BS: At last a Pope talks some sense

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:57 PM

mousethief, I know, it's flock...a spelling mistake not a typo that time:) Time to rest the mind.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:54 PM

Good one, mousethief

UK Folks:

Check out the Anti-discrimination laws in the USA, Canada and the Netherlands....they seem to work well in these countries. I even know a protestant who answers the phone in a Canadian Jewish Center....without issues. The church going folks seem contented by the situation.

http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=Canada%2Banti+discri

Seems like the RC pope can accept to potentially employ a sinner who has broken all ten Commandments but is repulsed by exposure of his flok to a gay girl or guy.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:38 PM

Ed, that's because you're not typing ex Cathedra.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:13 PM

Catholic Emancipation, 1829.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:12 PM

My typingis fallible, as noted by the many typos.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:08 PM

For some odd reason most of my earlier post dissapeared in transit?

Odd, I am truly not ilfallible.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:07 PM

England history is ripe with laws that limited catholics property and education rights, freedoms to openly practice their religeon or hold public office until around 1745. The rights of RCs were limited by acts that established royal supremacy in the Church of England and civil disabilities were imposed on those who remained in communion with Rome.

Elizabeth I made it impossible for Catholics to hold civil offices and imposed severe penalties upon Catholics who persisted in recognizing papal authority. Fines and prison sentences were prescribed for all who did not attend Anglican services, and the celebration of the Mass was forbidden under severe penalties. Laws even required holders of public office to take various oaths of loyalty and to receive the sacrament of the Church of England.

Jesuits and other priests were expelled (1585) from England under penalty of treason, and harboring or aiding priests was declared a capital offense. A number of Catholics were executed for treason.

Now the RC pope wants to limit the freedom of others, to supports the right of churches to discriminate against others in accordance with their religious ethos.

Sound familiar?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 08:09 PM

I have to add that I don't agree with Catholic Church teaching on birth control, and I have disregarded that teaching when I saw fit to do so. Nonetheless, I do think that church authorities have a right to have an opinion on the matter, and to express that opinion.

I also believe that churches have a right and an obligation to speak out on matters of morals and social justice, even when those matters are being discussed or dealt with in a political forum. To me, "separation of church and state" means that churches must not be involved in the operation of government - but they certainly have a right to speak out strongly about what government does or fails to do.

But to demand that churches be silent on moral matters, is ludicrous.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 07:41 PM

I found the story of this this high level RC dignatary an interesting read (especially the inscription on the memorial stone). Could he have been sending an early message....to future, more understanding RCs?

The below piece is from Wikipedia, but it is supported by other articles....this being the most concise:

John Henry Newman, (21 February 1801 – 11 August 1890) an English Roman Catholic priest, cardinal, influencial in the RC Church, eventually reaching Sainthood.   Formerly a priest in the Church of England.

The sexuality of Newman and his circle has long been a subject for conjecture. Much of the evidence is ambiguous.

His deepest emotional relationships were with younger men who were his disciples. The most significant of these, Ambrose St John who lived with Newman as companion from 1843 for 32 years. Newman wrote after the death of Ambrose St John in 1875: "I have ever thought no bereavement was equal to that of a husband's or a wife's, but I feel it difficult to believe that any can be greater, or any one's sorrow greater, than mine."At his own request, Newman was buried in the same grave as Ambrose St John. He had stated on three occasions his desire to be buried with his friend, including shortly before his death in 1890: "I wish, with all my heart, to be buried in Fr Ambrose St John's grave — and I give this as my last, my imperative will", he wrote, later adding: "This I confirm and insist on."

