way - it's just the way history went. That would be like holding twenty-first century Americans responsible for the transgressions of our fathers, like slavery... and anihilating (sp?) the native american indians.