Vatican: Non-Catholics not true Christians

[nevadamedic]

Story Highlights

The Vatican said other churches were not full churches of Jesus Christ
The view is likely to further complicate relations with Protestants
This is the Pope's second strong reaffirmation of Catholic tradition in four days
A decree on Saturday restored the old Latin Mass alongside modern liturgy

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html

That's pretty messed up. This new Pope is nothing like the last one.

[avatar4321]

Not really that messed up. I dont agree with his conclusion. But his position is completely consistant.

[darin]

Right. Nothing controversial here. We're Protestants for a reason... ;)

[nevadamedic]

Right. Nothing controversial here. We're Protestants for a reason... ;)

Yea, but just because your not Catholic doesn't mean your not a true Christian.

[darin]

Yea, but just because your not Catholic doesn't mean your not a true Christian.

Protestants are Not Catholics. We're Protestants. It's entirely acceptable for THE POPE of the Catholic Church to believe Protestants are NOT Christians. NO Faith is worth ANYTHING if the people - especially the leaders - allow they could be wrong.

[nevadamedic]

Protestants are Not Catholics. We're Protestants. It's entirely acceptable for THE POPE of the Catholic Church to believe Protestants are NOT Christians. NO Faith is worth ANYTHING if the people - especially the leaders - allow they could be wrong.

Well, it's almost like he's degrading them for not being Catholic.

[darin]

Well, it's almost like he's degrading them for not being Catholic.

No - he's saying "Our way is the TRUE Path to God" - that's commendable.

[nevadamedic]

No - he's saying "Our way is the TRUE Path to God" - that's commendable.

That's not how I read it. It sounded like him saying since were Catholic we are better then you because your Religion won't take you to God.

[gabosaurus]

The Pope is an idiot. Plain and simple truth. Catholicism is getting more like Islam every day. Except Islam doesn't have pedophile priests.

[darin]

That's not how I read it. It sounded like him saying since were Catholic we are better then you because your Religion won't take you to God.

He's saying "You are wrong. We are right." that's called Strength of Character. The Catholic Church is MORE loving and MORE giving than ANY organization on the planet

[darin]

The Pope is an idiot. Plain and simple truth. Catholicism is getting more like Islam every day. Except Islam doesn't have pedophile priests.

Ahem - they are GAY. And I 'think' I'd rather have 100 gay priests over 50 years, than 100 suicide bombers over 10 years.

[Missileman]

Ahem - they are GAY. And I 'think' I'd rather have 100 gay priests over 50 years, than 100 suicide bombers over 10 years.

Ahem! If you don't want to classify them for what they truly are, as in pedophiles, then I bet you have no problem just calling them Christians, right? :poke:

[nevadamedic]

Ahem - they are GAY. And I 'think' I'd rather have 100 gay priests over 50 years, than 100 suicide bombers over 10 years.

Is that all Gabby does is come in threads and flame?

[Abbey Marie]

As a Protestant myself, I think the Pope is on to something here. The main line Protestant churches are losing touch with their own traditional beliefs, and are as a result losing congregants.

And I would agree with Darin, that a religion is pretty weak and not worth following, if it does not believe it is the true way to God.

[Monkeybone]

As a Protestant myself, I think the Pope is on to something here. The main line Protestant churches are losing touch with their own traditional beliefs, and are as a result losing congregants.

And I would agree with Darin, that a religion is pretty weak and not worth following, if it does not believe it is the true way to God.

i think they are losing touch and people because some churches are more focused on the religion of christanity than what it is about. the relationship with God and such. more important on how big your church is than if meets the needs of the people and what kinda cars your congegration drives. makes me sad

[Abbey Marie]

i think they are losing touch and people because some churches are more focused on the religion of christanity than what it is about. the relationship with God and such. more important on how big your church is than if meets the needs of the people and what kinda cars your congegration drives. makes me sad

I'm not sure what you mean by the "religion" of Christianity, but if by that you mean studying the Bible, and sermonizing on its principles, then I disagree. I believe that is exactly what the church needs to be doing, among other things, of course, like missions work.

I do agree that when churches focus on growing, they often fail to shepard their current congregation. I've lived through that, and eventually had to move on because of it.

There is a church in our area whose sermon every Sunday, per their sign, is about anything but God, Jesus, or following the Bible. Sometimes they discuss art, sometimes they like to discuss debunking the Bible. Their latest idea of a good Sunday service was to discuss "Why God Isn't Great". See what I mean?

[diuretic]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "religion" of Christianity, but if by that you mean studying the Bible, and sermonizing on its principles, then I disagree. I believe that is exactly what the church needs to be doing, among other things, of course, like missions work.

I do agree that when churches focus on growing, they often fail to shepard their current congregation. I've lived through that, and eventually had to move on because of it.

There is a church in our area whose sermon every Sunday, per their sign, is about anything but God, Jesus, or following the Bible. Sometimes they discuss art, sometimes they like to discuss debunking the Bible. Their latest idea of a good Sunday service was to discuss "Why God Isn't Great". See what I mean?


On that last bit, don't you think they're trying to encourage discussion and critical thinking rather than merely repeating dogma? In my experience the Catholic Church is about dogma. It reminds me in that way of Islam, where "education" is apparently memorising the Koran. I've had no experience with Judaism but it seems to me that Judaism is about discussion and critical thinking as well, not about following dogma (although I understand there are many varieties of Judaism so that could be wrong in some parts).

[5stringJeff]

The Pope may have a point about Protestants not having a strong theological background. But I firmly disagree with his statement that Protestants are outside of salvation. OTOH, all Popes have said this since Luther.

[Kathianne]

The Pope may have a point about Protestants not having a strong theological background. But I firmly disagree with his statement that Protestants are outside of salvation. OTOH, all Popes have said this since Luther.

Me too Jeff. I may be the first Catholic posting on this thread, but I doubt very much that regardless of theological background, that anyone who accepts Christ as their Savior will not be saved.

[Yurt]

Not really that messed up. I dont agree with his conclusion. But his position is completely consistant.

True. This is why (as DMP points out) "protest"ant churches split. The Catholic Church has always maintained this. They don't make a big deal about it because so many protestant churches effectively pay homage by keeping so many catholic traditions.

