Pope Says, "Christian Churches not real Churches."

Yes Flyersfan, you are correct. I mean fallible. God, that coulda been real bad eh . I'll just go back and edit that out hope no one notices .

Ok well I can't. You understood my point though. When I talk about infallibility and then mention no one's perfect I think people get it.



....Meanwhile proving my point that we're fallible, even when we say we're infallible .

[edit on 13-7-2007 by biggie smalls]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Oh yeah .. thank God for Martin Luther

Here's a really great quote from the fella you are thanking God for - "If the wife is unwilling,

You know... without a lot of effort, I can find proof that ALL religions back in those days did not treat women kindly. Do you forget all History? Statements like that were the norm of beliefs at the time. Your arguments in defense of your beliefs are admirable... to laugh at others in this manner is disrespectful of others at the least...

Originally posted by shearder
An apology:

In all sincerity and in good faith, I did, as perhaps noticed, take a lot of comments personally and I should have not done so. Should I have made personal attacks - please accept my apologies, to any and all, for posting in haste and not considering my words used on a personal level.

Apology accepted

Glad I read all the way through before responding to one post. Religion is always a touchy subject...

We keep saying the words "Freedom of Religion" in this country, yet when we discuss it, it appears that some do not grasp the meaning...



Time for me to go back to the Moon :p
Play nice now

[edit on 13-7-2007 by zorgon]

What i really don't understand is how the "Church"
is founded on Peter, as the Apostle who carried on the Christ Idea,

but 'Christianity' is rooted/established/flourishing on the teachings of Paul.

is that the wide gap i'm seeing here,
as the Catholics base their claim on their continual Apostolic Succession as the most important benchmark/standard,
which in the Vatican's view sets them apart as the first, ?true? church. ~?

but in contrast, all the Protestant & Gnostic Churches, put less emphasis on the 'Peter' foundation...in favor of other religious ideals & evidences.?



i see the Pope as essentially promoting his product or merchandise
over the competitors, nothing wrong with that...
Wht seems the friction here in this thread is that non-catholics take the
Popes' message as his claiming an 'Absolute Truth'...
just by getting riled up at the Pope's promotion of his 'product'/ideology
the antagonists are actually giving the Pope a higher platform or station
by their voiceferious condemnation than it deserved in the first place.





I don't know if this analogy simplifies it, but i'll give it a whack----
Say Ford motors, declares the IT is the real originator of all autos,
that all the other johnny-come-lately auto builders are mere 'Pretenders'

That does not make other cars non-functional/useless things...
all & every car make/model/style works for its intended purpose, right?

~ Same thing with the Churches...the RCC by some rationale' or logic
determines that their lock on being the last-man-standing in the Christian Cult emergence...
is in itself a 'proof' that their claim on 'Apostle Peter' -
on which is founded the RCC Church -
underlines the Vaticans view that they are the Primacy Church.....
and all others are wanna-bes & pretenders......(Baah!)

a sad state, when that claim causes un-Jesus-like competition & antagonism

PS We almost had rain the day after I mentioned that.. felt a few drops but it never quite made it.. must try harder next time

I know I was watching. don't lose faith yet.

Originally posted by shearder
The Catholic Church has PEOPLE running the show and did have a thousand years ago, and they had "The Power" and USED it to THEIR own advantage to the DISADVANTAGE of CATHOLICS who ARE normal people. CATHOLICS are NOT the "bad people"

Exactly, I could not agree more. But knowing that why would you continue to follow?

Originally posted by Shadowflux
just don't like it when someone comes in and starts debating (read arguing) with every poster on the board using opinion and invalid information as "fact".

This board is for debating and finding truth. I posted TRUTH and VALID information.
Oh .. and I’m allowed to respond to whom ever I wish to … deal with it.

Here I'm being labeled a "Catholic Basher" even though I haven't bashed anyone.

