I’m shocked – shocked – I tell you.
Update, from the comments – Kathy Shaidle recommends Mark Shea’s response to the media reports. “Exactly what Rome did *not* say is that the Catholic Church is the ‘only true Church’. Never mind. It makes a short headline for journalists who cannot be bothered to think.”
My wife is Catholic and she doesn’t agree with this:
The Catholic Church’s relationship with Muslims.
‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, quoting Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964).
According to the Catechism, “together with us (Catholics) they (Muslims) adore the one, merciful God.” Pope John Paul II repeats this statement even more clearly. Addressing Muslim youths, the Pope said: “We believe in the same God, the one and only God, the living God, the God who creates worlds and brings creatures to their perfection” (What Dialogue Means for Catholics and Muslims, US Conference of Catholic Bishops)
————————
Logically, in order for the above to be true, Catholics must deny the diety of Christ and rather accept him and Mohammad as equal prophets of the one true god.
In my mind, this is a far more divisive issue. I’m wondering what other Catholics here might have to say about this?
Kathy:
Comparing the number of priests who abuse kids in the Catholic Church (and I’m not surprised, despite all of the deserved headlines, that the number is low) to the number of kids who are in fact abused does tell us anything germaine to whether there is more abuse inside the RC church or not.
Nor am I surprised (and not did I say) that abuse is not covered up by unions. Not surprisingly, it is.
Again though, the fact that there is some cover up doesn’t tell us anything about how much more the RC church covers up or not.
Certainly, one of the biggest differences is the power, importance and influence in the lives of the community and the families of the abused. Would you ever think that a parent would agree to keep quite about abuse “for the good of the school”? Would the local chief of police, after a call from the teachers union president, ever agree not to investigate claims of abuse because the union promised to investigate itself? And just how often does a public school teacher even get to spend more than 10 minutes alone and in private with a kid that the opportunity even arises in the same proportion?
The bigger the institution the more insular and self-protecting it gets when something goes wrong. Teachers unions are pretty big bureaucratic institutions with their own power structures to protect. The RCC even more so.
…I think we’re getting off topic, and I’m partially to blame.
The fact remains, abuse and molestation does exist in both teachers and priests (both authoritarian positions).
The discussion was that the RC church is calling itself the ‘true church’, and the posting went off on an angle about the MSM picking up the title and running.
I’ve read the vatican statement and it very clearly says the Roman Catholic church is THE church.
Now here’s another interesting question, a few of my friends are “Catholic” but will not call themselves “Roman Catholic”.
Am I splitting hairs, or are the Catholics (mostly North American) not part of the RC church?
What about pre-Roman Catholic days? Gentiles and Jews converted in the book of Acts?
Church of Ephesus, Church of Antioch? The Laodecian church?
tomax7:
There are various ecclesial traditions in the Church.
For example there are eastern rite Catholics are in full communion with the Pope but have different liturgical traditions. eg. Assyrian, Chaldean, Coptic, etc.
Maybe you were talking to one of these, or a garden variety Roman Catholic who dropped the Roman part as a venacular short cut.
Which Orthodox church?
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=33;t=001059;p=1
Sorry to nitpick a nitpick, but I have just looked up the Nicene Creed in my 1662 Book of Common Prayer. It capitalises the ‘Catholic’ but not the ‘holy’.
The C of E uses the ‘Alternative Services Book’ now, but as my church uses service cards (if we use any liturgy at all) I don’t know how the phrase ‘holy Catholic’ church is spelt.
Roman Rite dioceses are called Roman Catholic Dioceses. Non-Roman Rite ones are called by their rite (note that eparchy is the Eastern name for diocese):
* Melkite Catholic Eparchy of Newton
* Maronite Eparchy of St Maron of Brooklyn
* St Thomas Syro-Malabar Catholic Diocese of Chicago
I hate to nitpick a nitpick of a nitpick, but most non-Catholic Christians I know do not recite the Nicene Creed, but the Apostles’ Creed, which goes like this:
quote: . . . I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen
some versions have the word “church” as capitalized.
According to the Catechism, “together with us (Catholics) they (Muslims) adore the one, merciful God.”