IMO, the catholic church beginning to "loudly" declare supremecy is prophesy coming alive.

[82Marine89]

I'm Catholic and I think you are all going to burn in Hell. :finger3:


Just kidding. I stopped donating to the church when Cardinal Mahoney interjected himself into the immigration debate. I still go to mass, I am a Eucharistic Minister, so I pass out Communion with the priest. I have never been buggered by a priest and feel that one tenth of one percent does not represent the entire Roman Catholic church.

[nevadamedic]

I'm Catholic and I think you are all going to burn in Hell. :finger3:


Just kidding. I stopped donating to the church when Cardinal Mahoney interjected himself into the immigration debate. I still go to mass, I am a Eucharistic Minister, so I pass out Communion with the priest. I have never been buggered by a priest and feel that one tenth of one percent does not represent the entire Roman Catholic church.

What did he do about the debate?

[Abbey Marie]

On that last bit, don't you think they're trying to encourage discussion and critical thinking rather than merely repeating dogma? In my experience the Catholic Church is about dogma. It reminds me in that way of Islam, where "education" is apparently memorising the Koran. I've had no experience with Judaism but it seems to me that Judaism is about discussion and critical thinking as well, not about following dogma (although I understand there are many varieties of Judaism so that could be wrong in some parts).

No, I think their goal is to find ways around the word of God, while trying to maintain the facade of a Christian church. As I've said, every Sunday they advertise sermons that are anti-Bible. They describe themsleves as "proudly progressive". If they showed any respect for the Bible, I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but in years of looking at their sign, I know I am right. And so it goes, to one extent or another, in many main line Protestant churches.

[avatar4321]

Like I said earlier, i completely understand the Pope's position here. In fact, I would find it far more controversial to see someone claim that his faith wasn't correct. I mean why would you believe something you think is wrong? Of course you are going to believe what you believe is correct, otherwise you wouldnt believe it.

[diuretic]

I think it's worse than that. The Pope is basically pissing on everyone else. He's claiming some sort of exclusive right for Catholicism to be seen as the only true Christian Church because of the supposed descent of all the Popes from Saint Peter. I disagree with it. It's really about the Catholic Church mimicking the Roman Empire with its incredibly centralised government and he really is winding up other Christian denominations. He could have called the paper "Christianity Full Strength v Christianity Lite". It's a studied insult.

[Kathianne]

On that last bit, don't you think they're trying to encourage discussion and critical thinking rather than merely repeating dogma? In my experience the Catholic Church is about dogma. It reminds me in that way of Islam, where "education" is apparently memorising the Koran. I've had no experience with Judaism but it seems to me that Judaism is about discussion and critical thinking as well, not about following dogma (although I understand there are many varieties of Judaism so that could be wrong in some parts).

I'd have to disagree to a certain extent, at least in the Catholic Churches I've attended. Most still have statues of the Holy Family, the crucifix, etc., but these are not part of dogma, nor to be 'worshipped.' They are there to help focus the person's mind to what they came to that building for.

As Jeff said about some of some leaders of some Protestant churches, theology knowledge may be thin indeed. When the theology is thin, it may become a danger to those 'hearing it.' That's the stuff that causes heresies and other false teachings. I would say that pertains to most Catholic members, far fewer of Catholic clergy. The reason being there are fewer non-theological based priests, is because of the 'rules' or structure of the church. My uncle was a parish priest for over 50 years; he had a MBA and two phd's: History and Philosophy, obviously the BA was in theology. Now don't get me wrong about education and 'truth', far too many Jesuits are way out there.

As one strolls through the Catholic Churches activists over the past, one finds that in spite of the rules and structures, the overwhelming number of clergy have been on the progressive end of the issues of their day. Sure you have WWII problems with the pope, you have countless more examples of individuals standing up not only to the Nazis, but for the people-be they Jews, Germans, or other civilians.

There have been many wrongs done by the church over the years, there have been many wrongs done by individual clergy of the Catholic church over the years, yet the underlying good done by those that make up the Church is not something I choose to ignore either.

Funny thing to me about this topic, is that it's not looked at more by the Church as it does divorce. As long as one doesn't 'remarry' or in this analogy leave Christ, one is still married and may take full part in the mass.

[GW in Ohio]

Story Highlights

The Vatican said other churches were not full churches of Jesus Christ
The view is likely to further complicate relations with Protestants
This is the Pope's second strong reaffirmation of Catholic tradition in four days
A decree on Saturday restored the old Latin Mass alongside modern liturgy

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html

That's pretty messed up. This new Pope is nothing like the last one.

Ah, that wacky Pope......

The boy flunked Diplomacy when he was in school. And he bypassed a class in Public Relations in favor of a class called How To Be a Dogmatic Asshole.

Makin' friends and influencin' people....that's our good Pope Benedict....

[Monkeybone]

No Abbey, i meant more like acting like a Christian should and focusing on everything but growing in God and your relationship with him.

and wth this other church...are you going off their sign or have you actually listened to a sermon?

[darin]

He could have called the paper "Christianity Full Strength v Christianity Lite". It's a studied insult.


But those don't exist. Either somebody IS a Christian or they are Not. Either somebody FOLLOWS the teachings of Christ, or they do not. There is no half-assing it. If the POPE has not come to terms with Christ; His path to God, then the Pope too would die in his sins. If the Pope does not follow the words and directions and guidance of Christ, nothing else matters.

And everything BESIDES the fundamentals of Christ doesn't matter, either. That is to say, all the 'religious' stuff Catholics (and others) do is pointless in terms of knowing God.

[glockmail]

Ahem! If you don't want to classify them for what they truly are, as in pedophiles, then I bet you have no problem just calling them Christians, right? :poke: Gay first, pedophiles second.

[glockmail]

Ah, that wacky Pope......

The boy flunked Diplomacy when he was in school. And he bypassed a class in Public Relations in favor of a class called How To Be a Dogmatic Asshole.

Makin' friends and influencin' people....that's our good Pope Benedict....

Makin' friends and influencin' people....that's our good GW in Ohio.

[GW in Ohio]

Makin' friends and influencin' people....that's our good GW in Ohio.

I do my best.....