Oh .?? Your post (full of errors about the Catholic faith) from page one –

Originally posted by Shadowflux
The Catholic church is not a real Christian church, ... The majority of the theological beliefs of the Catholic church have little to no basis in scripture what so ever … who is the only organization teaching people to speak lies in church and to believe deceptions hoping all the while that none of you read your Bible? Who has millions worshiping an idol every Sunday? Who has millions praying to various other deified personae because you can not speak with Jesus yourself? Who takes the gifts Jesus brought us, locks them up behind guilded doors and tells you that you're not worthy to see and experience them? What would be the greatest deception evil could muster?

There are plenty more .. but we will start with the first one. Calling the Catholic Church not Christian :shk: … saying the majority of our beliefs have no basis in scripture even when you have no clue what our beliefs are … claiming the church doesn’t want us to read our bible when in fact Sunday mass has 3 bible readings and daily mass has 2 …. Claiming the Catholic worship idols whn in fact we do not and if you ever actually read the Catechism you'd know that … Claiming the Catholic church has ‘deified persons’ (DEAD WRONG!) … claiming that the church tells us we can’t talk to Jesus ourselves … claiming the Church has locked away the gifts of Christ …. Insinuating the Catholic Church is the greatest deception evil could do.

Your claim not to be bashing the Catholic faith is bunk.
Your bashing in this post alone shows you know nothing of the Catholic faith.
All those Jack Chick tracts you've been reading have sunk in very well.

but ignore Flyer's twisting of my words.

No one is twisting your words. They are being shown for what they are.

I refuted Flyer's statements, the idea that a common man would be able to read the Bible before Luther

,
:shk: I have said over and over that the common man COULD NOT READ ANYTHING … your claim that I said otherwise is a lie.

the idea that the Catholic Church is right due to Apostolic Succession,

I didn’t say that the Catholic Church is ‘right’ due to Apostolic Succession. I said that it had it .. but I didn’t make any such statement that the Church was ‘right’ or that others were ‘wrong’. So again … you lie.

FF's statement that the Anglican Church was the first protestant church,

Find a quote on this thread where I said anything about the Anglican Church. You can’t. I didn’t. Yet another lie by you.

everything FF said against me was refuted cordially and logically.

No it wasn’t. I have knocked down everything you said… and knocked it all down with facts. You are dreaming if you think you have successfully refuted anything I said.

that I was polite and patient.

Oh really ?? - this post of yours ring a bell?

Originally posted by Shadowflux
Flyers, You are a troll of the highest order ... Thanks for hijacking and derailing this thread.

You called me a troll and said I hijacked and derailed a thread .. simply because your posts were shown to be full of errors …. And because this wasn’t a free-for-all anti-Catholic bashing thread.

FF just replied to my post by twisting my words and using yet more inaccuracies and poor logic.

Nothing I posted was inaccurate. No one twisted your words – they fell apart on their own. As for ‘poor logic’ .. that’s subjective.

What part of FF's info was edifying and contributive?

EVERYTHING I posted was contributive. You just don’t like what I said.

The lies about the availability of a Bible or the misinformation about the Anglican church?

The only one telling lies about that is you . You lie that I ever said those things. I never said the common person had a bible – I said THEY COULDN”T READ. Educated people had plenty of access to bibles. The church wasn’t withholding bibles from the common man .. they couldn’t read. And I didn’t say anything about the Anglican church. You really shouldn’t lie about me … it’s not nice.

The applause I received from the mods for my posts in this thread seems to indicate they appreciated my contributions.

If you really did receive any applause – let alone multiple applauses – for the bashing you posted then that’s truly pathetic. But of course there are ignorant Catholic bashers everywhere .. the mod world is no exception. :shk:



[edit on 7/13/2007 by FlyersFan]

To say that nobody could read in the 14th century is disingenuous. Literacy levels were not high, granted, but it is a big stretch to go the whole hog, as you have. The implication is that there was no point in translating the Bible, because nobody would have been able to read it. This is historically innaccurate:

As far as lay writing for pleasure goes, the aristocratic classes were known to have included such accomplishments among the significata of their rank, whether it be lyric poetry or treatises on gentlemanly pursuits such as hunting, falconry or horse breeding. Once again, authorship does not necessarily imply the physical act of writing, but neither does the use of scribes taking dictation imply a lack of written literacy by the author. I am sure the great lords were capable of cutting up their own meat, but they didn't do it.