In accordance with his expressed wishes, Newman was buried in the grave of his lifelong friend, Ambrose St. John. The pall over the coffin bore his cardinal's motto Cor ad cor loquitur ("Heart speaks to heart"Inseparable in death as in life, a joint memorial stone was erected for the two men; the inscription bore words Newman had chosen: Ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem "Out of shadows and phantasms into the truth"

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 06:56 PM

For the avoidance of doubt, and to bring this back to the OP's intention, I do not agree that the pope should be allowed to say what he did about our desire for a tolerant and prejudice-free society without getting a well-deserved slapdown for his efforts. That is a different thing entirely. That is the bizarre spectacle of a Christian campaigning for the right to be, well, un-Christian to people he doesn't like. Very odd indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 06:53 PM

I don't understand why Joe is taking so much flak from some quarters. The question is a reasonable one: what do you expect from the RC church?

The Church has no choice but to advise people who want to stay free of STI's and unwanted pregnancy, to abstain from sex. As a piece of advice it trumps all others. Don't have sex and are 100% guaranteed never to get pregnant and never to get an STI.

How could anyone expect the church to counsel against its moral code, and in doing so to give inferior health protection advice to people? It just doesn't make sense in its own terms.

That is why we have secular health-care services and that is why the churches subcontract health outreach to medical professionals who practice without religious fear or favour. I have experience in the developing world where secular NGO's and CAFOD / Red Cross / Red Crescent have been working together on health and social care programs including contraception and HIV prevention and treatment. So it is not right to portray "The Church(es)" as irrelevant, callous and uncaring. My experience of the health outreach by the RC Church matches Ed. T's last published directive (post 06:25)

It would probably be more helpful if there appeared to be fewer pronouncements on these issues from Rome, but then I suspect that many of the "pronouncements" are not in fact anything of the sort but are the work of the militant atheists making sure that these areas of contention and subtlety are relentlessly brought to the fore and rammed back down people's throats.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 06:43 PM

The point is the RC Church has a committment to care for and about the health of people....which goes back to Christs teachings and example.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 06:37 PM

So? Does that mean the church has ever said, "But if you can't keep it in your pants, put one of these on it"? I fail to see why your post is in the least relevant to the conversation, Ed T.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 06:25 PM

From " Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition"

The (RC) Church has always sought to embody our Savior's concern for the sick. The gospel accounts of Jesus' ministry draw special attention to his acts of healing: he cleansed a man with leprosy (Mt 8:1-4; Mk 1:40-42); he gave sight to two people who were blind (Mt 20:29-34; Mk 10:46-52); he enabled one who was mute to speak (Lk 11:14); he cured a woman who was hemorrhaging (Mt 9:20-22; Mk 5:25-34); and he brought a young girl back to life (Mt 9:18, 23-25; Mk 5:35-42). Indeed, the Gospels are replete with examples of how the Lord cured every kind of ailment and disease (Mt 9:35). In the account of Matthew, Jesus' mission fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "He took away our infirmities and bore our diseases" (Mt 8:17; cf. Is 53:4).

Jesus' healing mission went further than caring only for physical affliction. He touched people at the deepest level of their existence; he sought their physical, mental, and spiritual healing (Jn 6:35, 11:25-27). He "came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly" (Jn 10:10).

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 05:58 PM

American liberalism has created a sexual society in sub saharan Africa? You're way out of touch with reality, ake.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 05:51 PM

If YOU care so much about people dying, why do you want everyone to ignore the hiv figures?

Joe is correct,the head of any church could never condone promiscuity. At last we've got a religious leader prepared to comment on the type of sexual society "liberalism" has created.

Advice on the sexual health of risk takers, should be confined to the medical profession.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 05:30 PM

Now, Alex, I realize that government may be required to offer alternatives to people who insist on doing something dumb, but do churches have to do that, too?

Only if they care about people dying. It's all too obvious they don't.

If a church tells its members to practice only monogamous sex, is it bound to offer alternatives for those who prefer not to be monogamous?

Only if they care about people dying. Clearly they don't.

Can't they let the non-monogamists figure things out on their own?

If they don't give a fuck about people dying, I guess they can. And obviously they don't.