Too bad the same can’t be said for the protestant or orthodox. lol
If the Roman Catholic Church truly believes that Allah and Yahweh are the same God then I for one am glad that I am not Roman Catholic.
Let’s see here if I set up a rock in the middle of the dessert and call it the only god and terrorize a billion other people into believing that my rock is the only god then that is acceptable to the Catholic church, but if I read the Bible pray and come the realization that the pope is wrong on a few points I am bound for hell?
All those years I spent being nice and not saying nasty things about the Roman Catholic Church -wasted.
FYI: Talking to Mark over at his blog:
I don’t recall saying I “converted” from Evangelicalism (though I might have used that vernacular terminology in a hurry). Strictly speaking, Evangelicals don’t “convert” to Catholic faith because they are already Christian by virtue of their baptism. In 1987, I was received into the fullness of the Faith which subsists in the Catholic communion.
In my case, from non-denom Evangelicalism.
Here is just an interesting (to me anyway) anecdote about my discussions with Catholics about their faith in action…
All (of the very few) Catholics that I’ve discussed faith with have said (almost verbatim each time) “I take my Catholic faith very seriously”, yet each one admitted they had never actually read the Bible themselves. They repeat the “talking points” of the Catholic faith and consider themselves good Catholics, but have no personal understanding of the Word of God itself.
To the assembled Catholics here…is this just coincidence or is this your experience, too? In the past, it was charged that the Roman Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin to limit the reading of it by the congregations and that it was the printing of the King James Version in English that opened up Word to the non-clergy, which then resulted in non-RC Churches developing when the “whole truth” was made available to them to read and understand.
Assuming this is true, is the limited personal reading of the Bible by Catholics still continuing as a practice to this day?
been around the block –
“My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked with favour on the lowliness of his servant, Surely, from now on, all generations shall call me blessed”?
Luke 1:46 – 48
You are thinking too simplistically; of course, Mary gave birth to Jesus, but she was just the vessel, no more, no less. If she was the Mother of God, she would sit in Heaven, which she does not. Jesus sits at the right hand of God, where does Mary sit – she does not sit, she awaits the resurrection as do all those who have passed away.
St. Joh 3:13 “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”
Aaaaaah, Shaidle…..the Catholic Taliban. As I stated before: honey you needs to lighten up: you know, have a glass of wine, a back rub, maybe some (non-procreative) sexual activity….
“Joanne, you may not go to any church but you set yourself up to be above the pope: you must be your own arbiter of the faith. I wonder by what authority you do that. Very curious.” by lookout
First off, I do not know how you came to the above conclusion from my comments when I emphasized I believe the Word. I do not set myself to be above another sinner.
Romans 6: 23 “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
My question to you is by what authority to you put the pope above me?
With all the differing views out there it is a wonder there aren’t lightning bolts striking bloggers all over the place.
I am RC, as is my family although in the strictest sense I’m probably questionable for direct entry to heaven (or that other place… Toronto). I figure though that my cousin, the priest, can put in a good word or two for me 😉
There has been a lot of quoting of scripture here to justify points but I have to wonder if the word of God in the scriptures is as infallable as the word of Allah in the koran?
For my two cents worth, translations, interperetations and the changing of some words meanings and uses from the time these were written puts a fudge factor into the mix. Heck, I remember when being gay was to be happy and a fag was a cigarette.
irwin daisy – I am not a Catholic, but God has a Son, Jesus Christ, and Allah did not have a Son; therefore, who Christians refer to as God is not the same God as Muslims refer to as Allah.
I think it is important to note, that children were not the only victims of priests; nuns were also victims and the babies they bore were victims too. It would have been better for the priest to leave the ministry and marry, but they chose not to – I wonder why…..not really!
Eeyore at July 11, 2007 5:59 PM
Eeyore, I am glad you touched upon this subject. My out-laws are all Catholic – Greek Orthodox – and I do not believe, even one, has ever read the Bible. When I quote from the Bible, they wonder how I know that……unbelievable….quite perplexing.
…Tex, you are perfectly right abo…whoa, that was a close one…
Umm where was I?