*********

In an era when any books purchased from a bookseller were an expensive luxury, those with writing skills compiled their own miscellanies, using cursive business hands and the relatively cheaper medium of paper. Compilations of this type are known as commonplace books, and may contain copies of literary works alongside devotional poetry, notes on the breeding of hunting dogs, and the prices of brocade in Venice.

*********

Given the social divisions and varying levels of access to education in the later middle ages, it is not possible to set universal benchmarks for writing literacy, such as fascinate our current generation of politicians. A significant proportion of the population probably never learned to write at all, even when they were involved in legal affairs that required written process. Appending a cross to a legal document rather than signing it, to indicate that a person had taken an oath to Christ as to its validity, is seen throughout the middle ages. On the other hand, many people were participating actively at some level in literate culture. The art of writing was practised for profit, for legal validation, for business recordkeeping, and for pleasure.

Source:medievalwriting.50megs.com...

Here is some interesting info on Bible translations:

A restricted Bible: 8th - 14th century AD
The intention of St Jerome, translating into Latin the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament, was that ordinary Christians of the Roman empire should be able to read the word of God. 'Ignorance of the scriptures', he wrote, 'is ignorance of Christ'.

Gradually this perception is altered. After the collapse of the western empire, the people of Christian Europe speak varieties of German, French, Anglo-Saxon, Italian or Spanish. The text of Jerome's Vulgate is understood only by the learned, most of whom are priests. They prefer to corner the source of Christian truth, keeping for themselves the privilege of interpreting it for the people. Translation into vulgar tongues is discouraged.

There are exceptions. In the late 8th century Charlemagne commissions translation of parts of the Bible for the use of his missionaries in the drive to convert pagan Germans. In the 9th century the Greek brothers Cyril and Methodius, sent from Constantinople to Moravia at royal request, translate the Gospels and parts of the Old Testament into Slavonic.

These are missionary endeavours, promoted by rulers as an act of government when pagan Europe is being brought into the Christian fold. In the later fully Christian centuries there is no equivalent need to provide the holy texts in vernacular form. Any such impulse is now a radical demand on behalf of ordinary Christians against the church hierarchy.
The strongest medieval demand for vernacular texts comes in France from a heretical sect, the Cathars. The suppression of the Cathars is complete by the mid-13th century. But in the following century the same demand surfaces within mainstream western Christianity.

Source:www.historyworld.net...

FlyersFan, good post.

I am a Roman Catholic. But I'm not practicing at the moment. (Political views, personal problems, you pick.)

But I tell you this, I've never heard any fellow Catholic denounce any other Christian faith.

And in my eyes, as long as you love the Maker and Jesus Christ, you're a Christian.

But I do however feel lost at times. I need to redefine not only myself, but my views on life in general.

Sorry for not contributing much on the subject.

Frontkjemper

Originally posted by Frontkjemper
I am a Roman Catholic. But I'm not practicing at the moment. (Political views, personal problems, you pick.)

But I tell you this, I've never heard any fellow Catholic denounce any other Christian faith.

You haven't been to Northern Ireland, then. Catholics aren't really strangers to sectarian conflict, you know.

[edit on 14-7-2007 by Karilla]

I got it- This hit me when I saw the site- basically what the Pope said was true but the catholic being the true church is false.


www.thercg.org...

Look how many church denominations their are now- hundreds.

Jesus created a church- one- thats all we need. A united, non denominational, independant church.



[edit on 7/14/2007 by Leyla]

Originally posted by Karilla
You haven't been to Northern Ireland, then. Catholics aren't really strangers to sectarian conflict, you know.

[edit on 14-7-2007 by Karilla]

But not all Catholics are Irish. I only stated my view.

Frontkjemper

This comes from a guy who for the last 20 years before he became pope imposed Crimen Sollicitationis, relating to all cases dealing with sexual abuse in the Catholic Church???

IF anyONE was outspoken against hose priests/bishops they would excommunicated??