:salute::dance::salute:

[glockmail]

I do my best.....

:salute::dance::salute: You do a fine job at being a Dogmatic Asshole.

[Joan]

This was one of my main reasons for leaving the Catholic Church. I worked there for 8 years. But when I heard one of the nuns tell her class that the only people who would attain heaven were the Catholics, it was a bit too much for me to swallow!! I was brought up a Methodist, and converted when my children reached the age for catechism. But in any other religion I've been involved in, we are taught there IS BUT ONE GOD!!

[darin]

sometimes I wonder how surprised we'll be to see muslims and agnostics and politicians in heaven. I'm pretty convinced God can reveal his Son to anyone who is willing, regardless of their label.

[glockmail]

sometimes I wonder how surprised we'll be to see muslims and agnostics and politicians in heaven. I'm pretty convinced God can reveal his Son to anyone who is willing, regardless of their label.

I'd be surprised as hell to see Muzzies there, as they reject many principles of Christ.

[Kathianne]

sometimes I wonder how surprised we'll be to see muslims and agnostics and politicians in heaven. I'm pretty convinced God can reveal his Son to anyone who is willing, regardless of their label.

My mom used to tell us when we were kids, "I think we'll all be surprised at who we see in heaven, but mostly be surprised that we're there." ;)

[nevadamedic]

My mom used to tell us when we were kids, "I think we'll all be surprised at who we see in heaven, but mostly be surprised that we're there." ;)

:laugh2: Your mother sounds like a smart lady! :laugh2:

[darin]

as they reject many principles of Christ.

Not every muslim.

[Missileman]

Gay first, pedophiles second.

If arbitrary is the way you want to go, then Christian first, pedophile second. :rolleyes:

Funny I haven't heard a single one of you gay haters say anything like this about men who molest girls...with them they're just pedophiles. I mean do you really think DMP would have said, "Ahem, they are straight" if priests were diddling little girls.

[darin]

If arbitrary is the way you want to go, then Christian first, pedophile second. :rolleyes:

Funny I haven't heard a single one of you gay haters say anything like this about men who molest girls...with them they're just pedophiles. I mean do you really think DMP would have said, "Ahem, they are straight" if priests were diddling little girls.

First it's dmp, not DMP ;)

Secondly, I have told you on NUMEROUS occasions there are both Heterosexual Pedophiles and Homosexual Pedophiles. The Heterosexual community already speaks out against Heterosexual Pedophiles, yet the Gay community puts MILES Of distance between them and the vast-number, proportionally, of gays who have sex with kids.

A Christian is as a Christian does.

[glockmail]

Not every muslim.
Just the ones that follow the teachings of Mohamed.

[glockmail]

If arbitrary is the way you want to go, then Christian first, pedophile second. :rolleyes:

.....

If you can prove that Christains are more likely to molest children then yes. But you can't.

[Missileman]

First it's dmp, not DMP ;)

I can't believe you're making a case(upper/lower) out of that! :laugh2:

Sorry dmp, I'll pay better attention to that in the future. :salute:


Secondly, I have told you on NUMEROUS occasions there are both Heterosexual Pedophiles and Homosexual Pedophiles. The Heterosexual community already speaks out against Heterosexual Pedophiles, yet the Gay community puts MILES Of distance between them and the vast-number, proportionally, of gays who have sex with kids.


As a heterosexual who has no interest in sex with children, I don't consider men who molest little girls to be fellow heterosexuals, I consider them pedophiles. I assume that those homosexuals who have no interest in sex with children feel the same way about men who molest little boys.

[Missileman]

If you can prove that Christains are more likely to molest children then yes. But you can't.

Look up arbitrary.

But let's use some of your style statistics shall we: If 90% of the U.S population is Christian, then 90% of pedophiles are.

[nevadamedic]

If you can prove that Christains are more likely to molest children then yes. But you can't.

You would think that Christians are least likely to molest children, except for the wack job religious fanatics.

[darin]

I can't believe you're making a case(upper/lower) out of that! :laugh2:

Sorry dmp, I'll pay better attention to that in the future. :salute:



As a heterosexual who has no interest in sex with children, I don't consider men who molest little girls to be fellow heterosexuals, I consider them pedophiles. I assume that those homosexuals who have no interest in sex with children feel the same way about men who molest little boys.

I was mostly just ribbing ya, mate. :)

Well, when they have sex with members of their gender, they are homosexual pedophiles. Or, Gay Pedophiles. When they have sex with members of the opposite sex, they are Hetero pedophiles. Homo or Heterosexuality has NO regard for the age of the participants. It's simply a description of the preference one has for their sex partners.

[darin]

Look up arbitrary.

But let's use some of your style statistics shall we: If 90% of the U.S population is Christian, then 90% of pedophiles are.

...and since Gays are 1/15th of that 90%, yet commit 4 times? 10-times the number of sexual assaults on kids, what does that tell you? By the stats - as been shown TIME AND AGAIN on this forum, Gays offend at a MUCH higher rate than their population percentage should allow.

[darin]

Just the ones that follow the teachings of Mohamed.

I know of people who say they are "Muslim" but are more giving, more loving, and more sincere than many who claim Christ.

[nevadamedic]

I can't believe you're making a case(upper/lower) out of that! :laugh2:

Sorry dmp, I'll pay better attention to that in the future. :salute:



As a heterosexual who has no interest in sex with children, I don't consider men who molest little girls to be fellow heterosexuals, I consider them pedophiles. I assume that those homosexuals who have no interest in sex with children feel the same way about men who molest little boys.

I agree with that 110%!

[Missileman]

...and since Gays are 1/15th of that 90%, yet commit 4 times? 10-times the number of sexual assaults on kids, what does that tell you? By the stats - as been shown TIME AND AGAIN on this forum, Gays offend at a MUCH higher rate than their population percentage should allow.

Gay pedophiles offend at a higher rate. Studies have shown a gay pedophile will have 7 times the number of victims as a hetero pedophile. That disparity can be caused by several factors, including, they get away with it longer through fear of reporting, institutional facilitation(Catholic priests), access to victims, who knows?

What I don't believe is that your average homosexual is more interested in kids than your average heterosexual.