Oh yeah, I agree and am guilty of scripture quoting, but I did have a hidden agenda…
***BUSTED***
I hope the same verses quoted some ~2000 years ago set a fire under those sitting on the fence about God. Jesus loves us all dearly enough to die for us.
For me, it was back in 1979, I looked at one verse and said “hey wait a minute…”.
John 3:3 – “Ye must be born again.”
July 26, 1979 on Highway 28 going from Cold Lake to Edmonton (actually near Vilna) it hit me, I was lost, a sinner and a fake.
I asked Jesus to forgive my ‘pasticness’ (my word) and come into my life and clean it up.
Never looked back, hasn’t been easy, but worth it.
And for a kid who had ADD, something to stick with me more than 2 months, let alone 28 years is a miracle enough.
Oh, no more ADD either, I actually listen to my wife now…
well that is still a work in progress…
What’s that dear? Oh supper time.
Bye!
Tomax7: I just happen to have the old 1969 United Church service book sitting beside me and in both the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds the words catholic and church are not capitalized. Same is NOT true for our current hymn book’s printing of the word Church. Somewhere along the line I guess the United Church decided they were part of THE CHURCH as well.
I just love the Vatican’s headlines this week, it made a great sermon starter for me (I’m a lay leader in our church.) The lively debate here has been fun to read.
I can assure you that all Christians are “justified and right” in the eye of our (that means everyone who believes in) God. No exceptions from a Lutheran viewpoint provided you believe in Jesus Christ as God. Thanks all…Orlin
And please contact me if you wish to know the meaning or purpose of life. I can explain it all — with no shame or any embarrassment to you.
…and with that, let’s say goodnight Frank.
Muslims believe in the God of Abraham, the same God Jews and Christians believe in. Muslims also hold Jesus as a prophet of God, but they do not hold him to be the Son of God. Muslims have the 10 Commandments, the Old and New Gospel, but that is not primary. The primary book of Faith the Koran. Muslims are more strict monotheists than Christians. The difference between the Koran and other Holy texts are the others were written by men and the Koran was written by God through Mohammed, according to Islam. The Koran actually mentions Jesus more than a few times. The difference can be summed up with two important statements, Muslim,> There is one God and Mohammed is His Messagner and Christian,> The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost.
Other similiarities, we all know about Kosher for Jewish, there is also Halah for Muslims which has a very similiar diet practice and method of slaughter for animals.
All three religions are just different branches of the same tree. There really is a reason why the current president of Iran refers to Jesus as “sweet Jesus” it is because his teachings would have been part of his religious study.
Iain, the difference is, Jews and Christians believe we are heirs through Abraham, namely Issac, whereas the Muslims believe they are through Ishmael.
One was born of the bond servant and one was the free.
Big difference.
Just look what happens when there is no teaching authority, e.g., the Magisterium, to be the arbiter of belief. In particular, I’m thinking of the United Church of Canada and the Anglican one of the same. Abortion, extra-marital sex, and same-sex marriage are all A-OK. Not so re RC teaching.
Of course, individual Catholics transgress on all these counts. The difference is that the RC Church isn’t about to excuse, condone, and bless such behaviour. What Protestant churches stand four square with the RC Church here? I can’t think of any, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong. (And even if they should, there is no hierarchy to preserve or pass on such teaching.)
Joanne, you say, “My question to you is by what authority to [sic] you put the pope above me?” I guess it’s by the authority of “I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”. (You’ve admitted that you don’t even go to church.) There is no doubt that you are loved by God–as much as He loves the Pope. However, you have not been given the same ministry or gifts. This does not mean that you are worth less. It just means that you have a different role. E.g., Parents have authority over their children, but are, intrinsically, no better than them or more loved by God.
(BTW, I know a great many Catholics who regularly read their bibles and are involved in private devotions.)
The fundamental error of the RC church is the emphasis on the eucharist as an instrument of grace unto salvation. They misinterpret Jesus. We are saved by faith, not in the communion wine and bread, but faith in Him.
