Pope: Other Christians not true churches

[Keystone Phil]

I don't believe this is Pope bashing Phil. You're being too sensitive about this. What the Pope said, I believe was damaging and was a reversal of the process of reconciliation under Pope John Paul II.

Personally I would feel embarrased, but like most Catholics I really don't give much consideration to what the Pope says to anything.

There are many people here that bash the Papacy and our faith, my friend, and you only encourage people by saying that you basically don't care what the Earthly leader of our Church says.

For the record, yet again, I oppose the Pope's decision on this matter. I voiced my opposition. I just worry that some people take this as an opportunity to bash our customs (for example, the very existence of the Papacy).

[??????????]

Yet again Benedict proves he can't even come remotely close to replacing John Paul II

Praise the Lord for small miracles!!

[afleitch]

I don't believe this is Pope bashing Phil. You're being too sensitive about this. What the Pope said, I believe was damaging and was a reversal of the process of reconciliation under Pope John Paul II.

Personally I would feel embarrased, but like most Catholics I really don't give much consideration to what the Pope says to anything.

There are many people here that bash the Papacy and our faith, my friend, and you only encourage people by saying that you basically don't care what the Earthly leader of our Church says.

For the record, yet again, I oppose the Pope's decision on this matter. I voiced my opposition. I just worry that some people take this as an opportunity to bash our customs (for example, the very existence of the Papacy).

I'm not encourging people to 'bash' the faith and the Church. If anything I'm allaying some private fears on the matter by saying, as a Catholic, that I am not pleased with what was said and that Pope is not speaking for many Catholics on this matter. Do I care what he says? Yes, because I then have to defend the faith. Do I agree with what he says or do I follow what he says? No.

I posted a topic on the personal politics post about this sort of thinking, in this instance relating to the abolition of limbo, but I'll post part of it here.


'I don't believe in the infallable authority of the Pope, not because of who the current pope is and what he supports, it would be the same if a liberal was in charge. No one man can claim to have a 'hotline' to God whether he lives in a neo-classic palace and leads a billion, or lives in a compound in the middle of nowhere and leads less than a dozen. Neither can I believe in the Church's infallibility. How dare the Church turn round and declare to Catholics that limbo doesn't exist  and then close the book on the matter. Limbo was real for millions of Catholics now and in the past who had lost a child or suffered a miscarriage. They suffered and prayed and sought penance for their lost child, many believing themselves responsible for their child's apparent joyless and lonely eternity. And now the Church turns around and says they got it a 'bit wrong.' Where is the solace for those who went to their graves believing they would never see their child again?... Of course the Catholic Church, having made this u-turn is immediately infallible once again.

So if your baby dies of AIDS or an HIV related illness, bourne from it's mother before it is baptised, then it's not going to that hellish void anymore. Your baby is still born HIV positive, indeed was born at all because you followed church contraceptive policy and will have a horrible short life. However I've came to realise that that encapsulates Catholic dogma more than anything. It is better to suffer and follow doctrine than to break it, and be relieved of suffering because what comes after death is more important than the 'short term' conveniences of life. It is better to get pregnant when you can't afford it, or to catch an STD that ravages your body when you can prevent it, because to use any form of contraception is sinful. It is better to suppress your sexuality than to express it and suffer mentally as a result because life is fleeting and after death comes eternity. How horribly patronising. How dare the Church say we cannot suspend long standing irrational dogma in order to preserve the physical and metal health of ourselves and our fellow man...'

----

I consider myself to be a resolute believer in 'lay Catholicsm.' If church monies are misused I do not give money to the Church. If a Catholic charity has, in my view, a morally repugnant contraceptive policy in Africa, then I withold donations to it. When a priest delivers a message from the bishop or cardinal on the 'hot social topic' of the day, or close to election time then I walk out of mass as mass is not a place to hear such things.

