no more Pope.

[davinxtk]

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/04/c4458b8e-d850-41b8-8459-b4c5cb8f9ac8.html

Prague, 2 April 2005 (RFE/RL) -- John Paul II, the first Slavic pope, has died at the age of 84. He passed away at 9:37 p.m. at his private apartment in the Vatican.


The pope -- whose pontificate was the third-longest in the history of the Roman Catholic Church -- died after suffering heart and kidney failure following two hospitalizations in as many months.

Born Karol Jozef Wojtyla in 1920, John Paul was shaped by the cataclysms and crises of 20th-century Europe. As a young man, he survived the Nazi occupation of his native Poland, witnessed the Jewish Holocaust firsthand, and went on to lead the Roman Catholic Church as a beacon of hope during the dark years of communism in Eastern Europe.

Elected pope in the midst of the Cold War in 1978, John Paul played a key role in the defeat of totalitarianism across Eastern Europe.

Pope John Paul II, as he chose to be known, addressed the crowd in St. Peter's Square after his election by the Vatican's Sacred College of Cardinals on 16 October 1978: "I am not sure I can explain myself in your -- 'our' -- Italian language (long applause). If I make mistakes will you correct me?"

Karol Jozef Wojtyla was the first non-Italian pope to sit on the throne of St. Peter in 455 years. The cardinal of Krakow was also the first Slavic pontiff and, at the age of 58, the youngest pope in 132 years.

Those facts alone seemed to signal an upheaval was coming. But the revolution had only just begun. Less than eight months after becoming pope, Wojtyla returned to Poland.

His triumphant nine-day visit, during nationwide food shortages, embarrassed the communist authorities and helped sow the seeds of resistance in Poland. The pope would go on to lend vital support to the anticommunist Solidarity movement.

In 1995, John Paul reflected in an address to the United Nations General Assembly. He stressed his belief that Christian ideals helped inspire the people of Eastern Europe to cast off the chains of communism.

"The nonviolent revolutions of 1989 demonstrated that the quest for freedom cannot be suppressed," Pope John Paul said.. "It arises from a recognition of the inestimable dignity and value of the human person and it cannot fail to be accompanied by a commitment on behalf of the human person. Modern totalitarianism has been, first and foremost, an assault on the dignity of the person, an assault which has gone even to the point of denying the inalienable value of the individual's life. The revolutions of 1989 were made possible by the commitment of brave men and women inspired by different and an ultimately more profound and powerful vision."

Brave is a word many used for the pope in 1981, when he improbably survived after being shot twice at close range in Rome's St. Peter's Square.

His would-be assassin, Mehmet Ali Agca, at first told authorities he was with Bulgarian intelligence, known to work for the Soviet KGB. Agca later retracted that. And, when John Paul visited the prison to forgive him, a stunned Agca asked, "How did I not kill you?"

John Paul was to undergo -- and survive -- further hardships.

In the early 1990s, a pre-cancerous tumor was removed from his colon, fueling speculation his end was near. Such talk intensified when he had bone-replacement surgery after breaking his leg in 1994. He suffered from Parkinson's disease -- a fact officially acknowledged only in 2001.

As pontiff, his energy would carry him to more than 120 countries over a quarter century, making him the most traveled pope in history.

Like no one before, John Paul used the tools of the modern age to broadcast his message to all corners of the planet.

And with acting skills honed at Krakow's Jagiellonian University, he made countless appearances on television, at youth festivals and before crowds of a million pilgrims at a time -- usually in their native languages.

Following the Asian tsunami, the pope addressed Vatican pilgrims on 6 January 2005: "While I renew my prayers for the young victims of the [tsunami] in Asia, I do not forget those children who are victims of hunger and sickness, war and terrorism, or those children kidnapped, lost or exploited in vile trafficking."

Jesus himself, the pope often said, raised such concerns nearly 2,000 years ago.

Indeed, the substance of John Paul's message remained deeply anchored in tradition.