The Pope’s comments continue to deepen the divide of Christianity. It’s time the RC church embrace the fact they are not God’s divine institution on earth. The Body of Christ, the living Church resides in this earth, not as an institution of man but as a spiritual entity whose membership is known only to God. That will be abundantly clear to all in eternity. However, if we listen to the Holy Spirit and are willing to put the Bible’s authority over and above church tradition this truth will be plainly obvious to anyone who belongs to Christ. He said, “My sheep know my voice.”
I belong to Jesus, not Benedict.
Let me clarify one more thing. Benedict is my brother. I am not anti-catholic. We are not Christians by purity of doctrine. Thank God, we don’t have to have it all perfect. That’s why it’s called “grace”.
jack, I appreciate much of what you’ve said. However, in saying, “The Body of Christ, the living Church resides in this earth, not as an institution of man but as a spiritual entity whose membership is known only to God”, you appear to be entirely overlooking the essential incarnational reality of the Church: “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.”
To suggest that the Church is some disembodied, spiritual entity known only to God is not the essence of what Christians are called to be. Christians are exhorted to “Let your light so shine before others that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven”. Yes, there may be “hidden Christians” whose devotion is known to God alone. But, if this were the only manifestation of the BODY of Christ here on earth, how would it be a witness?
The Body of Christ is a corporal institution and, therefore, needs a sound structure–just like the human body needs a skeleton. If that structure is jelly-like–as it has “evolved” to in both the United and Anglican Churches in Canada–both teaching and practice become corrupted. (Just look at what they’re up to, as well as their seriously dwindling memberships.)
Yes, spirituality is a very important aspect of Christianity, but it is only one aspect. It is supposed to be the impetus and strength for Christians to be Jesus’s feet and healing hands in a broken world: THAT’S incarnation! The purely “spiritual entity” you posit as the totality of the Christian Church is a serious misrepresentation. (It’s actually a heresy, which sound teaching would correct.)
Though you seem to posit an either/or here–spirit vs doctrine: I think it’s both/and–I can appreciate your good will when you say, “We are not Christians by purity of doctrine. Thank God, we don’t have to have it all perfect. That’s why it’s called ‘grace'”. To that I can say a hearty “Amen”!
“Muslims believe in the God of Abraham, the same God Jews and Christians believe in…All three religions are just different branches of the same tree.”
That’s the lie Muslims (and idiots) like to believe.
Here’s a question:
What’s the MO of Mo and his companions?
Power, plunder and women. (The overwhelming evidence of which is in the Quran and Hadiths.)
Now compare that to Jesus and the apostles.
Obviously not the same God.
Furthermore, how logical is it that the line of prophets Muslims cite, without exception, are Jewish, followed by a gentile, Mohammad?
Furthermore, is not Mohammad and his message redundant and completely opposite Christ’s?
Oh, as well, Muslims believe a prophet cannot lie. Therefore is Jesus lying when he said that he is the Son of God?
Hmmm. Quite a conundrum, if you ask me.
Based on the Quran and Mohammad’s life example, violence is foundational to Islam.
It is not to Christianity.
Allah is not God. He is one of a pantheon of 365 gods, who originally had a wife and two daughters before Mo rewrote his legend. Mo’s father’s name was Abdullah, meaning servant of Allah – one of the arab gods.
lookout: “The Body of Christ is a corporal institution and, therefore, needs a sound structure–just like the human body needs a skeleton.”
Indeed you are right.
“From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplies, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, makes increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”
Unfortunately where you are mistaken is thinking that is just the Roman Catholic church and them alone is this ‘body’.
Ephesians 4:11
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Question is who is this “some”? The whole Body of Christ, not some mystical creation of the Catholic church, but believers everywhere.
Even the Mass is an abomination to the Lord.
Hebrews 10:10-13. Once for all.
Verse 11 speaks of the mass repeatedly.
10 “By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 “And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12 “But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 “from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
I remember reading somewhere:
“You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God…
lookout…i might have mistaken you for saying the RC is the only one, had so many posts and emails, can’t remember who said what.
Point is, the Body of Christ, while spiritual (can’t touch it and say “see”, but we can see local autonomous groups of believers gathered and say the “Body of Christ”, but they alone aren’t it either.
While the term Catholic means Universal, their view is a bit skewed insomuch they mean their religion and not others.