Come one oh yes the Catholic Church is the true one Church NOTTT ....

Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope.

It instructs bishops on how to deal with allegations of child abuse against priests and has been seen by few outsiders.

[edit on 14-7-2007 by spencerjohnstone]

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Exactly, I could not agree more. But knowing that why would you continue to follow?

I was brought up a Catholic and I believe in God and if man, i.e. the Pope, or any one representing the church, sins, it is on his head and he needs to ask forgiveness - i will not bash him as he needs answer for what he has done. This also holds true for those a thousand years ago - perhaps they had a personal game plan and many suffered but that did not echo what God wanted as far as i believe.

[edit on 16/7/2007 by shearder]

Originally posted by Frontkjemper
But I tell you this, I've never heard any fellow Catholic denounce any other Christian faith.

And in my eyes, as long as you love the Maker and Jesus Christ, you're a Christian.

We have no reason to denounce any other religions. Sometimes a Catholic will say things that he or she shouldn't but that can usually be a personal thing. But I also have to agree that, it doesn't matter what your religious beliefs, if you believe in one maker and one God, i guess that makes you Christian. Though I do find it difficult at times to love those that hurt me but when i do forgive, no matter how much that person has hurt me, it helps because it releases me from giving them power over my life.

Originally posted by Karilla

Originally posted by Frontkjemper
But I tell you this, I've never heard any fellow Catholic denounce any other Christian faith.

You haven't been to Northern Ireland, then. Catholics aren't really strangers to sectarian conflict, you know.

What needs to be understood is that Catholics and Protestants are not fighting because one believe more than the other or less than the other. This is a long standing conflict since the 1600's. This had its roots in land ownership conflicts. It just so happened that protestants come and settled in Northern Ireland and This was another "people's" territory. Kinda like the Cubans pulling up and settling in Texas - no one would be happy and the Texans would say, "hey, that's our land" and the Cubans would say "hey, we also want some". Ok, that's a really simplified view of the Norther Ireland situation but that's in essence what the problem was.

Mistrust and bad feelings resulting from the colonisation of Ireland by Protestant settlers were followed by centuries of political and social segregation of Catholics and Protestants in all of Ireland. After the victory of William of Orange (the Protestant challenger who deposed the Catholic king, James II), laws were enacted by the all-Protestant Parliament of Ireland barring Catholics from all offices, land ownership, schooling, and other avenues leading toward wealth and education (Darby 1976, 4).

Source

It wasn't a religious battle, though i guess indirectly, due to the fact that there were different cultures living in close quarters. If we remove religion from the equation, you would still have people with different cultures/ways trying to establish themselves as "The Rulers". Now, i think, regardless of which religion one is affiliated to, i would also kick up a stick if i suddenly could not own land or send my kids to school.

Politics in Northern Ireland have always been dominated by the necessity for Protestant control of the government and its processes. The requirement that a Protestant majority be created in Northern Ireland was a major determinant in drawing the boundary for the Partition of Ireland. Northern Ireland is composed of six of the original nine counties of the province of Ulster. The remaining three counties of Ulster were not included in Northern Ireland due to the fact that the higher percentage of Catholics in these counties posed a threat to Protestant control of the country. As illustrated (see map 1), only those counties of Ulster province that had a Protestant population of at least 30 per cent were included in the Unionist enclave of Northern Ireland.

As far as i am concerned, it does not look like a "fight" because one believes in different beings etc. It really was a rulership issue that really materialized outside of the walls of any church but had much more to do between the clash of cultures and who wanted to be in charge.

So based on Karilla's comment, I would have to say that this fighting is not Catholics denouncing another's faith but simply fighting for a right to be able to live a decent life with being able to own land etc. I believe this should have been sorted out centuries ago but I guess there is much involved other than religion. It is more politically than religiously charged.

Who really listens to the Pope anyway?

Who cares what he thinks or says... I don't. Like hello!?... this is the guy that has done absolutely nothing to address the sexual abuse in the Church by his own clergy. What does the Vatican do? Relocate the offenders and say nothing at all.

well...stuff the Vatican and stuff what the pompous old git has to say about absolutely anything!!

