Pope: Other Christians not true churches

[Postmaster]

Originally Posted by Thomas

It goes hand in hand with the rejection of hierarchy, and yet nowhere in nature is there not hierarchy, unless its in a state of chaos.

Thomas

Is nature and spirituality the same?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Oh,

I'm not making light of a serious point. But nor am I making light of what can be authentically claimed. Direct line of succession from St Peter, and a doctrine that has not shifted from the teachings of the Apostles. We, along with out Orthodox brothers, can claim such.




Thomas

And what is such a claim? Its no different to a monarchy of inbreds. A lineage such as that is a ridiculous notion on which to base pre-eminence upon. Lets remember also that the history of the Catholic church is also one of execution, murder, burnings, intolerance and political meddling that resulted in many terrible wars. yeh.... some lineage indeed.
The Facts about Benedict are for me clear. Before coming into the top job he was instrumental in trying to cover up the countless accusations of paedophilia and physical abuse by priests and sisters around the world on children. Since becoming Pope he has made gaff after gaff after gaff showing an insensitivity to a secular world that is so overt that it cannot be accidental.

Personaly I think him a pompous self-important fool and exactly what the Catholic church did not need at this point in history.

Tao

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I think the contrast is made because relativism so dominates the thinking in the West that we are used to 'ecumenism' meaning ignoring differences, pretending they're not really important, not really there, or don't make a difference when we love God, or papering over the wounds.

If Benedict is one thing, he's a philosopher with no time for relativism, and has spoken against it consistently. So if one is to live and deal in the 'real world' one has to acknowledge 'real world' differences, and what that implies.

One favourtite relativist chestnut is the statement that all religions do/say the same thing. That they're all equal, and in theory you can switch from one to another with no real ultimate effect. It's born out of anti-authoritarianism and the romance movements of the nineteenth century. It goes hand in hand with the rejection of hierarchy, and yet nowhere in nature is there not hierarchy, unless its in a state of chaos.

Thomas

Where one person sees a hierarchy, another person sees elitism, while where one person sees subtle order, another person sees chaos.

Sure, we can see hierarchies in nature, and they are not always pretty. We can also see man made hierarchies that people might in the beginning think to be beautiful, only to witness them to later become corrupt.

Some people need rigid hierarchies, and thrive in them, while others become apathetic in them. Personally, would I prefer that people thrive, whether it be in a strong hierarchy, or whether it be in a more subtle arrangement.

My two cents.

[ardenz]

Popes are always saying this.....

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

And what is such a claim?

Continuity.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Its no different to a monarchy of inbreds.

Actually it's quite different. No genetic issues, leadership by election, etc., etc.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Lets remember also that the history of the Catholic church is also one of execution, murder, burnings, intolerance and political meddling that resulted in many terrible wars. yeh.... some lineage indeed.

And if the Catholic Church had never existed, none of these things would have ever happened. Its a specious argument. Do we do away with every sociopolitical system?

Marie Stopes, who pioneered family planning in the UK, did it only because she believed in eugenics, and wanted to stop the working classes overpopulating. When her son fell in love with a woman suffering from poor eyesight, she disowned him.

It's not the institutions, it's the people — and we're back to 'let he who is without sin... '

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Since becoming Pope he has made gaff after gaff after gaff showing an insensitivity to a secular world that is so overt that it cannot be accidental.

Then perhaps he is not insensitive at all, and perhaps they were not gaffs at all, and perhaps he's saying things that nobody wants to hear ... and perhaps it hardly matters what he says, as people are so fixed in their opinions ...

And perhaps when he does act, he acts where it counts, and doesn't posture for the media, as so many do, and actually do nothing at all.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Where one person sees a hierarchy, another person sees elitism

This is the perennial problem.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Sure, we can see hierarchies in nature, and they are not always pretty.

That is a subjective opinion, however. We have to deal with objective realities first. Nor can we do away with them. If there were no hierarchy, there would be no growth, no progress, no development ... no movement.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

We can also see man made hierarchies that people might in the beginning think to be beautiful, only to witness them to later become corrupt.

We can also see hierarchies becoming corrupt because man thinks he knows better ... our current eco/environmental problems, for one ...

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Some people need rigid hierarchies, and thrive in them, while others become apathetic in them. Personally, would I prefer that people thrive, whether it be in a strong hierarchy, or whether it be in a more subtle arrangement.

My two cents.

Always worth more than that, Seattlegal, although I don't think I've said so often enough.

Thomas

[post-abrahamic]

One of these days scholars with guts will confront the Pope and the Catholic Church with charges of deliberately mixing pagan gods with Christianity.

It turns out the whole Peter as first Pope establishing the Apostolic Succession authority was himself a mythical creation. There were two gods of Rome named Ju-Peter, and Janus-Peter. Janus Peter's icon was the twin heads facing in opposite directions. Janus-Peter was the keeper of keys to heaven and earth and his image was put on doorways symbolizing the Gate between heaven and hell. The word "cardinal" means hinge.