I see believers in a lot of religions. Believers termed as in truly repentant followers of Christ.
To say RC, Protestant, or Baptist are the only ones, that is where the error lies, and what the start of this whole posting entailed – the RC’s are not the only ones, if anything they are the Protestants.
I’m confused, tomax. You seem to suggest that the centrality of the Mass is idolatrous. Yet, at the Last Supper, didn’t Jesus say of the bread and wine, “This is my body and blood, given for you”?
I’m no theologian. However, the centrality of the Eucharist in the many sacramental churches seems very sound to me: it is a corporal way to worship the Lord and to receive His grace. I do not worship the Eucharist: I worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit through the medium of the Eucharist. There is a very big difference.
Yes, He did. And it is to be done in remembrance of Him, not as an actual sacrificing of the literal body of Christ over and over again.
Hebrews chapter 10 is very clear about this, Jesus sacrificed Himself once, and once alone. This was another verse that got me going “hmmm”.
See when I grew up, the “holy host” was suppose to be the literal body of Jesus, something in big lawyer words called “transubstantiation”.
It is still a piece of dry bread.
Symbolically we can say it is the body of Christ, but not figuratively let alone physically.
Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics hold that the consecrated elements in the Eucharist are indeed the body and blood of Christ. Some Anglicans hold to the same belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
….sorry Kate for blogflood of postings.
“There is no doubt that you are loved by God–as much as He loves the Pope. However, you have not been given the same ministry or gifts. This does not mean that you are worth less.” by lookout.
lookout –
The Pope has been given a ministry, and thus the responsibility to teach the truth and not put himself or those who minister under him on a pedestal. I don’t give confession to a priest because he cannot forgive my sin, only Jesus can do this, but the Catholic Church believes their priests are able to absolve my sins….talk about heresy.
How do you know if I haven’t been given a gift? Perhaps because I do not go to Church, like attending Church will save my soul anyway.
My Christian way of life, my proclamation of my faith to others, and my generousity to others in need are my witness to others…..Church has a purpose, but I prefer the truth of the word, not to socialize with hypocrites, which is the purpose of many churches today. I’m sure there are many wonderful, individual Churches filled with wonderful Christians….I’ve just yet to find one, but I do believe they exist. I tend to find wonderful, individual Christians, but certainly very few.
” These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among the brethren.” (Proverbs 6:16-19)
The Roman Catholic Church is guilty on all counts, and with the Pope at the helm, he has recently perpetrated the first and last.
Joanne, please forgive my forwardness, but methinks you are guilty of much of what you accuse the Pope. Your ponderings here have been very prideful and much of what you have said sews discord among a very large number of Christian Catholic brethren.
Be very careful about judging others. I hope that you have read what the Pope actually said. My husband downloaded his speech and much of what he has been accused of in this thread doesn’t stand up to careful scrutiny.
I find that large swaths of North Americans, just to limit the discussion, are totally ignorant of the ACTUAL teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. I used to be one of their number. Non-Catholics often treat the doctrines of the RC Church much the way participants do in the game of “Telephone.” When the tenth person has heard the original point, which may in itself not be totally correct, distorted, bent, and twisted, it bears no resemblance to the actual point which was being made. I was once guilty of this kind of blind acceptance of distortions of RC doctrine.
We are called as Christians into community. To stand apart from Christian Community, the Body of Christ, the Church, is a very risky business. To hurl potshots at the Church from the sidelines is also risky, and something that Scripture srongly admonishes against: “Let s/he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Kathy: Sorry Ted but…
Ted: Comparing the number of priests who abuse kids in the Catholic Church…
Also, the “priest” group of studies surveyed the purported abusers while the “teachers” surveyed the purported victims. Different self-report methodologies make comparison nearly impossible.
I’m jumping in here a bit late, but I just wanted to second babt’s comment about ignorance of RC teachings. One example is about the Eucharist and Christ being sacrificed over and over. This is not supported by Catholic doctrine.