Compassionate humans would care more than about their rules being followed; they'd care about what happens to people who don't follow their rules. But the RCC doesn't give a flying fuck about that. If you don't follow our rules, die for all we care. And people do. And you don't care.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 03:02 PM

"Keep it in your pants until some mumbo-jumbo has been said over it" simply does not work.

On the contrary, I've found that a little light conversation can be quite conducive :-)

Nevertheless, a good point.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 02:16 PM

Please ignore the first half of my last post, on account of it being nonsense.
Or edit as necessary. Ta.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 02:16 PM

If you live in the real world "Keep it in your pants until some mumbo-jumbo has been said over it" simply does not work. People don't.


But more extraordinary is the hypocrisy of a bedful of papist priests - a calling that has long long had more than its fair share of himosexuals (coinage intended) - deciding to discriminate against homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 02:05 PM

"If a person doesn't practice the rule of fidelity, then why would he/she bother to follow a rule about condoms?"

To avoid catching and spreading disease, I'd imagine. It doesn't follow that those inclined to infidelity should necessarily have a death-wish or any desire to harm their spouse by infection, or court the risk of their infidelity being discovered.

"Can't they let the non-monogamists figure things out on their own?"

Quite right, as long as the condoms are freely available as a preventative health measure, alongside sufficient and appropriate education.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 07:58 AM

"(I get sick of the bashing, if one doesn't like people of faith no one is shoving their beliefs at you or forcing you to believe anything"

Peoples faith is indeed that persons business. But, these issues go far beyond individual faith, and does impact others....RC, non RC Christian and a whole gaggle of other people in this world.

This current Pope (and past ones) has put his views in the public domain on many issues, beyond individual faith, that impact many folks, RC and otherwis. So a discussion of that is indeed proper and I suspect responsible.

Consider this statement in regard to the issue being limited to birth control. The issue is loglically broader. Marital fidelity is a worthy goal, as is no sex prior or outside marriage. But, is likely not realitic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7951839.stm

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Stu
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 06:06 AM

"Well....why are you posting here?"

a) Because the pope's intervention is a political act and that merits discussion.

b) I enjoy the debate and might learn something.

c) I fervently believe religion and state should be kept separate and religious leaders should minister to their flock alone.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 05:56 AM

Well....why are you posting here?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Stu
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 05:53 AM

"The de-politicization of the papacy has one side effect that makes me nervous: the "cult" of the papacy. After the Pope ceased to be a political leader, be became regarded as a holy man - and many popes have not lived up to that expectation."

If the pope is so de-politicsied, then why is he making proclamations on the legislation of a democracy that is none of his business? Of course, you could argue that he's only preaching to the Catholic congregation but this law will effect us all and like it or not most people don't go to church in this country any more, and the pope is an utter irrelevance.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 03:37 AM

Now, Alex, I realize that government may be required to offer alternatives to people who insist on doing something dumb, but do churches have to do that, too?

The electrical extension cords I've bought lately have a metallic instructions sticker that tells people not to put anything metallic in the outlet end of the cord. Why do people need instructions for an extension cord? And why do the instructions stickers have to be metallic?

If a church tells its members to practice only monogamous sex, is it bound to offer alternatives for those who prefer not to be monogamous? Can't they let the non-monogamists figure things out on their own?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 03:33 AM

Well said Sanity, and Joe, and Beeliner.
The fightback has begun!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 03:11 AM

Joe Offer: "I dunno, Alex (mousethief). It sounds like you're spinning words. The Catholic Church would rather people not have sex outside of marriage, which would certainly do a lot to prevent the horrible deaths caused by AIDS. Condoms aren't really needed for controlling AIDS in a monogamous married couple who practice marital fidelity.

The primary right-wrong issue here is marital fidelity - birth control comes a far second. If a person doesn't practice the rule of fidelity, then why would he/she bother to follow a rule about condoms? It just doesn't make sense. Sorry, Alex, but your condemnation sounds a lot like propaganda."