[darin]

What I don't believe is that your average homosexual is more interested in kids than your average heterosexual.


I say my kid as a 7x greater risk of being hurt by a pedophile, if the pedophile is gay.

[nevadamedic]

I say my kid as a 7x greater risk of being hurt by a pedophile, if the pedophile is gay.

Theroy's.

[darin]

Theroy's.

Theories? Hrm. No...If a Gay guy who wants to have sex with a kid has SEVEN TIMES the number of victims as a Straight guy....It stands to some amount of reason my kids have a seven-times greater risk around a homo than a straight guy/gal.

[nevadamedic]

Theories? Hrm. No...If a Gay guy who wants to have sex with a kid has SEVEN TIMES the number of victims as a Straight guy....It stands to some amount of reason my kids have a seven-times greater risk around a homo than a straight guy/gal.

There's no way that's accurate.

[Kathianne]

Here is what all the flap was about. Really 5 questions, the whole thing not 10 paragraphs. There are nearly as many footnotes, (legal and all that), but you can find them at link:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html


CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH

Introduction

The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiolgy. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).

The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.

RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS

First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council[1]. Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation"[3]. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention[4].

Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

Response: Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community"[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him"[7].

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

Third Question: Why was the expression "subsists in" adopted instead of the simple word "is"?

Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity"[11].

"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"[12].

Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds"[13], they merit the title of "particular or local Churches"[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches[15].

"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"[16]. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches[17].

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history[18].

Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of "Church" with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense[20].

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

[diuretic]

But those don't exist. Either somebody IS a Christian or they are Not. Either somebody FOLLOWS the teachings of Christ, or they do not. There is no half-assing it. If the POPE has not come to terms with Christ; His path to God, then the Pope too would die in his sins. If the Pope does not follow the words and directions and guidance of Christ, nothing else matters.

And everything BESIDES the fundamentals of Christ doesn't matter, either. That is to say, all the 'religious' stuff Catholics (and others) do is pointless in terms of knowing God.

They (full strength/lite) exist in the mind of the Pope. This is politics, not theology and the Pope is putting an arm bar on every other Christian denomination. I'm not religious but even I find his assertions offensive.

[nevadamedic]

Here is what all the flap was about. Really 5 questions, the whole thing not 10 paragraphs. There are nearly as many footnotes, (legal and all that), but you can find them at link:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Damn that's long........... :laugh2:

[Gaffer]

They (full strength/lite) exist in the mind of the Pope. This is politics, not theology and the Pope is putting an arm bar on every other Christian denomination. I'm not religious but even I find his assertions offensive.

I agree. He's using the old "your all doomed to hell if your not catholic" reasoning to get others to conform. Purely politics.

[Kathianne]

They (full strength/lite) exist in the mind of the Pope. This is politics, not theology and the Pope is putting an arm bar on every other Christian denomination. I'm not religious but even I find his assertions offensive.

Actually I'm less concerned about the politics of 'arm bar' as that is very unlikely to happen. I am concerned at how the media has spun this in headlines and such.

As both Jeff and Darin recognized yesterday, there is no change there. While the 'Church' has it's pronouncements, these once again do not fall under any case of 'infallibility' meaning what is considered 'truth' as in inspired and not man made, through logic or more dubious means.

[darin]

They (full strength/lite) exist in the mind of the Pope. This is politics, not theology and the Pope is putting an arm bar on every other Christian denomination. I'm not religious but even I find his assertions offensive.

There is NOTHING offensive about a guy believing HIS faith is the only path to God. IF somebody is offended, they are a ninny, and therefore, their feelings on the issue don't matter.

[darin]

There's no way that's accurate.

...because it bothers you? (shrug)

[diuretic]

Actually I'm less concerned about the politics of 'arm bar' as that is very unlikely to happen. I am concerned at how the media has spun this in headlines and such.

As both Jeff and Darin recognized yesterday, there is no change there. While the 'Church' has it's pronouncements, these once again do not fall under any case of 'infallibility' meaning what is considered 'truth' as in inspired and not man made, through logic or more dubious means.

The Church of England has described it as damning to echumenism so I think it is a significant change. Just as the lifting of restrictions on the Tridentine Rite is a significant change. It's going backwards, historically speaking.

[diuretic]

There is NOTHING offensive about a guy believing HIS faith is the only path to God. IF somebody is offended, they are a ninny, and therefore, their feelings on the issue don't matter.

This is the Pope, not Joe Pulaski from Dearborn, Mich. What the Pope says about Catholicism and other religions (Christian and non) is done after considerable thought. He knows exactly what he's doing and what he's doing is putting down other Christian denominations. He's not chugging Pabst in a sports bar loudly berating "them Proddy bastards".

[darin]

This is the Pope, not Joe Pulaski from Dearborn, Mich. What the Pope says about Catholicism and other religions (Christian and non) is done after considerable thought. He knows exactly what he's doing and what he's doing is putting down other Christian denominations. He's not chugging Pabst in a sports bar loudly berating "them Proddy bastards".

But HIS JOB is to point people towards his faith. FWIW NOTHING the Pope says carries ANY more weight with me, than, say...hrm...Sen. McCain giving a speech. The Pope says things which are interesting...but nothing I'd hang my hat upon. :)

[Kathianne]

But HIS JOB is to point people towards his faith. FWIW NOTHING the Pope says carries ANY more weight with me, than, say...hrm...Sen. McCain giving a speech. The Pope says things which are interesting...but nothing I'd hang my hat upon. :)

and that was my point, thank you. Any sort of idea that what 'the Pope' has to say regarding other religions will have any effect on them is wrong. Now, when he speaks as a leader of an institution about relations with Muslims, etc., other leaders may pick up or not.

In all honesty, I understand that theologians play with these issues ad nauseum, what I don't understand is why or how they were released to the press like this.

[5stringJeff]

Here is what all the flap was about. Really 5 questions, the whole thing not 10 paragraphs. There are nearly as many footnotes, (legal and all that), but you can find them at link:


According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense[20].

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

FYI, the part of the Pope's quote above is what I disagree with, theologically: a) that the recognition of the apostolic succession is "a constitutive element of the Church," and b) that Christ is present in the elements of communion.