3w.catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp
Another complaint commonly heard from Protestants is that Catholics are not allowed to read the bible or that the Catholic church is afraid of the bible. This again is false. Why would the Catholic church be afraid of something it maintained for 1500 years before Luther showed up? Why would there normally be three readings from the bible during mass (and not in Latin) if the Catholic church was trying to keep people in the dark?
I could go on, but it’s up to people to do their own research before making wild accusations.
Joanne:
For a self proclaimed “true” Christian, your comments and just plain ignorance about the Catholic church are very unchristian.
Iberia, not sure if the link works, keep getting page load error.
Maybe because I’m not RC? hehehe
As for the Eucharist, I believe RC stand is something called transubstantiation, or the host becomes the literal body of Christ.
If that isn’t akin to sacrificing, then I’m missing the point.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
In order to forestall at the very outset, the unworthy notion, that in the Eucharist we receive merely the Body and merely the Blood of Christ but not Christ in His entirety, the Council of Trent defined the Real Presence to be such as to include with Christ’s Body and His Soul and Divinity…
Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another.
Joanne, I second the comments of batb and lberia.
And your words, “How do you know if I haven’t been given a [sic] gift?” are altogether a distortion of my words, which were, “There is no doubt that you are loved by God–as much as He loves the Pope. However, you have not been given the same ministry or gifts”.
I’m afraid that the untruth you’ve displayed here and elsewhere in this thread rather fits the categories for which you chastise the RC Church: ” . . . A proud look, a lying tongue . . . An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations . . . A false witness that speaketh lies, and [one] that soweth discord among the brethren”.
Your harsh judgements on just about all other Christians (sinners and imperfect, all of us) but yourself–you suggest that your pure Christianity prevents you from mingling with the hypocrites who go to church–sets you above millions and millions of your fellow (?) believers. (Humility, one of the cardinal Christian virtues? I think not.)
May the Lord have mercy on all Christian sinners and bless them. (Joanne, I think that includes you.)
I just love the personal attacks, whilst I have not attacked nor judged anyone, but the Catholic Church and the Pope, of which I stand by. I haven’t barely touched on how I feel about the Catholic Church and the Pope; I’ll spare myself the backlash.
I didn’t know I was a topic of discussion, or I would have pronounced myself to all that I am a sinner and certainly do not believe myself to be worthy of eternal life, although, I am certainly grateful Jesus Christ is my judge, and not a few of the commenters here. We are all born into sin, so quite frankly, I love a sinner, or two, or three, or many more.
I don’t judge the wicked or the righteous, but I as ‘look out’ have my opinions as she/he does about other churches, as duly noted in her/his comments, but hey, Protestant Church supporters and members are suppose to suck all those harsh words up, because well, that’s what we do. Although I am a Protestant, I certainly do not agree with the falling away from the biblical teachings of the bible in Protestant Churches, as many Protestant Churches and congregations also do not agree with. I’m not going to defend Protestant Churches that fall away either, and I am certainly not going to attend one because I would be personally sanctifying their teachings, which would be hypocritical of me and rather repugnant.
Okay, look out, how do you know if I haven’t been given the ‘same’ gift as the Pope? God forbid, I receive the same one as the Pope or anything. I certainly would not refer to that as a distortion of your words; I just neglected to take note of the word ‘same’.
Well, Joanne, if you aren’t an outstanding scholar, multilingual, a fine musician, and lead a Church with millions of adherents around the world, I’d say you probably don’t have the same gifts as Pope Benedict. And there’s nothing wrong with that, as I’ve said before.
As far as I’m concerned, if you’re using the gifts you’ve been given as fully as the humble and learned man who sits on the throne of Peter, congratulations!
Tomax7:
Try 3w.catholic.com/ and work our way through the index. Likewise, another informative site is 3w.ourcatholicfaith.org/index.html and work your way through the index.
I am not a theologian, but my understanding is that Transubstantiation (by definition if not by name) is mentioned several times in Scripture: see John 6:47-63; 1 Cor 10:14-22; 1 Cor 11:23-30. Jesus said the bread and wine were his flesh and blood, not like. “Who ever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me, and I live in him.” He is not asking us to be cannibals, therefore the flesh and blood must become the bread and wine. Furthermore, Jesus is not sacrificed over and over at each mass; rather, each mass is a representation of the one sacrifice on the cross which transcends time and space. Very metaphysical, eh?