On such issues as abortion, birth control, homosexuality, divorce, and the ordination of women as priests, John Paul remained uncompromising and drew strong criticism -- even from within the church. He once noted: "The church cannot be an association of free thinkers .... You cannot take a vote on the truth."

John Paul urged priests to be morally and socially engaged, but warned them against direct involvement in politics. He criticized the doctrine of "liberation theology," for example, while touring Latin America.

The pope stayed true to his vision of Catholicism as a faith at once modern in its concern for humanity's moral and social needs, and yet unchangeable in its guiding principles. To him, the two principles went hand in hand.

The pope also worked to break down ethnic and ecumenical barriers. In a visit to the Holy Lands in 2000, John Paul made a historic formal apology on behalf of the Catholic Church for anti-Semitism.

"I assure the Jewish people that the Catholic Church is deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews by Christians at any time and in any places," he said.

Legacies are often mixed. Often, they take years to be fairly evaluated. But one thing is clear: Karol Wojtyla helped to shape the times he lived in -- as much as they shaped him.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Joey Ratz is in the house.

[El Blanco]

Ya, pick the guy who was in the Hitler Youth and worked a AAA battery for the Germans during WW2. Thats going to be great for the image problems we're having.

I'm kidding. I'm sure he's very cuddly and lovable up close.

He's not supposed to be the big, sweeping, charasmatic guy JP2 was. He's an acedemic who is going to focus a lot more on doctrine for his 4 or 5 years and then we get either a Latin or African Pope. Just a compromise with the conservatives.

Not that I'm looking forward to Benedict XVI kicking it or anything.

[FS]

Ya, pick the guy who was in the Hitler Youth and worked a AAA battery for the Germans during WW2.

I'm sure I don't have an unbiased source to go on, but didn't he desert?

[ItalianStereotype]

actually, I though he had just finished basic by the time the war ended. either that or he was dismissed because of his training for the priesthood.

besides, he was recruited into the hitler youth. it was law. if you didn't join, you were an enemy of the state.

[sspadowsky]

I'm sure he will be very progressive and open-minded and bring about interesting changes that will help the Catholic Church regain its relevance in the modern world. :|

[Guitar Woman]

Ha ha ha! The pope's a Kraut! :lol

[El Blanco]

actually, I though he had just finished basic by the time the war ended. either that or he was dismissed because of his training for the priesthood.

besides, he was recruited into the hitler youth. it was law. if you didn't join, you were an enemy of the state.

Yes, he was allowed to leave the Hitler Youth because he was going into the priesthood. I was just making a joke.

He did work the battery during the war, but he claims he used sick days when the ally raids happened.

I'm fairly "meh" about this desiscion. I see him as a caretaker. I know that sounds awful.....but I am evil afterall.

[El Blanco]

I'm sure he will be very progressive and open-minded and bring about interesting changes that will help the Catholic Church regain its relevance in the modern world. :|

Regain? I'm pretty sure its still relevent.

[ziggytrix]

Ha ha ha! The pope's a Kraut! :lol

Ain't you?


Regain? I'm pretty sure its still relevent.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29948

[El Blanco]

Thats Buchanan focusing on the US. The UN doesn't have a whole lot of sway in here, either.

Does that mean its about to disappear?

The Catholic Church is expanding in Africa and the Eastern Asia (not at an exponential rate, but its happening). Its tremendously powerful in Latin America and the Vtican holds tremendous political sway amongst international leaders.

I am not about to think that an institution that holds influence over 1 billion people is irrelevent.

It is not the total juggernaut it once was, but the Catholic Church is still tremendously powerful.

[the_dudefather]

what we need is another crusades dag nabbit

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I am not about to think that an institution that holds influence over 1 billion people is irrelevent.

It is not the total juggernaut it once was, but the Catholic Church is still tremendously powerful.

And besides, read the very beginning of Buchanan's article:

"Thirty-seven years after the end of the only church council of the 20th century, the jury has come in with its verdict: Vatican II appears to have been an unrelieved disaster for Roman Catholicism."

