Pope Says, "Christian Churches not real Churches."

Frankly, I don't see that anything has changed.

The Roman Catholic Church has always believed that it is the one and only true Christian Church, tracing it's heritage to Saint Peter, about whom Jesus said:

Matt.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.

Bible, King James Version

[edit on 2007/7/10 by GradyPhilpott]

I would like to clarify that there is no way in hell a real "gunz blazin'" war is going to erupt Catholics and everyone else. BUT, Benedict's comments only serve to antagonize other Christians and are a huge step backwards away from the ecumenical progress that was made by his predecessor.

Well, you can't argue with the man.

Here is a "snippet" from the article. The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles — and therefore their priestly ordinations are not valid, it said.

In the days of King Solomons Great Temple there were Cherubims in the Temple... Great big ones covered in Gold...

They looked like THIS



Nowadays the Church wants you to believe they look like THIS



Why has this change been forced upon us? Could it be that they don't want people to know the truth?

Egypt



Babylon



Assyria



Sumerian



So now they are made to look like fat little babies...

Talk about changing the story

Here, here, Zorgon! Yeah, I like the winged lions, better, I stood between two of the Assyrian ones once at the British Museum...maybe I'll put up that picture soon.

Yeah, I think religiously we're more the same than we are different...so, so many religions believe in a supreme sky God. Personally, I think it probably all goes back to the religion of Atlantis...can't we just all go back to that one?

Originally posted by the_sentinal
I mean come on, let's wait and see if the pope retract's or alters his statement first before you all go marching off to the crusade.

Well its 2007... 2012 is just around the corner... Everyone keeps telling me that the end is near... So if you don't mind I shall sharpen my swords

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by the_sentinal
I mean come on, let's wait and see if the pope retract's or alters his statement first before you all go marching off to the crusade.

Well its 2007... 2012 is just around the corner... Everyone keeps telling me that the end is near... So if you don't mind I shall sharpen my swords

Nah, start fletchin'. I think I'll get a longbow regiment together...

That is so Total War: Medieval II!

Originally posted by douglas2k4
That is so Total War: Medieval II!

One of the best games ever made, bub.

Off Topic: Indeed, I play it perhaps every other day, one of the best RTS games available.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by douglas2k4]

Way to go guy's, with every thing else going on in the world, the pope has to start something like this, I mean Chertoff has a stomach ache, we got Gnomes smuggleing reptilians....whats next??

I'm sure the Muslims are lovin this!! Their probably looking at us saying: why should we send suicide bombers over there?? we'll just stand back and let them kill each other off........ just great.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by the_sentinal]

Apostolic succession is a man made concept. If you believe in Jesus, you are an Apostle. That means we, who believe, are all in succession from Jesus. Not from Peter. Jesus. Not from Pope. Jesus.


Zorgon,

Oh gosh, that Jesuit thing will really cause undue distress at this point. I did find it interesting, however, that the one article tried to claim that one of the popes (forget which one now, do you remember?) was killed by his own jesuit general (poisioned, I believe was the cause), because apparently there as a bit of infighting between the two: the white pope (the official spokesman) and the black pope (the jesuit general), as it were. It seems the article was, if I remember correctly, trying to stipulate that the real "human" ruler of the planet atm, is the jesuit general, who represents the equivalent of the military arm of the Vatican, and among who's jobs are running damage control, public relations, espionage, the mob, mafia, syndicate, secret societies, and so on.

Now that the biblical texts are out for everyone to read and enough people are literate enough to read them, and also now that they are printed in various languages, even the popes have become more "visibly" christian in their behaviors and attitudes, than their counterparts of the Dark Ages. As a result of maintaining visible credibility as christian figures, the white popes have given over the cause of protecting the church by whatever means necessary, to the jesuit generals, who few people know about or see, for that matter, and who can work virtually unimpeded to the advancement of the order. Think of them like the CIA. (in fact, one guy claims they run the CIA of the USA).

[edit on 10-7-2007 by undo]

Ratzinger has been supposed, as the second to last Pope of Rome and Catholic Church.

There's a bunch of gunk going on past and before Roosevelt through a day at the 32nd Freemason level for past President Reagan for a day, under (Bush 1 -sn's) introduction to the Washington Freemason echelons.

The outer circle -- you must have a religion (believe in a Deity) to become a Freemason. Inner Circle -- gosh knows but it seems to be an anti religion or somewhere around belief in Satan. Read the horror stories on Freemasonry, particularly in England during the last 30 years.

Dallas

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Leyla
Man had no business changing the word of God. Now it thanks to that there is more versions then they should be. The only autorized version was the KJV now to find out thats not the original.