Finitum non est capax infiniti.
Well, I guess I’ve come back at the tail end of this.
Where I plug into this subject is at the philosophical, theological end. And from the point of view of people on my side of the endeavor, the entirety of Christendom is part of the Christian tradition. In fact, the Judeo-Christian tradition.
In my world it’s not a matter of what denomination is important, it is rather a matter of what theological school of thought presents the deepest insight and the most profound examination.
I have respect for the many denominations; however, for us there is no special distinction in respect to whether one is a Baptist, a Presbyterian, a Catholic, a Methodist, or an Anglican. These are all exponents of the Christian tradition, each with its own virtues, and each with its problems. And so from our perspective the agenda has to do with the activity and product of the whole endeavor rather than the debate that goes on between denominations. In fact many on the philosophical, theological side really don’t tune into the denominations except to the extent that some theologians might be part of a particular tradition.
Earlier I said that Catholics were allegorical and Protestants were dialectic. The dialectic side is called Neo-Reformed Theology. And I think that a few brief comments might help demonstrate the hurdles that have to be overcome.
This branch of theology started after World War I in Switzerland, and was quickly championed by some of the best theological minds of the first half of the 20th century and now dominates theology.
Karl Barth, the eminent and renowned Protestant theologian, kind of kicked it off with his discussion about “the strange world within the Bible”.
It would be impossible to deal with this adequately in a post, but a few salient factors (quoting from “A Handbook of Theological Terms”, by Harvey) were:
” 1) that there is an infinite qualitative difference between God and man;
2) that sin is the attempt to obscure this difference, whether by religious experience, mysticism, or moral idealism;
3) that the realization that there is this gap and that it can only be bridged by God and not by man is itself saving faith.
Each of these three constituted a full-scale assault on liberal Protestantism … ”
These themes were picked up by Bultmann, Brunner, Gogarten, Tillich, and Niebur among others.
The neo-Reform movement believed that the original reformers like Luther wrote in a pre-scientific period. “The neo-Reform theologians accepted fully the new science and were quite willing to conced that the Will of God in Jesus Christ was veiled in an all too human form, that the Bible contains myths, legends, and historical errors of all sorts. They were not all unwilling to regard the Virgin Birth, Miracle, and Resurrection stories as primitive ways of expressing the divine significance of Jesus.”
So as you can see by this bumper-sticker representation of a movement that would require a lifetime of study, it is suggested that various denominations have enormous hurdles of discussion in respect to reconciling certain points of view. This reconciliation is much larger than simply a discussion of Antinonianism (saved by grace and not works) and the vagaries surrounding transubstantiation or Luther’s view of consubstantiation in which divinity is seen as “above, around, and through the sacrament” rather than the sacrament being turned into the literal body of Christ, each theoretical premise having fallen out of favor because of views relative to the arguments of Aristotle from which they arose.
lookout, unfortunately, we are not talking about the same gifts; the gifts you write of are bestowed on many and the gifts I speak of are bestowed on few….and not that I possess any.
I do not believe the Pope sits on the throne of Peter, because I do not believe there is a throne of Peter, but I do believe there is a throne on earth that belongs to Christ.
St. Luke 1:31:33
“And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”
A woman whose ancestry is traced back directly to King David sits on a throne today, and no, she isn’t Catholic, but is the Head of the Church of England and a Protestant.
Psalm 89:34-37
“My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.”
Jeremiah 34: 17
“For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.”
“For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in” (Rom. 11:25).
The tribes and people of Israel exist today; they did not disappear off the face of the earth long ago, but travelled and settled in other lands.
It is important to note that the land of Israel as called today is not the same as the tribes and people of Israel of which they speak in the Bible, although some remnants may remain there today.
Joanne:
Matthew 16:18-19 says: “And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.”
I think that this is a very clear statement: Peter has Christ’s authority to lead His church. Furthermore, he, and his successors have Christ’s authority (and the help of the Holy Spirit) to decide what is correct doctrine. Did that authority end after Peter died? Did it die after 1517? Did it die because of the out of context scriptural quotes you have provided?