Originally posted by NJE777
Who really listens to the Pope anyway?
Who cares what he thinks or says... I don't. Like hello!?...

touche

Originally posted by NJE777
this is the guy that has done absolutely nothing to address the sexual abuse in the Church by his own clergy. What does the Vatican do? Relocate the offenders and say nothing at all.
well...stuff the Vatican and stuff what the pompous old git has to say about absolutely anything!!

You have an absolute right to your own opinion. You have an absolute right to your feelings and your comments. Hell, you don't have to care what anyone thinks or says. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church does take necessary steps when sexual offences are proven. If they are NOT proven to be valid beyond a reasonable doubt then how can they punish the priest even if he IS guilty. What if he wasn't? The same law that is applied to you and I is applied to a priest - no exceptions. But again, you cannot punish anyone who has not been found guilty.

Sins committed by someone from the Catholic Church are usually magnified because of what the church stands for. Keep in mind, Priests are human and not infallible. They are also sinners at times though should be less so for obvious reasons. But again, the Vatican does NOT turn a blind eye!!

Source

The Catholic Church remains the last bulwark against the insidious sexual revolution. This is galling to the secular media, the members of which do not seem to show a great deal of affection for God's moral law, particularly those precepts that deal with sexual activity. Thus, stories about sexual sins within the bosom of the Church almost always receive special attention and are usually followed by snide commentary on the impracticality of expecting "ordinary people" to adhere to the Church's teaching on sexuality.

It's like people just standing to one side just waiting for someone in the church to do something stupid so they can do just that - stand and point and say "see - these catholics this and that and the other..." it's par for the course.

a Norbertine priest, Brendan Smyth, was indicted by a court in Northern Ireland for child molestation. Since Smyth had fled to the South, authorities in the North had to file an extradition request with the Republic of Ireland. Attorney General Harry Whelehan, whom The National Catholic Reporter described as a "conservative Catholic," allowed the request to sit unattended on his desk for seven months, apparently out of concern for the negative publicity such a case would cause. After being ordered to return to the North by Cardinal Cahal Daly, Smyth pleaded guilty to 17 counts of indecently assaulting five girls and two boys while serving in West Belfast from 1964 to 1988. He was sentenced to four years in prison in June 1994.

The reason i used the one above is because there ARE people who, in trying to protect the church, actually cause it more harm.

More recently:

Source

Roman Catholic priest Daniel Pichette will serve 21 months in prison after pleading guilty in Quebec Wednesday to several counts of sexual assault involving Duplessis Orphans more than half a century ago.

Now that's not just 2 of a "couple"!! If you do a Google search and use catholic priest sexual prison you will get 1,750,000 results concerning those words. Even if only 500 are valid, it's proof that the priests DO NOT get away with it or just get placed somewhere else and forgotten. IF they are in fact found guilty, they DO go to prison and are sometimes murdered in prison because of there transgressions - because they were priests - i say WERE priests because they usually get de-robed.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
This comes from a guy who for the last 20 years before he became pope imposed Crimen Sollicitationis, relating to all cases dealing with sexual abuse in the Catholic Church???

Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope.

It instructs bishops on how to deal with allegations of child abuse against priests and has been seen by few outsiders.

I am sorry but I am trying very hard to see what point you were trying to make?! Many would not go in search of the document you mention which was in force from 1962 till 1989 when the Code of Canon Law came into being though it was still enforced up till 2001. The excerpt you provided actually meant nothing in the bigger scheme of things.

Source

Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church's internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities.

I think it is pretty clear that clergymen still faced the law! But again, this document was so secret that they didn't really hide behind it because they didn't know it existed. Also, in ANY organization, regardless whether religious or otherwise, some would protect their kind - that's human - not Catholic specifically.

For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it. For another, they say, secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.