I was raised Catholic, but am not one now. Though I've had my differences with their doctrines, the one Joe Offer offers, is absolutely true, and is common sense, whether you're a Catholic or not!
Some things transcend dogma, or political beliefs. Those of you who came out of the 60's, should have learned by now, that much of the reckless stuff that was done back then, was done out of rebellion, experimentation, and immaturity. Very very little came out of it that was forwarding, except getting past it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 02:24 AM

I dunno, Alex (mousethief). It sounds like you're spinning words and getting pretty melodramatic there. The Catholic Church would rather people not have sex outside of marriage, which would certainly do a lot to prevent the horrible deaths caused by AIDS. Condoms aren't really needed for controlling AIDS in a monogamous married couple who practice marital fidelity.

The primary right-wrong issue here is marital fidelity - birth control comes a far second. If a person doesn't practice the rule of fidelity, then why would he/she bother to follow a rule about condoms? It just doesn't make sense. Sorry, Alex, but your condemnation sounds a lot like propaganda.

---

And then Richard Bridge makes a statement about the fundamental fact about organised Christianity - they killed ten million people....yeah, I suppose that in the 2,000 years of Christianity, it might be that ten million people were killed in the name of Christianity. I do agree that's shameful; but I would venture a guess that most of those killings were done under the guise of Christianity, but the fundamental reasons were political and economic.

I heard a quote somewhere: "When men want to fight, they will always find a reason to fight."

Sometimes I think it's most honest to say that killing is done for the sake of killing - all other reasons given are simply excuses.

The Catholic Church was a fair-sized nation for much of history. The Pope controlled the central third of Italy and was a major political player in Europe. He was much more a political figure, than he was a religious leader. Most popes rarely bothered to dabble in religion. In the last 150 years, Christianity has cleaned up its act, and the killings have continued for more openly political and economic reasons. The de-politicization of the papacy has one side effect that makes me nervous: the "cult" of the papacy. After the Pope ceased to be a political leader, be became regarded as a holy man - and many popes have not lived up to that expectation.

-----

The doctrine of infallibility was promulgated in the 1870s by the First Vatican Council. Since then, there have been two infallible doctrines: the doctrine of infallibility itself, and the doctrine that the body of Mary was taken into heaven after her death. They still haven't decided whether it was infallible when John Paul II said that the Church has no authority to ordain women. It was worded in a way that it could later be said that the Church had no authority to ordain women at the time - which was true, since huge numbers of Catholics were not ready to accept ordained women in the early 2000s, and ordaining women at the time would have been ecclesiastical suicide - or something like that. Infallible doctrines are usually written in incontrovertible language - and this one wasn't. My jury is still out on that one.

Infallible doctrines are teachings on a level with the articles of the Nicene Creed that is held by most Christians, and those doctrines don't come around every day. All other teachings are subject to change and evolution - and even the infallible ones are subject to reinterpretation. There are NO infallible teachings on divorce or birth control. And note that it is certain teachings, not the Pope, that are classed as infallible. Speaking of the Pope as infallible is imprecise and misleading.

That being said, I think time has proved that the Doctrine of Infallibility has been more trouble than it was worth, and it certainly has caused a lot of confusion and ill will.

Bear in mind that I have always had a healthy suspicion of Upper Management. My faith is based in my faith community - my parish - not in Rome. Rome is necessary, but not necessarily inspiring.

And if my parish wasn't inspiring, I've worked to change it - and I've been quite successful. I admit that I avoid parishes that appear to have no hope of reform. Why shouldn't I?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 11:33 PM

I said that? Boy where did I go wrong? Maybe where I believed that the Church ought to reduce harm to human beings. Clearly that doesn't matter. The church would rather people die horribly than use a condom. Dying horribly isn't sinful. Fuck 'em.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 11:28 PM

"The main reason I raised papal infallibility is because of the comments in this news article that related to the RC Popes statements on using condoms to reduce the spread of HIV:"

Doesn't apply, as the article points out. But now we are back to square one as the linked website advocates what poster mousethief suggested earlier: that the Church should be advising people how to sin rather than how not to!