[Kathianne]

FYI, the part of the Pope's quote above is what I disagree with, theologically: a) that the recognition of the apostolic succession is "a constitutive element of the Church," and b) that Christ is present in the elements of communion.

Of course you would, you are protestant. I understand and respect that.

[Said1]

This is the Pope, not Joe Pulaski from Dearborn, Mich. What the Pope says about Catholicism and other religions (Christian and non) is done after considerable thought. He knows exactly what he's doing and what he's doing is putting down other Christian denominations. He's not chugging Pabst in a sports bar loudly berating "them Proddy bastards".

I don't think he's putting anyone down, nor do I find his comments surprising. I don't know why it's such a difficult concept to grasp. Acting in a seemingly wishy-washy manner would certainly cause some concern amoung the lambs ......maybe this guy doesn't have a direct line to the big guy. If the Pope isn't sure, how can we be sure...etc.

[glockmail]

Look up arbitrary.

But let's use some of your style statistics shall we: If 90% of the U.S population is Christian, then 90% of pedophiles are. Prove that then.

[glockmail]

You would think that Christians are least likely to molest children, except for the wack job religious fanatics. I'm a religious fanatic and I don't molest children. Nor do I know any of my fellow religious fanatics who do.

[glockmail]

I know of people who say they are "Muslim" but are more giving, more loving, and more sincere than many who claim Christ.

"Some say...." proves nothing.

In fact with the case of Islam, which requires its followers to be clandestine in their true intention of ruling the world, its followers are also instructed to be extra nice until the day their numbers are large enough to take over.

[5stringJeff]

Of course you would, you are protestant. I understand and respect that.

Sorry... I know I quoted your post there, but that was really for everyone's edification. Sorry for the confusion. :)

[Missileman]

Prove that then.

I just did...it's simple statistics. I'm applying your methods...you don't believe that an accurate conclusion can be drawn this way? Interesting!

[5stringJeff]

sometimes I wonder how surprised we'll be to see muslims and agnostics and politicians in heaven. I'm pretty convinced God can reveal his Son to anyone who is willing, regardless of their label.

I'm pretty sure that a Muslim or agnostic would have to first put their faith in Christ in order to be saved, at which point they cease being Muslim or agnostic and begin their lives as a Christian.

[diuretic]

But HIS JOB is to point people towards his faith. FWIW NOTHING the Pope says carries ANY more weight with me, than, say...hrm...Sen. McCain giving a speech. The Pope says things which are interesting...but nothing I'd hang my hat upon. :)

Why is it his job to do that? I'm not disagreeing with your point because I think you're right, but I'm asking why he would interpret it that way.

[diuretic]

I don't think he's putting anyone down, nor do I find his comments surprising. I don't know why it's such a difficult concept to grasp. Acting in a seemingly wishy-washy manner would certainly cause some concern amoung the lambs ......maybe this guy doesn't have a direct line to the big guy. If the Pope isn't sure, how can we be sure...etc.

As a child I grew up in the Catholic Church under Pius XII and the Blessed John XXIII. I remember clearly the death of Pius XII and I remember Blessed John XXIII. Pius XII struck me - as a then practising Catholic - as being somewhat aloof and distant. Blessed John XXIII on the other hand I perceived as being a warm and loving man. I am no longer a practising Catholic and haven't been for many years. But I have no ill will to the Church. I was an altar boy for some years and received nothing but kindness from the priests and household staff in our church. But this Pope worries me. He is very conservative, which is his business of course. He does seem determined to take the church to the era before Blessed John XXIII. That of course is just an impression. Whereas Blessed John XXIII was a proponent of ecumenism. I remember when Pius XII was Pope, that we - Catholic children - were encouraged to look down on Protestants and those of other - "deficient" - Christian denominations. That changed under Blessed John XXIII. I remember it. Now this one comes along and drops this bombshell.

[diuretic]

I'm pretty sure that a Muslim or agnostic would have to first put their faith in Christ in order to be saved, at which point they cease being Muslim or agnostic and begin their lives as a Christian.

The Muslim would have a hard time of it, they'd declare him or her an apostate, issue a fatwah and try and kill them. One thing I can say for the Catholic Church, when I stopped turning up no-one came around to my parents' house to do me in :laugh2:

[glockmail]

I just did...it's simple statistics. I'm applying your methods...you don't believe that an accurate conclusion can be drawn this way? Interesting! Nice try, but no cigar. Not even a chew.

[glockmail]

..... Now this one comes along and drops this bombshell.
The Pope just stated Catholic Doctrine, 'sall. No big deal.

When my Mum was a kid the masses were in Latin, women wore all black between their heads and ankles and the priests were all behind a little fence and never faced the seated congregation.

When I was a kid the fence was still there but the mass was in English, and the old women walked around with their heads covered and all caried rosary beads. My grandparents said the Rosary every night.

In the late 60's they took the fence down and brought guitars in for "folk mass". They shortened the mass to 45 minutes. The congregation got smaller every year.

In the 80's I was a member of an old church in UpState NY with a congregation of about 20 on a typical Sunday, and we be out of there in 35 minutes. Then a new priest came in and went back to many formalities, eventually increased the mass length to 75 minutes. When I left in the early 90's the old chuch was nearly full.

We Catholics by and large like or traditions and formalities. We believe it is the true path.

[darin]

Why is it his job to do that? I'm not disagreeing with your point because I think you're right, but I'm asking why he would interpret it that way.

I can't speculate as to his interpretation motivations - but I know any person of faith must believe their particular faith is set-above others. Frankly, Catholicism bothers me for a couple reasons. I don't say, however, Catholics 'will not' find God. I think they just make it HARDER on themselves than need-be.

:)

[Missileman]

Nice try, but no cigar. Not even a chew.

Doesn't surprise me in the least that you reserve the right to make assumptions for yourself only. You've been nothing but hypocritical, ever.

Maybe you'll be kind enough to elaborate why what I said wasn't "even a chew". I mean if you have data that shows that pedophiles are from the 10% of the population that's non-Christian, I'll retract my statement.

[diuretic]

The Pope just stated Catholic Doctrine, 'sall. No big deal.