The REST of your post should have contained the following:

Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope.
It instructs bishops on how to deal with allegations of child abuse against priests and has been seen by few outsiders.
Critics say the document has been used to evade prosecution for sex crimes.
Crimen Sollicitationis was written in 1962 in Latin and given to Catholic bishops worldwide who are ordered to keep it locked away in the church safe.
It instructs them how to deal with priests who solicit sex from the confessional. It also deals with “any obscene external act … with youths of either sex.”
It imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation and any witnesses.

Breaking that oath means excommunication from the Catholic Church.

Now THAT was an unbiased post on my part because i could have perhaps made it read the way i wanted to with some sly edit, BUT, what is read above is a sensationalized report from none other than the BBC - go figure.

Hey i am not saying everything is above board, it isn't always regardless of the organization but no matter, priests still went and still go to prison for abuse.

Now if i may just take a step back to where this is said:

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Crimen Sollicitationis, relating to all cases dealing with sexual abuse in the Catholic Church???

Dude, dude, dude - did you just watch BBC? Your statement is not 100% correct. In FACT, this is the fact:

Source

It established a procedure for canonical cases in which priests were accused of abusing the confessional to sexually proposition penitents. Four concluding paragraphs extend the procedure to the crimen pessimum, or "worst crime," meaning homosexual acts contrary to a priest's celibate commitment. The document was not designed to address sexual abuse of minors, but would include many such violations.

So, to be clear on my comment; it wasn't designed for sexual abuse but sexual "sins". They could proposition someone and go ahead and have consensual sex, that wasn't ABUSE but, that was against the churches law. That was the main purpose. Ok - splitting hairs.

On a last - same link as one above in case it is too long a read:

"Of course, a bishop couldn't use this document to cover up denunciation of an act of sexual abuse," Morrisey said. "The document simply wasn't made for that purpose."

[edit on 16/7/2007 by shearder]

Originally posted by shearder
Hey i am not saying everything is above board, it isn't always regardless of the organization but no matter, priests still went and still go to prison for abuse.

Hi, Shearder, I just wondered if you could provide some recent examples of Catholic priests going to prison for child abuse. Thanks.

I am sorry but I am trying very hard to see what point you were trying to make?! Many would not go in search of the document you mention which was in force from 1962 till 1989 when the Code of Canon Law came into being though it was still enforced up till 2001. The excerpt you provided actually meant nothing in the bigger scheme of things.

This is the point I am making: Crimen solicitationis is indicative of a worldwide policy of absolute secrecy and control of all cases of sexual abuse by the clergy.

The REST of your post should have contained the following:

The reason I didnt add anymore of what you had posted, I did not want the MOD to edit my comment for having too mutch external quotes on my postings. But it seems you are allowed to do it so, lemme answer you.

Now THAT was an unbiased post on my part because i could have perhaps made it read the way i wanted to with some sly edit, BUT, what is read above is a sensationalized report from none other than the BBC

At least the BBC is accountable, unlike the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church have been harbouring Pheadophiles for years. The Catholic Church is more Biased than the BBC is. Check their history...

Dude, dude, dude - did you just watch BBC? Your statement is not 100% correct. In FACT, this is the fact:

Look at whats been happening over in the USA, how many years has ot took those victims to bring those who carried out these abuses to court? Year upon years If everything was above board. Then why hide the fact? Why wait to do something about it. Until those abused brought this to court?

it wasn't designed for sexual abuse but sexual "sins". They could proposition someone and go ahead and have consensual sex, that wasn't ABUSE but, that was against the churches law

It is not designed for sexual sins as you put it, it was enforced to silence those from reporting abuses that were taken place inside the caltholic church at the time.

Father Tom Doyle is a canon lawyer. He had a diplomatic career with the Vatican but was sacked after he criticised the church's handling of child abuse.

If the Vatican was not controlling this, then why was this Lawyer sacked? for criticising the chruch's hadnling of these cases?

Also just to add:

You've got a written policy that says that the Vatican will control these situations and you also have I think clear written evidence of the fact that all they are concerned about is containing and controlling the problem.

Nowhere in any of these documents does it say anything about helping the victims.

Source

Shall I post all the cases also pending regarding sexual abuse? Going back 20 or 30 years?