He isn't questioning the relevance of the Church, he's questioning Vatican II. So this doesn't really substantiate what Sspad said, cuz if guys like Buchanan had their way, you'd see a far less "progressive" Church than what you've seen post-Vatican II.

[El Blanco]

Can you imagine what would have happened if Vatican II hadn't made some of those changes? Think people feel cut off from the Church now? It wasn't long ago that mass was only offered in Latin.

[sspadowsky]

I'm sure he will be very progressive and open-minded and bring about interesting changes that will help the Catholic Church regain its relevance in the modern world. :|

Regain? I'm pretty sure its still relevent.

OK, I'll clarify, and I admit that I was not raised Catholic, and have somewhat limited knowledge of its doctrine. However, what I do know of it is archaic to the point of being ludicrous, i.e. not being able to marry, no female priests, their stance birth control, etc. Hell, they just officlally admitted in 1993 that Galileo was right. That's what I was drving at with the "relevance" remark.

[ziggytrix]

Furthermore, there is a desperate priest shortage that may very well be leading would be Catholics into the welcoming arms of evangelicals in places like Latin America. In Africa, some nuns are secretly advocating condom use because of the AIDS crisis.

So maybe it isn't so much the relevance of Catholicism that is being questioned, but perhaps the relevance of the Vatican. I'm curious though, whether our resident Catholics feel that the Vatican IS the Catholic Church, or vice-versa.

[El Blanco]

The Vatican is the adminstrative center and the place where most of the critical thinking and debating on doctrine happens. The Church itself is in no one place. Its the people themselves.

Its not even our Holy City. Jerusalem is.

I'm not saying it isn't imprtant, but Catholicism was around well before the Vatican was.

[ziggytrix]

Its not even our Holy City. Jerusalem is.


But since that place is a dump, why not hang out where all the pretty statues and architecture is, eh?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Hell, they just officlally admitted in 1993 that Galileo was right. That's what I was drving at with the "relevance" remark.

No, I believe they apologized for showing the means of torture to Galileo, who was also good friends with the Pope at the time, so let's not throw this out there as a strong indictment of the Church.

Furthermore, there isn't really any proof that allowing women to be priests, allowing priests to marry, lightening up on contraception, etc., would actually broaden the Church. Like the article Ziggy posted argues, the decline of the Church here in America has happened despite the liberalization of Vatican II.

Furthermore, there is a desperate priest shortage that may very well be leading would be Catholics into the welcoming arms of evangelicals in places like Latin America. In Africa, some nuns are secretly advocating condom use because of the AIDS crisis.

I don't really see how the three connect. An American shortage in priests is resulting in a swing towards Latin Evangelicalism? So what's the answer? Allow women in America to become priests, and then Latin America will become Roman Catholic (because they certainly aren't now)...? :confused

And the actions of "some" nuns means very little to me. The AIDS crisis should, without question, be one of the top priorities for the Church in the 21st Century. It's difficult to go into third world countries and cultures, where large families may be the norm, and argue for abstinence. Tossing out free rubbers alone isn't the only possible solution.

So maybe it isn't so much the relevance of Catholicism that is being questioned, but perhaps the relevance of the Vatican. I'm curious though, whether our resident Catholics feel that the Vatican IS the Catholic Church, or vice-versa.

The Vatican is the bureacratic structure that directs the Church (with perhaps the Eastern Church getting a slight pass). The Pope is the spiritual leader and interpreter here on Earth, but no, the Vatican is not the Church (and your assumption that the Vatican is the problem is not necessarily accurate either).

[ziggytrix]

Because the priest shortage is NOT strictly an American problem. I was listening to an interview with a priest somewhere in central/south america (I forget where exactly) and he was talking about how it was a terrible problem that his parishioners only got to see him ONCE per year. And that a lot of people in the area were converting to evangelical Christianity.

North America has the best priest to parishioner ratio in the world: 1:1229 compared with South America at 1:7094.

http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/bishops.htm

If you can't see the relevance, then we can just drop it.