However we have a Pope who is repositioning the Church into dangerous territory and this is causing people to once again propogate misunderstandings about the Catholic faith and Catholics themselves. We have not been given any reassurance that the revival of the Latin mass will not contain the once traditional call to convert the Jews and now we are told that the Catholic Church is the one and only path to Christ. The Pope also threatened to excommunicate Catholic politicians who did not vote according to Church positions before the Vatican quickly hurried to 'clarify' the Pope's position and neutralise the decision. We have, a 'foot in mouth' Pope who does not have the communication skills of his predecessor.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Well this man was once the grand inquisitor.

The Pope is in a position of authority, but to show that little respect to other christians is really ridiculous.

Frankly if the leader of any organisation makes statements that offend people, then it casts a bad light on the whole organisation. The Pope said something stupid, it will be forgotten in time, but it also allows all the old complaints about the Catholic church to come to the fore - it's archaic, it's isolated.

[??????????]

Well this man was once the grand inquisitor.

The Pope is in a position of authority, but to show that little respect to other christians is really ridiculous.

Frankly if the leader of any organisation makes statements that offend people, then it casts a bad light on the whole organisation. The Pope said something stupid, it will be forgotten in time, but it also allows all the old complaints about the Catholic church to come to the fore - it's archaic, it's isolated.

The various Protestant sects continually claim superiority to the Catholic church and deem themselves "thee" church authority. Yet very few people ever say a word about that.

[DownWithTheLeft]

he is also obligated to say this or he'd make a crappy pope.

Pope John Paul II never said a thing like that.

That man was a tremendous man, but John Paul II is not as good of a pope as Benedict is.  John Paul was all about bringing people together of all faiths, but he didn't do a great job of establishing the Catholic way is the only way.  Benedict is doing a great job of that.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Ok, what the hell, answer my question States... or DWTL, are you saying the catholic way is the only way to salvation?

Obviously the RCC believes it is the only true church.  They have believed this for a long time so this should not come as a surprise for it is not news.  Nor should other Christians be offended by such claims.

Not offended as much as I'd like them to ease off the insanity

Oh now come on, how is that belief "insane"?

The Catholic way is the only way to salvation?

[Bono]

[We have not been given any reassurance that the revival of the Latin mass will not contain the once traditional call to convert the Jews

Hm, what is the problem with praying for the conversion of the Jews?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

[We have not been given any reassurance that the revival of the Latin mass will not contain the once traditional call to convert the Jews

Hm, what is the problem with praying for the conversion of the Jews?

Bono, why bother?  It is just another example of afleitch not understanding the foundational doctrines of the bible.

[??????????]

Ok, what the hell, answer my question States... or DWTL, are you saying the catholic way is the only way to salvation?

Ok, firstly, you don't have to keep posting the same quote over and over again. It both grates me and is annoying as hell. I DO go to bed at night, so I'm not at my monitor ever second of the day to provide you with the answer you so desperately need.

When you mean Catholic, do you mean as Universal Catholic or Catholic Church? I, personally, believe most Christian faiths have it down pretty close. I do believe that the Catholic way is ONE way to salvation. I do, however, believe that the Christian way is the ONLY way to salvation.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Ok, what the hell, answer my question States... or DWTL, are you saying the catholic way is the only way to salvation?

Ok, firstly, you don't have to keep posting the same quote over and over again. It both grates me and is annoying as hell. I DO go to bed at night, so I'm not at my monitor ever second of the day to provide you with the answer you so desperately need.

When you mean Catholic, do you mean as Universal Catholic or Catholic Church? I, personally, believe most Christian faiths have it down pretty close. I do believe that the Catholic way is ONE way to salvation. I do, however, believe that the Christian way is the ONLY way to salvation.

Thank you

[Gabu]

When you mean Catholic, do you mean as Universal Catholic or Catholic Church? I, personally, believe most Christian faiths have it down pretty close. I do believe that the Catholic way is ONE way to salvation. I do, however, believe that the Christian way is the ONLY way to salvation.

Didn't you at one point call yourself a deist, and not a Christian?

[afleitch]

[We have not been given any reassurance that the revival of the Latin mass will not contain the once traditional call to convert the Jews

Hm, what is the problem with praying for the conversion of the Jews?