When my Mum was a kid the masses were in Latin, women wore all black between their heads and ankles and the priests were all behind a little fence and never faced the seated congregation.

When I was a kid the fence was still there but the mass was in English, and the old women walked around with their heads covered and all caried rosary beads. My grandparents said the Rosary every night.

In the late 60's they took the fence down and brought guitars in for "folk mass". They shortened the mass to 45 minutes. The congregation got smaller every year.

In the 80's I was a member of an old church in UpState NY with a congregation of about 20 on a typical Sunday, and we be out of there in 35 minutes. Then a new priest came in and went back to many formalities, eventually increased the mass length to 75 minutes. When I left in the early 90's the old chuch was nearly full.

We Catholics by and large like or traditions and formalities. We believe it is the true path.


I remember I had to learn whole lumps of the Mass in Latin so I could properly perform my duties as an Altar Boy. I remember the sung Masses, they were long ones. I remember the Stations of the Cross at Easter and how we marched around the parish (it was damn hot in those heavy red cassocks). The rituals were extremely impressive. I alway used to marvel at the priest as he held up the chalice before Holy Communion, when the sun used to shine through the stained glass windows onto the altar and it was the Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, the whole Eucharist. It was always quite a moment.

[diuretic]

I can't speculate as to his interpretation motivations - but I know any person of faith must believe their particular faith is set-above others. Frankly, Catholicism bothers me for a couple reasons. I don't say, however, Catholics 'will not' find God. I think they just make it HARDER on themselves than need-be.

:)


I know I'm projecting here but I can't help the impression that the Pope is indulging in a bit of one-upmanship on this. It's almost a nyah-nyah moment. Now I know that's not right. I know the whole thing is about very complex theology which I will never be able to grasp. I do remember from my own experience being told that Catholicism was the only true Church for various reasons. It was, I was told, the Church established by Christ through Peter and every Pope was a spiritual descendant of Peter. I remember being taught the phrase Jesus used when Simon became Peter "the rock on whom I shall build my Church" . I remember being told that it was a play on the name Jesus gave him. I remember being told that the Church of England wasn't really a Church because it was founded by a King and not by Jesus.

Blessed John XXIII wanted to heal those divisions in the spirit of echumenism. It seems that the spirit of echumenism has had a setback.

But I suppose this Pope can always say he was misquoted.

[Trigg]

The Pope just stated Catholic Doctrine, 'sall. No big deal.

When my Mum was a kid the masses were in Latin, women wore all black between their heads and ankles and the priests were all behind a little fence and never faced the seated congregation.

When I was a kid the fence was still there but the mass was in English, and the old women walked around with their heads covered and all caried rosary beads. My grandparents said the Rosary every night.

In the late 60's they took the fence down and brought guitars in for "folk mass". They shortened the mass to 45 minutes. The congregation got smaller every year.

In the 80's I was a member of an old church in UpState NY with a congregation of about 20 on a typical Sunday, and we be out of there in 35 minutes. Then a new priest came in and went back to many formalities, eventually increased the mass length to 75 minutes. When I left in the early 90's the old chuch was nearly full.

We Catholics by and large like or traditions and formalities. We believe it is the true path.

It's a little sad that so many churches are trying to liven things up and become modern. I went to a church in town (methodist) and most of the people were in shorts even the acolites (sp?) lighting the candles were wearing t-shirts which I found insulting. I enjoy hearing the Lords Prayer and singing all the older songs instead of fumbling around with new ones that no one knows the words to.

Went to a church while in Kansas and it was very traditional all the prayers and songs I grew up with, it was nice.

[darin]

I know I'm projecting here but I can't help the impression that the Pope is indulging in a bit of one-upmanship on this. It's almost a nyah-nyah moment. Now I know that's not right. I know the whole thing is about very complex theology which I will never be able to grasp. I do remember from my own experience being told that Catholicism was the only true Church for various reasons. It was, I was told, the Church established by Christ through Peter and every Pope was a spiritual descendant of Peter. I remember being taught the phrase Jesus used when Simon became Peter "the rock on whom I shall build my Church" . I remember being told that it was a play on the name Jesus gave him. I remember being told that the Church of England wasn't really a Church because it was founded by a King and not by Jesus.

Blessed John XXIII wanted to heal those divisions in the spirit of echumenism. It seems that the spirit of echumenism has had a setback.

But I suppose this Pope can always say he was misquoted.


Are you catholic? I am not - in my view, the Bible trumps the word of a man. That is to say, The bible makes NO mention of the Catholic church, thus, the words of the leader of the Catholic Church weighs not on my mind.

[diuretic]

Are you catholic? I am not - in my view, the Bible trumps the word of a man. That is to say, The bible makes NO mention of the Catholic church, thus, the words of the leader of the Catholic Church weighs not on my mind.

I'm not trying to be rude to anyone but the Catholic Church is like the Mafia, you never really leave it. I'm not practising, I'm what the Church calls lapsed and what I call "not interested" :D

Interesting point about your Bible not mentioning the Catholic Church. All I know about this is that I know nothing about it. I seem to remember that the spread of Christianity was complex and carried out through the work of the Apostles who travelled to various parts and hence Christianity grew up with various traditions. The Council of somewhere - can't think of it, Nicea? I remember that was important because it pulled everyone together. But I do remember being taught about how Constantine was involved in the development of the Roman Catholic Church.

I told you I didn't know :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Doesn't surprise me in the least that you reserve the right to make assumptions for yourself only. You've been nothing but hypocritical, ever.

Maybe you'll be kind enough to elaborate why what I said wasn't "even a chew". I mean if you have data that shows that pedophiles are from the 10% of the population that's non-Christian, I'll retract my statement. I don't feel the need to atempt to prove your point for you. You dug your own hole.

[glockmail]

I remember I had to learn whole lumps of the Mass in Latin so I could properly perform my duties as an Altar Boy. I remember the sung Masses, they were long ones. I remember the Stations of the Cross at Easter and how we marched around the parish (it was damn hot in those heavy red cassocks). The rituals were extremely impressive. I alway used to marvel at the priest as he held up the chalice before Holy Communion, when the sun used to shine through the stained glass windows onto the altar and it was the Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, the whole Eucharist. It was always quite a moment.