Anyway, I don't know if letting women become priests or changing the policy on contraception would help or hurt the Chruch, but the great part is, not being Catholic, this issue is purely academic to me, and I don't have to give a fuck. :D

[El Blanco]

Its not even our Holy City. Jerusalem is.


But since that place is a dump, why not hang out where all the pretty statues and architecture is, eh?

Actually, that was the reason why Rome was chosen. That and the fact that the seat of the Roman empire had moved to Constantinople. This meant that they could be in a very prestigeous and centtralized city without having to worry about being directly under the nose of the emperor.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

[quote]North America has the best priest to parishioner ratio in the world: 1:1229 compared with South America at 1:7094.

http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/bishops.htm

If you can't see the relevance, then we can just drop it.

This is a terribly slanted statistic. Let's not even get into the veracity of the source, but just think about that argument logically. There are roughly 1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide. Nearly HALF of them live in Latin and South America. So if there is a general decline in priests, of course the ratio is going to be worse in the place where there are more actual Roman Catholics. By comparison, how many Roman Catholics live in North America...? 70 million?

There is certainly a decline in priests, and it is a problem, but you could also approach this economically. The supply of priests in America (and South America) has gone down, but so has the demand. I'd be interested to know what "future church" or whoever they are consider to be a "parishioner"....? Is it someone who attends mass every Sunday? Is it someone who attends once or twice a month? Are they a holiday Catholic? A steady decline in overall Church attendance sort of counter acts a priest shortage, don't ya think?

And simply noting that there aren't enough priests for all of these parishioners excludes deacons, nuns, and laypersons who are heavily active in the Church. This isn't necessarily a desirable think either, because nothing replaces having an actual full-time priest, but to argue that people are being neglected is just silly. Roman Catholic Churches have always had revolving door parishes where parishioners rarely saw their priest, even during the "good old days" of American Catholicism. This isn't something new.

I was listening to an interview with a priest somewhere in central/south america (I forget where exactly) and he was talking about how it was a terrible problem that his parishioners only got to see him ONCE per year. And that a lot of people in the area were converting to evangelical Christianity.

And why exactly are they converting to Evangelicalism? Is it because the town priest isn't around, so they get bored? Is it because their priest isn't maried, or isn't a woman maybe? I think that's unlikely.

Here's (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-sa/2005/apr/15/041500489.html) a pretty good article on the problem in South America. The article starts off by saying this:

"Eyes closed, hands in the air, worshippers inside the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God listen in rapture as a preacher tells them to ask for fulfillment of their innermost wishes - a new car, a bigger house, health, a better job, the return of a departed lover.

Across the plaza, worshippers inside a Roman Catholic Church shift restlessly on their pews, some yawning, as a priest drones on about resurrection.

The two churches are more than a study in contrasts - they are on the front lines of a battle being waged across Latin America between the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical Christian groups for followers - and the power, prestige and money they can bring."

There's a certain draw, particularly if you are poor and depressed, to religion. ANY religion. I can admit that. And there's a particularly GREATER draw to a religion that tells you that Jesus will make your life everything you want it to be, if of course you follow their teachings. Perhaps Roman Catholicism is a bit more glum than that, but we can't help that.

Should the Church draw upon the spirit of Vatican II, and lighten up a bit, become more evangelical, more musical, more culturally relative? Maybe. But again, none of these things have anything to do with married priests, female priests, condoms, and abortion. Do you think those South Americans converting to Evangelicalism are more liberal now on those things? Probably not.

The fastest growing Church in the U.S., if I recall correctly, is the Mormon Church. Is that how the Church should be....?

[ziggytrix]

And simply noting that there aren't enough priests for all of these parishioners excludes deacons, nuns, and laypersons who are heavily active in the Church. This isn't necessarily a desirable think either, because nothing replaces having an actual full-time priest, but to argue that people are being neglected is just silly.

Yeah that priest on the radio who was lamenting the fact that after the wedding he wouldn't see the newlyweds til he came back to town to Christen their first child was just SILLY.