Outrageous, ludicrous and downright pathetic!

But once again, I have no objection whatever to the various social agencies distributing such information non-judgmentally.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: olddude
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 11:21 PM

there is also no passage in the bible that says the pope is free from failure. Any church has laws and rules etc. ... like most Christians I can clearly differentiate between the law of God and a man made law or concept. Most like myself believe it was instituted when the pope had political power in the middle ages. hence no one would question his authority .. Now if he want to tell me I have to go to confession before I go to communion, ok fair enough. If he tells me I can not use a condom I like most Catholics will say .. thanks for the advice but do what we know is the right thing to do ... too much is made of that concept that rarely even mentioned in Sunday school classes any more

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: olddude
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 11:04 PM

infallibility applies only to the sacraments, that is the fact. There are 7 of them, communion, confession, baptism etc ...

that is a very narrow and very specific set that applies. Other discussions such as condom use or politics he is speaking for himself and that is the true fact. When he talks about sacraments he has most catholics attention, when he talks about other matters like most Catholics we accept or ignore. The church any church is made up of people, people fail, people succeed, but they are human. God doesn't fail, people do. I get sick of the bashing, if one doesn't like people of faith no one is shoving their beliefs at you or forcing you to believe anything. Likewise those with faith don't go around bashing those who don't. It is your own path and the free will is terribly important I think. There is not any denomination that doesn't have abuse, The Catholic church is the largest of Christian churches with over a billion members hence it will have a higher number of abuse cases by virtue of the numbers of people. Likewise there are many many athiest that do their share of abuse but myself and everyone else I know with faith don't go lumping every atheist in the same category, one only has to look at the violence in Africa or the killing fields in Cambodia or Stalin ... I only know that when bad things happen, like the hurricane that hit New Orleans, it was the people of faith that were there first to help while the red cross waited.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 10:35 PM

We badly need a Papal Infallibility Disclaimer. I have a draft, to help:
The term is not meant in any way to state in any manner what is normally understood or defined as " Infallible".

Infallibility applies to teachings of the Pope only when he is speaking on behalf of the whole church and in ways that are consistent with its councils, and with the collective wisdom of its cardinals and bishops as the truth has been revealed to them over time. And, when the Pope is speaking about matters of faith or morals, that applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals.

The doctrine of papal infallibility does not imply that the Pope is without sin or cannot make a mistake, be a bad example, will teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that he will make intelligentdecisions or agree with infallible pronouncements of previous popes. A pope's private theological opinions are not infallible, but only that which he defines as infallible teaching. When the Vatican issues a statement of the Pope such statements should not be regarded as being infallible, representative of theRC church nor even authoritative for RC followers and other Christians.

:)


Now Back to the original topic, since it is clear that the word Papal Infallibility does not really mean that much to those outside the RC church in common sense terms (and maybe even to some within).

The main reason I raised papal infallibility is because of the comments in this news article that related to the RC Popes statements on using condoms to reduce the spread of HIV:

http://www.cath4choice.org/PopeNotInfallibleonCondoms.asp

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 09:28 PM

Yes. beeliner. I suggest you return to your conmfort of music. Or political doubletalk.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 09:07 PM

Where has the church changed its theology since 1870? Let alone with every single pope.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 08:55 PM

Well, now we're going 'round in circles. The pope's 'wisdom' is not infallible nor does the Church claim that.

The Church believes and teaches that the Holy Spirit guides it infallibly in ex cathedra pronouncements on matters of faith and morals.

These matters are studied for years or even decades before such proclamations are made, but only the pope is authorized to make the actual pronouncement, hence the phrase 'papal infallibility'.

Moral teachings on more mundane matters such as marriage and family planning are in a different category entirely. They are regarded seriously by observant Catholics but do not meet the standards of infallibility and sometimes do change. A good example is the Church's attitude toward usury, once condemned but now tolerated as a facet of modern society.