They are bringing back the sung masses in my diocese.

You're right, the eucharist ceremony is very impressive. There is no doubt in my mind about Christ's presence during this ceromony. In fact, it was after communion once that I saw Him, and a witness saw that I saw Him. And it didn't freak me out at all.

[glockmail]

It's a little sad that so many churches are trying to liven things up and become modern. I went to a church in town (methodist) and most of the people were in shorts even the acolites (sp?) lighting the candles were wearing t-shirts which I found insulting. I enjoy hearing the Lords Prayer and singing all the older songs instead of fumbling around with new ones that no one knows the words to.

Went to a church while in Kansas and it was very traditional all the prayers and songs I grew up with, it was nice.

It's pretty much been shown through attendance that the more traditional churches better serve their parishoners. I welcome the new Pope because of that.

[Kathianne]

It's pretty much been shown through attendance that the more traditional churches better serve their parishoners. I welcome the new Pope because of that.

Same thing happening in Catholic Churches. I've been in many where the songs have been changed to be gender neutral. It's weird. The church my school is connected with is more protestant than Catholic. I doubt very much that they won't respond to the papal release, saying either it's nonsense or misinterpreted. The pastor believes that the Catholic church is wrong in most ways, just not the ways Jeff made clear.

[Missileman]

I don't feel the need to atempt to prove your point for you. You dug your own hole.

If nothing else, you are consistent. As I said, I already proved my argument. My application of statistics is dead on in this case and you can't prove otherwise. If 90% of the entire population is Christian, then, in the absence of any contradictory data, you can assume that 90% of men are Christian, 90% of women are Christian, 90% of kids, 90% of old people, and even 90% of pedophiles. Balls in your court, Cupcake!

[glockmail]

Same thing happening in Catholic Churches. I've been in many where the songs have been changed to be gender neutral. It's weird. The church my school is connected with is more protestant than Catholic. I doubt very much that they won't respond to the papal release, saying either it's nonsense or misinterpreted. The pastor believes that the Catholic church is wrong in most ways, just not the ways Jeff made clear. There used to be this woman in my church who used gender nuetral language during group prayer, intentionally and loudly saying the words. Nobody was impressed and she has since left.

[glockmail]

If nothing else, you are consistent. As I said, I already proved my argument. My application of statistics is dead on in this case and you can't prove otherwise. If 90% of the entire population is Christian, then, in the absence of any contradictory data, you can assume that 90% of men are Christian, 90% of women are Christian, 90% of kids, 90% of old people, and even 90% of pedophiles. Balls in your court, Cupcake! By your logic 90% are Muslim.

[Missileman]

By your logic 90% are Muslim.

Not when it's already been established that 90% are Chrisitian. Try to keep up with the rest of the class.

[glockmail]

Not when it's already been established that 90% are Chrisitian. Try to keep up with the rest of the class. In your, Bizzaro world....

[Missileman]

In your, Bizzaro world....

Are you disputing the "90% of Americans are Christian" figure? It's been posted several times before on this board and on USMB.

[nevadamedic]

Story Highlights

Martin's message to Christians: Don't be bothered by what Pope Benedict says
Pope Benedict XVI proclaims that only true church is that of Catholicism
This is evidence of ego being more important than work of Christ, columnist says

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/13/martin/index.html

Here is the new story about the original artivle.

[glockmail]

Are you disputing the "90% of Americans are Christian" figure? It's been posted several times before on this board and on USMB. No, just your non-sensical related assumptions.

[Missileman]

No, just your non-sensical related assumptions.

90% of the population has to come from somewhere, and in the absence of any contradictory data, it is reasonable to apply the 90% to most of the sub-demographics. You've offered nothing to show this is wrong.

[glockmail]

90% of the population has to come from somewhere, and in the absence of any contradictory data, it is reasonable to apply the 90% to most of the sub-demographics. You've offered nothing to show this is wrong.
Actually its up to you to prove your theory, regardless, but especially when it defies common sense. Good luck with that.:laugh2:

[Missileman]

Actually its up to you to prove your theory, regardless, but especially when it defies common sense. Good luck with that.:laugh2:

It's the simplest of logic and a perfect example of common sense. If 100% of the population were Christian, then 100% of all the sub-demographics would be Christian also. At 90%, in the absence of any contradictory data, the same method applies.

[Kathianne]

not too far off:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

United States
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)

Protestant and RC=76%

[Said1]

Some of the most vile serial killers were gay, or atleat participated in homosexual sex - although they aren't representive of the typical GLBT population.

[Abbey Marie]

To the original thread topic: I recall RWA posting a pronouncement by the Catholic Church that there is no reason why Jews, etc., won't go to heaven even though they do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. Sorry, I have no link, but some of you will remember the discussion. Whether people want to hear it or not, the current Pope's statement is based on the fundamental teachings of Christ, rather than some ecumenical "feel good" doctrine of the moment.

Of course if, as many believe, in the end times, the "all paths lead to God" doctrine will be the official religion of the world, this Pope won't have much effect anyway.

[Said1]

To the original thread topic: I recall RWA posting a pronouncement by the Catholic Church that there is no reason why Jews, etc., won't go to heaven even though they do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. Sorry, I have no link, but some of you will remember the discussion. Whether people want to hear it or not, the current Pope's statement is based on the fundamental teachings of Christ, rather than some ecumenical "feel good" doctrine of the moment.

Of course if, as many believe, in the end times, the "all paths lead to God" doctrine will be the official religion of the world, this Pope won't have much effect anyway.


Dispensationalism

[Kathianne]

To the original thread topic: I recall RWA posting a pronouncement by the Catholic Church that there is no reason why Jews, etc., won't go to heaven even though they do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. Sorry, I have no link, but some of you will remember the discussion. Whether people want to hear it or not, the current Pope's statement is based on the fundamental teachings of Christ, rather than some ecumenical "feel good" doctrine of the moment.

Of course if, as many believe, in the end times, the "all paths lead to God" doctrine will be the official religion of the world, this Pope won't have much effect anyway.