The Catholic Church Fathers seemed to have no difficulty in mixing Roman pagan ideas with their budding Church enterprise that would create lasting employment for Christian bishops and priests. Janus-Peter was in charge of the calendar too so we all are honoring Janus-Peter with the first month of the year.

Catholicism is on its last legs as spiritual authority but doesn't know it..

Ratzinger did get it right about Buddhism though...

[Postmaster]

Originally Posted by Thomas

And if the Catholic Church had never existed, none of these things would have ever happened. Its a specious argument. Do we do away with every sociopolitical system?

Thing is when a religious administration is doing something contrary to the book they are trying to uphold it says something about the religion, or shall I say religion in general. Some of the punishments were for very pointless things i.e. being a witch most often resorted in burning innocent women.

[Thomas]

I quite agree, Postmaster, but we do tend to look at the question out of context, and from the benefit of hindsight.

As I have said, and as sociologists are now showing, the Church often did more to protect the right of the individual than the state ... and the last century alone would seem to indicate that, in the absence of any kind of religious morality, the state is far more violent ... the massacres of secular politics are far worse than those of religion ... and more witches were burnt by the secular authorities than the religious, as witchcraft was seen as against the public good more than it was as demonic or whatever...

Any more Christians have died for their faith in the last 100 years than in the 1900 years preceeding them ... as we speak the Christian communities in Iraq are being decimated ...

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Is nature and spirituality the same?

I think so. 'As above, so below'. All spiritual traditions have their hierarchies.

Thomas

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I think so. 'As above, so below'. All spiritual traditions have their hierarchies.

Thomas

Hey, I thought the point of Christianity was a God who bypassed hierarchies.

That thing about Jesus coming down to earth to be one of us, rather than a king or priest. Oh yes he was a Rabbi, but he broke with many traditions. He spoke on a more personal level........ and could often be vague or speak in metaphors. He connected with people.......He made people feel valued and appreciated for who they were, not what people thought of them.....

Very down-to-earth indeed.

[Postmaster]

I disagree that nature and spirituality are the same. I think they are a contrast of the same thing, but they are not the same contrast. I think spirituality can illuminate the dark part of nature. Hense the term thy Kingdom come.

There are people that are not religiously motivated that seem to uphold the same sometimes better standards of morals to those who are religiously motivated and vice versa.

Fact is no one will ever understand the afterlife, just as we will never fully understand God. It is all based on assumption. As for mysticism i.e miracles has been observed in Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity even in pre-Christian Greek and Roman Paganism. Biologcally we are all pre-programmed to accept those who are more like us and repel those who are least like us, this can be erased as soon as we realise we all have common goals.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Hey, I thought the point of Christianity was a God who bypassed hierarchies.

Oh indeed He does! But that does not mean they do not exist. Dionysius the Areopagite in "The Celestial Hierarchy" details the angelic orders, and in the Judeo Christian traditions angels act as messengers, but not mediators.

It's a sobering thought ... would an angel post to CR?

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

That thing about Jesus coming down to earth to be one of us, rather than a king or priest.

I rather think He surpasses the titles accorded to Him, of 'Prophet, Priest and King' — He was the fulfillment of Israel's prophetic hope, after all, and eventually claimed to be God ... that's what got Him killed.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

He spoke on a more personal level........ and could often be vague or speak in metaphors. He connected with people.......He made people feel valued and appreciated for who they were, not what people thought of them.....

Just like his Father.

Thomas

[wil]

Had a discussion with a retired Monsignor at an Interfaith Service this week. I was off to scout camp and this same priest ran the Catholic service which covered the boy's and adult's obligations while at scout camp...but two days later he led the interfaith service....quite different than the stuff he's been doing for the past 50 years..discussion, meditations, he did lead us in a gregorian chant...and the call and response was the scout oath, promise, motto and law with responses from the Bible, Torah, Koran, Upanishads, Vedas, Confucious, Book of Mormon....the scouts and leaders that attended enjoyed it very much....the current pope has some time to understand grow in his new position...his flock will assist.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

And what is such a claim? Its no different to a monarchy of inbreds. A lineage such as that is a ridiculous notion on which to base pre-eminence upon. Lets remember also that the history of the Catholic church is also one of execution, murder, burnings, intolerance and political meddling that resulted in many terrible wars. yeh.... some lineage indeed.
The Facts about Benedict are for me clear. Before coming into the top job he was instrumental in trying to cover up the countless accusations of paedophilia and physical abuse by priests and sisters around the world on children. Since becoming Pope he has made gaff after gaff after gaff showing an insensitivity to a secular world that is so overt that it cannot be accidental.

Personaly I think him a pompous self-important fool and exactly what the Catholic church did not need at this point in history.

Tao

And the last thing we need is a pompous statement from a non catholic, who doesn't know his backside from a hole in the ground, pertaining to the Roman Church. Really Tao, that is rather rude, don't you think?

Don't insult, if you do not want to be insulted...

or is that do unto others...?

v/r

Q