Maybe I'm wrong, I've only ever been to one Catholic mass in my life, so most of what I know is based on talking to Catholic family and friends, but don't you have to confess your sins to a priest to get absolvence? Isn't that kind of a big deal for a Catholic if you can only see your priest once a year?

[Guitar Woman]

Ha ha ha! The pope's a Kraut! :lol

Ain't you?
Why yes.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Maybe I'm wrong, I've only ever been to one Catholic mass in my life, so most of what I know is based on talking to Catholic family and friends, but don't you have to confess your sins to a priest to get absolvence? Isn't that kind of a big deal for a Catholic if you can only see your priest once a year?

You're not wrong, but your exaggerating one example you heard on the radio (probably NPR, right?). In Africa, men and women walk dozens of miles on Sunday morning just to attend mass. This is across the denominational board. People living in the global "south" of the world rarely get anything conveniently,but I think that if someone REALLY needed to go to confession, and if they contacted the nearest Church, it would happen.

You should look into the missionary work of the Paulists. These men travel many hours, by train, plane, and boat, to get to some of the most remote villages in South America that can only be reached by travel down the river. They go into the deepest jungle, help people build, and offer them some faith.

So I'm sorry if I have a hard time believing that this one person just had NO WAY to confess, receive the eucharist, or whatever. And again, I'd like to know what your solution would be. If the answer for this person you heard on the radio is more priests, then how does the Church go about making that happen? Is it by becoming more liberal (which has been done and hasn't necessarily improved matters), or is it to maintain a hardline?

The problem with this discussion is that (as you basically said above) you don't really care either way. You've presented your points in a way to sem like you're presenting us with problems the Church is facing, when in reality, it seems to me that to you the Church is in fact the problem. So why even bother with the debate? Enjoy hating on Catholics?

[ziggytrix]

So I'm sorry if I have a hard time believing that this one person just had NO WAY to confess, receive the eucharist, or whatever. And again, I'd like to know what your solution would be.

Admit that the priest is not and never was necessary for the absolvence of sin OR make it easier to become a priest.

I'm sorry you see this as me hating on Catholics. It's not the sheep, it's the so-called shepards that I don't appreciate. I also think hate is a very strong word for you to use there, but I guess you still think I hate religion, so you just keep enjoying your moral superioirity there, champ.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Okay, you should probably calm down. I didn't say you hated religion, I was simply using a clever little saying from the modern lexicon. If I called you a player hater would you have accused me of calling you a racist??? :rolleyes

I'm trying to understand what your point here is. It's topical, I'll grant you that. But I guess I'm just curious to know what dog you have in this fight, that's all.

Admit that the priest is not and never was necessary for the absolvence of sin

Okay, so a comment like this here is why Roman Catholics like me are going to call out non-Roman Catholics such as yourself on this argument. Please go re-read my previous questions, and maybe answer them.

The suggestions that seem to be coming from the secularists and the non-Catholics are "well, you should just stop doing things the way you do them, and then more people will join." First off, I don't see that as a solution to the actual problem (which I've already discussed), and secondly, what the heck then is the point of being a religion based on scripture, faith, principles, and tradition, if those things can just be made malleable for the sake of winning a popularity contest? This Church could be the biggest one in the universe for all I care, but if it were to basically become like the unitarian universalist church in order to reach that popularity, then I'd go elsewhere! I'm guessing I'm not alone in that boat.



OR make it easier to become a priest.

Okay, so your solution then is make women priests. I disagree, but you're not alone in feeling that way.

[ziggytrix]

Okay, you should probably calm down. I didn't say you hated religion, I was simply using a clever little saying from the modern lexicon.

You've said it before. *shrug*


I'm trying to understand what your point here is. It's topical, I'll grant you that. But I guess I'm just curious to know what dog you have in this fight, that's all.

My point is simply this: I don't like moral absolutism. It's the reason my my grandmother is afraid my uncle is going to hell, because he goes to the wrong Church every Sunday.