Moreover, it is highly unlikely that ANYONE living today can trace their lineage back to King David.
Amen, lberia.
And good night.
I don’t know what Bible you’re using Iberia, (it must be the leftwing version) but here’s the KJV version:
13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say aye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Obviously the ‘rock’ Jesus is referring to is not Peter. It is the revelation that “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
This version is a fabrication:
“And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church.”
Furthermore, why would Christ build his Church on the shoulders of Peter, a mortal and a sinner? Does that make any sense?
Still haven’t heard a proper Catholic explanation for this:
The Catholic Church’s relationship with Muslims.
‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, quoting Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964).
According to the Catechism, “together with us (Catholics) they (Muslims) adore the one, merciful God.” Pope John Paul II repeats this statement even more clearly. Addressing Muslim youths, the Pope said: “We believe in the same God, the one and only God, the living God, the God who creates worlds and brings creatures to their perfection” (What Dialogue Means for Catholics and Muslims, US Conference of Catholic Bishops)
————————
Logically, in order for the above to be true, Catholics must deny the diety of Christ and rather accept Christ and Mohammad as equal prophets of the one true god.
In my mind, this is a far more divisive issue. I’m wondering what other Catholics here might have to say about this?
Posted by: irwin daisy at July 11, 2007 4:26 PM
KJV:
16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
16:14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Christ was not referring to Peter (meaning a small rock or stone), he was referring to the revelation, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
I don’t know what version of the Bible Iberia is referencing (the leftwing version?) But even still, does it make rational sense that Christ would build his Church on Peter, a mortal and a sinner, rather than on Christ, the Son of the living God?
Don’t think so.
I still haven’t heard from Catholics on this comment:
The Catholic Church’s relationship with Muslims.
‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, quoting Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964).
According to the Catechism, “together with us (Catholics) they (Muslims) adore the one, merciful God.” Pope John Paul II repeats this statement even more clearly. Addressing Muslim youths, the Pope said: “We believe in the same God, the one and only God, the living God, the God who creates worlds and brings creatures to their perfection” (What Dialogue Means for Catholics and Muslims, US Conference of Catholic Bishops)
————————
Logically, in order for the above to be true, Catholics must deny the diety of Christ and rather accept him and Mohammad as equal prophets of the one true god – Allah.
In my mind, this is a far more divisive issue. I’m wondering what Catholics here might have to say about this?
Posted by: irwin daisy at July 11, 2007 4:26 PM
oops. sorry for the double (more or less) post.
Iberia –
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/20020307.htm
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18:15-20 RSV)
Here Jesus was speaking to the disciples, not just Peter, and he repeats “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
“Only God has the power to forgive or to condemn when it comes to salvation, so what is meant by God’s servants binding and loosing?
In the New Testament, the translated English word bind is from the original Greek word pronounced day-oh, meaning to tie or be bound. The translated English word loosen is from the Greek word pronounced loo-oh, meaning to break up or melt.”
Where do you get ‘prohibit’ and ‘permit’ from; my Bible does not use these words.
“Moreover, it is highly unlikely that ANYONE living today can trace their lineage back to King David.” by Iberia
Perhaps unlikely for the average joe, but nevertheless, very possible for the descendants of David.
And my quotes are not out of context, I’m just not going to post the whole chapter – that you can read for yourself.
“I think that this is a very clear statement: Peter has Christ’s authority to lead His church. Furthermore, he, and his successors have Christ’s authority (and the help of the Holy Spirit) to decide what is correct doctrine.” by Iberia
I haven’t a clue how you figure, even if Peter had Christ’s authority, which he does not – bloody blasphemy, how on earth that Peter’s successors – no blood line there – would have this same authority to decide what is correct doctrine. The Pope couldn’t be more proud if he could, nor those who believe the same.
St. Luke 1:31:33
“And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”
…very significant….
joanne and irwin:
I used TEV. Here are some links so you can follow up with your own research.
http://mafg.home.isp-direct.com/peter01.htm
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
…anyway, you must be born again.
Not baptized first, but repent, then be baptized, which means a conscientious action, and not sprinkling as a baby.