Bono, why bother?  It is just another example of afleitch not understanding the foundational doctrines of the bible.

Oh jmfcst you cheeky scamp.

[??????????]

When you mean Catholic, do you mean as Universal Catholic or Catholic Church? I, personally, believe most Christian faiths have it down pretty close. I do believe that the Catholic way is ONE way to salvation. I do, however, believe that the Christian way is the ONLY way to salvation.

Didn't you at one point call yourself a deist, and not a Christian?

Where is the set rule that a traditional Deist can't be Christian?

[Gabu]

When you mean Catholic, do you mean as Universal Catholic or Catholic Church? I, personally, believe most Christian faiths have it down pretty close. I do believe that the Catholic way is ONE way to salvation. I do, however, believe that the Christian way is the ONLY way to salvation.

Didn't you at one point call yourself a deist, and not a Christian?

Where is the set rule that a traditional Deist can't be Christian?

The definition of "deism" is as follows:

"belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation"

By definition, a deist can't also believe in an organized religion based on supernatural revelation.  You can be a theist and also a Christian (indeed, one couldn't be a Christian without being a theist), but not a deist.

[??????????]

When you mean Catholic, do you mean as Universal Catholic or Catholic Church? I, personally, believe most Christian faiths have it down pretty close. I do believe that the Catholic way is ONE way to salvation. I do, however, believe that the Christian way is the ONLY way to salvation.

Didn't you at one point call yourself a deist, and not a Christian?

Where is the set rule that a traditional Deist can't be Christian?

The definition of "deism" is as follows:

"belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation"

By definition, a deist can't also believe in an organized religion based on supernatural revelation.  You can be a theist and also a Christian (indeed, one couldn't be a Christian without being a theist), but not a deist.

Is that the modern definition of Deism? Eighteenth century deism was quite a bit different as it revolved more around a rejection of earthly churches but acceptance of a Christian God (at least in colonial/early America).

[Bono]

[We have not been given any reassurance that the revival of the Latin mass will not contain the once traditional call to convert the Jews

Hm, what is the problem with praying for the conversion of the Jews?

Bono, why bother?  It is just another example of afleitch not understanding the foundational doctrines of the bible.

Oh jmfcst you cheeky scamp.

But what IS the problem with praying for the conversion of the Jews? I mean, what is bad about the Jews finally accepting Jesus? Personally, I believe it is the national conversion of the Jews that will herald the Golden Age of fuller Kingdom Blessings.

[minionofmidas]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,494225,00.html

[opebo]

I just noticed this!  It makes me laugh when a dumb calls another dumb's fantasy more fantastic than his own.

[memphis]

When you mean Catholic, do you mean as Universal Catholic or Catholic Church? I, personally, believe most Christian faiths have it down pretty close. I do believe that the Catholic way is ONE way to salvation. I do, however, believe that the Christian way is the ONLY way to salvation.

Didn't you at one point call yourself a deist, and not a Christian?

Where is the set rule that a traditional Deist can't be Christian?

The definition of "deism" is as follows:

"belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation"

By definition, a deist can't also believe in an organized religion based on supernatural revelation.  You can be a theist and also a Christian (indeed, one couldn't be a Christian without being a theist), but not a deist.

Is that the modern definition of Deism? Eighteenth century deism was quite a bit different as it revolved more around a rejection of earthly churches but acceptance of a Christian God (at least in colonial/early America).

Eighteenth Century Deism was very much like Unitarianism. Greater power is out there, but like the clockmaker has produced his work and taken his hands off. This position is wholly incompatible with the miracles (virgin birth, resurrection, etc.) that are seminal points in Christianity. This is why Jefferson edited all the supernatural parts out of his Bible, keeping just the philosophic love thy neighbor type stuff.

[Gabu]

Is that the modern definition of Deism? Eighteenth century deism was quite a bit different as it revolved more around a rejection of earthly churches but acceptance of a Christian God (at least in colonial/early America).

It's not a rejection of God, only supernatural revelation (such as that found within the Bible).  Deism is essentially the belief in a god based on logic, reason, and extrapolation.