Actually, that's the big chip on my shoulder about religion in general. I wish to God I could resolve that - I'd walk around with a beatific smile on my face every day. :(


and secondly, what the heck then is the point of being a religion based on scripture, faith, principles, and tradition

I believe you listed those in the wrong order. It seems to me, and this is just an opinion, that the Catholic Church has historically had a problem with valuing tradition and papal edicts over scripture, and THAT is what makes parishoners vulnerable to Protestant conversion and apostatism.


if it were to basically become like the unitarian universalist church in order to reach that popularity, then I'd go elsewhere! I'm guessing I'm not alone in that boat.

Yep, you get to go to Heaven and they're all screwed, cuz they picked the WRONG CHURCH! Stupid Unitarians! :lol


OR make it easier to become a priest.

Okay, so your solution then is make women priests. I disagree, but you're not alone in feeling that way.

Why not women priests? Because of tradition?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

My point is simply this: I don't like moral absolutism. It's the reason my my grandmother is afraid my uncle is going to hell, because he goes to the wrong Church every Sunday.

Actually, that's the big chip on my shoulder about religion in general. I wish to God I could resolve that - I'd walk around with a beatific smile on my face every day. :(

Well that sounds like your problem, but if you think Roman Catholics are the only ones who believe that they are on the right path, you're mistaken. And the situation isn't as dire as you seem to make it out to be. Pope John Paul II, for example, was particularly concerned about the divide amongst Christians. American churches have formed all sorts of alliances and conferences where they pray together and try to bond on their common Christian interests.

If anything, it's the Southern Baptist Church that rarely wants to interact with the other denominations. Heck, they won't even work with their international body anymore. They are what you might call "Bible Christians," and they seem about as "absolutist" as you can get to me. :/


and secondly, what the heck then is the point of being a religion based on scripture, faith, principles, and tradition

I believe you listed those in the wrong order. It seems to me, and this is just an opinion, that the Catholic Church has historically had a problem with valuing tradition and papal edicts over scripture, and THAT is what makes parishoners vulnerable to Protestant conversion and apostatism.

I think there are a whole lot of reasons why someone might leave the seemingly rigid structure of the Church for something a little more decentralized and scripture oriented (or obsessive). I'll once again refer you to the excellent point Seth made.

I'd also like you to provide me with a few examples of papal "edicts" or whatever that conflict entirely with the scriptures, and would thus drive people to a protestant church (where the scriptural conflict presumably doesn't exist).


if it were to basically become like the unitarian universalist church in order to reach that popularity, then I'd go elsewhere! I'm guessing I'm not alone in that boat.

Yep, you get to go to Heaven and they're all screwed, cuz they picked the WRONG CHURCH! Stupid Unitarians! :lol

It's not because they are wrong, it's because they aren't the Roman Catholic Church. But it's also because they are wrong. :) Have you ever been to a universalist church....?


Why not women priests? Because of tradition?

Partly, yes. And I won't allow you to make me ashamed of that tradition. It's a rich tradition with roots back to Christ, and for a Catholic like myself, that's very important. Almost as important as the translated words in whatever Bible you're citing.

There's also a contradiction in your argument. You believe that the problem with the Church is that they mess around too much with the scriptures, that they create their own edicts and blah blah, whatever.

Where in the scriptures is there any support for ordaining women? Did Christ ever ordain a woman....? If the Church allowed women to become priests, wouldn't they thus be breaking from scripture?

[ziggytrix]

I'd also like you to provide me with a few examples of papal "edicts" or whatever that conflict entirely with the scriptures, and would thus drive people to a protestant church (where the scriptural conflict presumably doesn't exist).

I'm talking about cases where the scripture doesn't spell it out, like for birth control.


It's not because they are wrong, it's because they aren't the Roman Catholic Church. But it's also because they are wrong. :) Have you ever been to a universalist church....?

Nope, been thinking about it though. It can't be any weirder than the Catholic Church I went to with my grandparents in some backwoods town in Arkansas. I'm supposing that was supposed to be a joke, though?


Where in the scriptures is there any support for ordaining women? Did Christ ever ordain a woman....? If the Church allowed women to become priests, wouldn't they thus be breaking from scripture?