The KJV is my favorite translation of the Bible, but it is just a translation. Where did you get the idea that the KJV is the only authorized version? Authorized by whom? The KJV changed the word of God, according to your definition. I think.

Can you clarify?

Well Its supposed to be. I did some checking that some books were left out ordered by Cadbury in 1885. Have to find that again and I will post the link backing this claim.

The 1611 KJV is the true translation. The KJV has those books left out thats called the Deuterocanonical books. Look up Christianbook.com.

Originally posted by Leyla

Well Its supposed to be. I did some checking that some books were left out ordered by Cadbury in 1885. Have to find that again and I will post the link backing this claim.

I would also like see what you come up with Leyla, and hopefully which books were left out if you could find that as well. Thanks,

@ undo: Yeah, but you have to take into consideration the context in which it was stated. Christians are "disciples" of Christ, but some individuals (priest, pastor, missionary, monks..etc) are "apostles" of Christ. They are, supposedly, living every waking moment as a reflection of Christ.

But let's be honest, a majority of people are "disciples", and some can even hold that title responsively. It takes a considerable amount of sacrifice to become an "apostle" of Christ. A disciple is a "learner and follower of a teacher", the teacher being Christ. Only when one has learned can he/she preach and become an "apostle"--a teacher-- to spread the good news.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by douglas2k4]

Originally posted by douglas2k4
@ undo: Yeah, but you have to take into consideration the context in which it was stated. Christians are "disciples" of Christ, but some individuals (priest, pastor, missionary, monks..etc) are "apostles" of Christ. They are, supposedly, living every waking moment as a reflection of Christ.

But let's be honest, a majority of people are "disciples", and some can even hold that title responsively. It takes a considerable amount of sacrifice to become an "apostle" of Christ. A disciple is a "learner and follower of a teacher", which is Christ. Only when one has learned can he/she preach and become an "apostle"--a teacher-- to spread the good news.

If that weren't fraught with other problems, such as the ability to erect an organization in which you get to decide who is worthy and who is not, to preach the gospel. That's deciding for God, who should and shouldn't talk about Him, whether He wants them to talk about Him or not. It second guesses God, puts the authority into the hands of people entrenched in tradition and not giving heed to the Spirit. The Spirit of God moves. It moves wherever it wills. It moves on who it wills. It uses who it wills. To stifle that due to human understanding and tradition, is the opposite of the Great Commission.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by undo]

@ undo: Well, I agree with you partly. I was just explaining the reasons and differences to be called a "disciple" versus being an "apostle". One must first learn, and this cannot be denied, how to reiterate into words, the written word, art, dance, etc... the human understanding (the best we can with our human minds) of the Holy Spirit before one can teach of it and become an "apostle".

For example, would you not want to have a qualified teacher teaching a subject versus just grabbing some person off the street who knows very little of the subject at hand to come and teach you? I would rather have the former teach me. Therefore, one is considered a "disciple" before one can become an "apostle".

Originally posted by douglas2k4

For example, would you not want to have a qualified teacher teaching a subject versus just grabbing some person off the street who knows very little of the subject at hand to come and teach you? I would rather have the former teach me. Therefore, one is considered a "disciple" before one can become an "apostle".

The difference is, that your approach is that of human understanding. The Spirit of God doesn't have those "restrictions." There's no time barriers. No social barriers. No educational, gender, or age barriers. Anyone, at any time, can be used to preach the gospel, as the gospel is very simple. It's only man made tradition that has laden it down with rituals and rules that are simply not in the texts. Even some of the protestant religions have this same problem == they gotta approve of the preacher and only after he/she has undergone training in the word. Listen, if the Spirit of God moves on you to speak, you won't need to have a doctorate degree in religion.

I recall a day at the park with some christian friends. we brought our guitars and played and sang music. a guy came along, who had long hair, and he was really into our music. he asked alot of questions. the dominant male in the group, spoke up and told him that first of all, before he could ever consider becoming a christian, he would have to cut his hair. now, i'm a female. you can imagine what happened when i contradicted that and said, it has nothing to do with his hair. his hair can be short, long, bald, purple, green, doesn't matter. it isn't the outward man but the inward man that Christ transforms. Anyway, I was told as a female, I should've waited till he was done and the guy was gone, rather than contradict him in front of the long hair.

A perfect example of second guessing God. How does he know that the Spirit of God didn't move on me to say that? Because I'm a woman, that's why. Tradition can oftentimes just wreak havoc on the free movement of the Spirit of God among the people.