But again, we've already been here. If the discussion doesn't progress I'm going back to posting about music.

While I don't doubt that you were once a Catholic as you claim, you seem to have forgotten a lot, or possibly weren't paying attention.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:50 PM

'organised Christianity - they killed ten million people, and the brutality of their wars of conquest has made "crusade" a term of abuse across the middle east to this day'.

Now we could be getting closer to identifying the real "bastards" of history, whose legacy we still deal with today:)

If the pope is infallible....then why has the RC church changed so much in theology, from one pope to the next, throughout history. Is the proof not in the RC church's "historic pudding", so to say?

If the wisdom of the pope is infallible within the RC church, and he is Gods representative, who the faithful are to follow...by membership....then why do so many RCs not follow what the pope says is the path of the RC church. Specifically, lets say on birth control and on divorce?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:01 PM

Here is what I understand to be the case..I suggest your beliefs are out-of-step with the course and teachings of the current RC church

Well, most of that is reasonably accurate, if I had more time I could break it down point by point, but firstly, you seem to define papal infallibility quite broadly when it is in fact quite narrow.

Papal encyclicals, for example, while obviously regarded as authoritative by Catholics, do not meet the requirements of infallibility.

Secondly, I am not giving my beliefs but what I understand the Church's positions to be. If you think I've stated some of those positions incorrectly, you might be right.

Feel free to offer specific corrections.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:39 PM

Gee wizz, let's start by remembering the fundamental fact about organised Christianity - they killed ten million people, and the brutality of their wars of conquest has made "crusade" a term of abuse across the middle east to this day.

Not, I think, that any other imaginary friend is any better, but the idea that there is truth or rationality in the Roman Catholic church is fantastic.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:30 PM

beeliner , you would make a good politician... many of these folks are good at   never answering a question directly, but redefine it to their best advantage:)

Here is what I understand to be the case:

I see that the defining statement of Christ was " "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church" The RC church   interpret this to mean that Peter and those directly following (Popes) are made Gods main (and thus, infallable) agent on Earth.

Other Christian religeons do not interpret these words that . This interpretation is that   "the rock" is the Christian churches not any one human person, Peter or any one person following who claims to be the one human representative of God on Earth (the Pope to the RC church).

In the RC church, "The Pope is, then, "the Bishop of the Catholic Church," her teacher, the vicar (agent, deputy) of Christ on earth. He is the interpreter of the Christian Tradition. When he speaks for the whole Church (ex cathedra), the Holy Spirit does not permit him to err. He is, therefore, infallible on matters of morals and doctrine. Other bishops are his lieutenants. He is the symbol of the episcopate's unity.

According to RC ecclesiology, each local parish is part of the universal or whole Church. The totality of Catholic parishes form the Body of Christ on earth. This visible Body has a visible head, the Pope. This idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a monster. Also, the local bishop seems stripped of his apostolic authority if the Pope may contradict his orders. Indeed, he cannot become a bishop unless the Pope allows it".

One other Christian example is The Orthodox Church , that teaches that "all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. The president of a synod of bishops is called archbishop (Greek custom) or metropolitan (Russian custom)".

Orthodoxy teaches that every bishop, "the living icon of Christ," and his flock constitute the Church in a certain place; or, as St. Ignatius the God-bearer says, the Church of Christ is in the bishop, his priests and deacons, with the people, surrounding the Eucharist in the true faith. All bishops and their flocks so constituted, together composing the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".

You state "Christ gave the keys of heaven to the apostles and their successors". Yes, but, millions of very religeous (few of them bastards) do not believe that this means the RC Pope alone takes on that role.

I don't quite know where you are going with the words " schismatic, heretical and bastardized" christianity. Sounds like a throw back to some of the early and sorry RC church times. If so, I suggest your beliefs are out-of-step with the course and teachings of the current RC church. ...but, if as I interpret, that is your decision and cross to bear.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 11:34 AM

The prevailing theory....and it was that....was Christ's words indicated that only the Roman Catholic church was to be Gods church, and the RC Pope Gods agent on Earth. (To me and millions of others, this is not the correct interpretation) This message was spread to RC followers was that other Christian churches were not following Gods will and direction (Orthodox, Protestant and others)....