Where in the scriptures is there any support for mortal men ordaining anything?

But sure, whatever:


21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Of course, in 1Timothy Paul straight up says he doesn't want any women taking leadership positions over men...

But then fuck what Paul said, let's go back to what Jesus said:


1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,
2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.
4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.
5 All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
6 They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues,
7 greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.'
8 As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
9 Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.

So I think the protestants have a pretty good case for saying the pope is invalid. But whatever, even if every single Christian in the world agreed, they'd still have Muslims and Jews to argue with. I think the whole lot of you are ridiculously self assured in your own holiness.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm talking about cases where the scripture doesn't spell it out, like for birth control.

Okay, and where do other Christian denominations, who are seemingly doing things the right way, stand on issues such as birth control....? Do the Christian factions that rely more strictly on the literal Bible have a more liberal stance on birth control? This once again doesn't seem very consistent with your argument.


Nope, been thinking about it though. It can't be any weirder than the Catholic Church I went to with my grandparents in some backwoods town in Arkansas. I'm supposing that was supposed to be a joke, though?

No, it wasn't. It's not that it was necessarily weird per se, it's just sort of wishy washy. One week there'd be some reading from the Bible, the next week there'd be a lecture on the wrongs of capitalism or something.

I'm not saying that's necessarily even a bad thing, but I don't find it to be very consistent with the notions of faith, worship, and religion. Book clubs and community centers could basically fill the same need.


Where in the scriptures is there any support for ordaining women? Did Christ ever ordain a woman....? If the Church allowed women to become priests, wouldn't they thus be breaking from scripture?

Where in the scriptures is there any support for mortal men ordaining anything?

Well, for starters, the conversation in Matthew between Jesus and Peter. I'm certain it's all over the place, but I hope you forgive me for not wishing to flip through both testaments in order to win a flame war on the internet.

But sure, whatever:


28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Do you know what his reputation was towards women? He's in fact one of my favorite saints, but when I bring him up, his opinion of women is one of the first things I get thrown at me. Just sort of funny that you used that line (one that often gets incorrectly used, btw) to argue that women should be ordained. Go check out 1 Corinthians 11:5.

Of course, in 1Timothy Paul straight up says he doesn't want any women taking leadership positions over men...

Bingo!

But then fuck what Paul said, let's go back to what Jesus said:

Sure.

"Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

and,

"You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."(Matthew 16: 18)

Now, two things. One, Jesus is clearly granting Peter the power to build Christ's church as he wishes, do you agree? Now if Peter's succession was agreed upon, then wouldn't that validate the succession of popes? Secondly, Christ says that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, thus, the Church would probably be built so that it could always be sustainable and defend against the powers of hell, right?

Now let's look at what Peter himself had to say:

" 12
7 Therefore, I will always remind you of these things, even though you already know them and are established in the truth you have.
13
I think it right, as long as I am in this "tent," 8 to stir you up by a reminder,
14
since I know that I will soon have to put it aside, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has shown me.
15
I shall also make every effort to enable you always to remember these things after my departure." (2 Peter 1:12)

The point I'm trying to make is this. Peter wasn't going to leave the Church, which at this time was still trying to legitimize itself, without direction, organization, and yes, succession.

So I'll say it again-- The Roman Catholic Church has its roots starting with St. Peter, who started the Churvh on its path of development. If you want to quote Jesus, then it's very important to note that he granted Peter power over this job, and the job he started is the one we continue.


So I think the protestants have a pretty good case for saying the pope is invalid. But whatever, even if every single Christian in the world agreed, they'd still have Muslims and Jews to argue with. I think the whole lot of you are ridiculously self assured in your own holiness.

And who said you hated religion...!? :confused

It seems to me Ziggy that you only like a religion that doesn't actually ask you to believe in anything, or doesn't ask anything of you. It's all "academic" to you, which is fine, but wouldn't a book club fill the same need....?

[ziggytrix]

i don't hate religion. i do hate fanatacism. there's an important difference. i'm terminally bored with this argument tho, so i won't go on.