I guess my 'take' is closer to OCA's than the 'official RC'. I remember in grammar school thinking of friends and knowing they believed in Christ. Never doubted we'd play together in heaven. :laugh2:

The Catholic Church has a plethora of rules and administrators, the Pope being #1 maker of the first and head of the 2nd. As far as the church goes, the 'infallibility' issue, which drives the other religions mad, applies in very select instances. This is not one of them.

Jeff noted one that is, regarding transubstantiation.

[Abbey Marie]

I guess my 'take' is closer to OCA's than the 'official RC'. I remember in grammar school thinking of friends and knowing they believed in Christ. Never doubted we'd play together in heaven. :laugh2:

The Catholic Church has a plethora of rules and administrators, the Pope being #1 maker of the first and head of the 2nd. As far as the church goes, the 'infallibility' issue, which drives the other religions mad, applies in very select instances. This is not one of them.

Jeff noted one that is, regarding transubstantiation.


Yes, the RCC definitely has some doctrine that we Protestants cannot cotton to. But in general, I believe that doctrinal differences between various Christian churches are more divisive than relevant to salvation. But to say that belief in Jesus as Messiah is optional, is a whole different animal. Given a choice, I much prefer this Pope's ideas to that gross misconception. . :)

[Kathianne]

Yes, the RCC definitely has some doctrine that we Protestants cannot cotton to. But in general, I believe that doctrinal differences between various Christian churches are more divisive than relevant to salvation. But to say that belief in Jesus as Messiah is optional, is a whole different animal. Given a choice, I much prefer this Pope's ideas to that gross misconception. . :)

This pope has been interesting so far. He's not easily liked as was JPII. At the same time he's been quite harsh on Islam, while not going over the top. He kind of reminds me of what we Republicans would like to see our representatives and judges do.

He's going to be controversial, I just wish they'd tone down the headlines.

[nevadamedic]

This pope has been interesting so far. He's not easily liked as was JPII. At the same time he's been quite harsh on Islam, while not going over the top. He kind of reminds me of what we Republicans would like to see our representatives and judges do.

He's going to be controversial, I just wish they'd tone down the headlines.

I really liked John Paul II. I just bought the movie that came out about him, I might actually watch it this weekend.

[Abbey Marie]

This pope has been interesting so far. He's not easily liked as was JPII. At the same time he's been quite harsh on Islam, while not going over the top. He kind of reminds me of what we Republicans would like to see our representatives and judges do.

He's going to be controversial, I just wish they'd tone down the headlines.

We know how the MSM loves religious controversy. Almost as much as they love a Republican sex scandal. Now, a white minister in a sex scandal, especially a gay affair, is a journalist's nirvana. :rolleyes:

[nevadamedic]

We know how the MSM loves religious controversy. Almost as much as they love a Republican sex scandal. Now, a white minister in a sex scandal, especially a gay affair, is a journalist's nirvana. :rolleyes:

:laugh2:

[glockmail]

It's the simplest of logic and a perfect example of common sense. If 100% of the population were Christian, then 100% of all the sub-demographics would be Christian also. At 90%, in the absence of any contradictory data, the same method applies. That makes sense for 100% and 0% only, not at all with anything in between. A quick google on your part is normally warranted in order to make your case, but I understand your reluctance to prove yourself wrong.

[Missileman]

That makes sense for 100% and 0% only, not at all with anything in between. A quick google on your part is normally warranted in order to make your case, but I understand your reluctance to prove yourself wrong.

If you are aware of contradictory data, post it. Otherwise, what I stated holds true and you as normal are wrong. Don't take my word for it though...call and ask a statistician.

As for the bolded part, funny that you keep asking other people to do that which you aren't capable of.

[glockmail]

If you are aware of contradictory data, post it. Otherwise, what I stated holds true and you as normal are wrong. Don't take my word for it though...call and ask a statistician.

As for the bolded part, funny that you keep asking other people to do that which you aren't capable of. As you are the one attempting the argument, it is your responsibility to provide backup. I don't feel the need to do your work for you, as your reasoning is illogical at face value.

[Missileman]

As you are the one attempting the argument, it is your responsibility to provide backup. I don't feel the need to do your work for you, as your reasoning is illogical at face value.

Prove it.

[nevadamedic]

Prove it.

He has always proved his claims. That's one thing GM is excellent at. :salute:

[glockmail]

Prove it.
In post 45 you said: “If 90% of the U.S population is Christian, then 90% of pedophiles are.” What mathematical basis is your reasoning? You have no facts, are unwilling to offer same, because the logic is simply not there. All of the peds could be Christian, or none of them, or any number in between. Anyone with a rudimentary knowlege of statistics or logic would understand this.

[Missileman]

In post 45 you said: “If 90% of the U.S population is Christian, then 90% of pedophiles are.” What mathematical basis is your reasoning? You have no facts, are unwilling to offer same, because the logic is simply not there. All of the peds could be Christian, or none of them, or any number in between. Anyone with a rudimentary knowlege of statistics or logic would understand this.

In the absence of any data that puts it at a different percentage, and so far you haven't posted anything that even remotely suggests that all pedophiles come from the 10% non-Christian population, it would be reasonable to place the percentage at 90%.

You said that it works at 0% and at 100% only. At 0% and 100% there can be no contradictory data to alter the percentage. The concept works at every percentage between 0 and 100 also, with the stipulation that contradictory data would necessarily alter the percentage.

[Missileman]

He has always proved his claims. That's one thing GM is excellent at. :salute:

Of all the posters I've come across on message boards, Glockmail is without a doubt the poster who most often fails to backup his claims with a shred of evidence or logical argument.

[nevadamedic]

Of all the posters I've come across on message boards, Glockmail is without a doubt the poster who most often fails to backup his claims with a shred of evidence or logical argument.

He has with me everytime.

[nevadamedic]

Although this thread is mostly about opinion.

[glockmail]

In the absence of any data that puts it at a different percentage, and so far you haven't posted anything that even remotely suggests that all pedophiles come from the 10% non-Christian population, it would be reasonable to place the percentage at 90%.

.... .

It is not reasonable to put the percentage at 90, since the beliefs of Christians are in conflict with those of pedophiles.

[nevadamedic]

It is not reasonable to put the percentage at 90, since the beliefs of Christians are in conflict with those of pedophiles.

Everyone's beliefs are different then those of pedophiles.