OK, but I would state the same thing differently, and more succinctly: Other Christian churches are either schismatic or heretical. Christ gave the keys of heaven to the apostles and their successors, not to every so-called 'reformer' who decides to invent his own bastardized version of Christianity.

Do RC's actually believe in the dogma of "papal infallibility" as presented to the faithful as necessary to their salvation?

Again, stated differently: RC's believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church inerrently in matters of doctrine, stated ex cathedra and usually after years on even decades of study by the pope and the other bishops. That has always been the Church's belief, long before Pius IX. Most of these doctrines trace their roots to the earliest centuries of Christianity, and the Church regards these traditions, along with Scripture, as divinely revealed.

So I'm not disagreeing with you so much as just looking at it from the other side of the street, so to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 10:55 AM

A question:
Do RC's actually believe in the dogma of "papal infallibility" as presented to the faithful as necessary to their salvation?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 10:36 AM

Thanks for that Joe Offer.

Yes there were a few priests excommunicated for the reasons you state, However, there were manny more good Christian folk excommunicated, shunned,careers shortened or impacted, tortured and even killed (Inquistions, Crusades, wars, political interventions, and through colonizations and missionary work) by the Roman Catholic church throughout history, and because they merely sought religeous thruth, a different Christian direction and interpretation than the Roman Catholic church...or were seeking scientific knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 10:28 AM

beeliner
Lets not play with words, it serves no purpose (as we are not in a political discussion) ....when the word "Catholic" is used in most cases the intended meaning is the Roman Catholic church. I do recognise that in a broader sense that the term catholic is more inclusive...but is rarely used as such, other than those in church theology . Just ask any protestant if they are a Catholic and see what response you get).

It wasn't until recent years that the RC Church recognized other Christian Churches....maybe for a number of historic and internal organizational reasons. The prevailing theory....and it was that....was Christ's words indicated that only the Roman Catholic church was to be Gods church, and the RC Pope Gods agent on Earth. (To me and millions of others, this is not the correct interpretation) This message was spread to RC followers was that other Christian churches were not following Gods will and direction (Orthodox, Protestant and others).... This thinking has been adjusted ....but only somewhat so....now that all Christian churches and christians are on a similar course...and some day will unify....but, under the RC church and the Pope. I would not hold my breath on that one.

No misinterpretation of the Priests words on my part , he made it clear, as I recall a that followers of the local protestant churches would not enter heaven, as they were not followers of the one and only Christian church...as tasked by Christ and God...the Roman Catholic church. This message was repeated more than once.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 08:35 AM

"All those justified by faith through Baptism are incorporated into Christ. They therefore have a right to be honored by the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers and sisters in the Lord by the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church" Vatican II

Absolutely, so all those referred to are, AT LEAST in a manner of speaking, Catholics. And that is what I SUSPECT the priest meant when he said that only Catholics are saved.

Either HE misinterpreted the Church's teaching or YOU misinterpreted his. I suspect the latter, but I wasn't there.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:16 AM

Hey...not all people believe in the authority of the Catholic Church....and guess what??......Not all people believe in the authority of the state, either!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 01:01 AM

"All those justified by faith through Baptism are incorporated into Christ. They therefore have a right to be honored by the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers and sisters in the Lord by the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church" Vatican 11

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:45 AM

... the Catholic Church excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre, who taught just that.

Father Leonard Feeney also taught that and was similarly excommunicated.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: beeliner
Date: 14 Feb 10 - 12:42 AM

od, very well stated.   

Ed, the Church is its membership, of which its clergy and hierarchy are only a small part. They have great responsibility, and when they fail, that is their fault and not the fault of the faithful. But hey, as St. John said, "Whatever gets you through the night...".