Post: #26

(08-31-2015 09:09 AM)Glaucon Wrote:  Rather the pope goes retard.

They tried that out with John Paul 2, in the last ten years or so of his Papacy. At least Benedict fucking retired rather than make us watch him slide into dementia.

Post: #27

(08-30-2015 07:49 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  This is an important point to raise. People who sweep the catholic church together with Orthodox and Protestant divisions and call it 'the church' or 'christianity' are making an error. The entire protestant separation happened because people believed that the word of god is contained in the bible, not a man with a funny white hat. The catholic church kept the bible out of normal people's hands and said "oh no, we'll read it all to you in a language that you don't understand and then tell you what it means...and then trump it with the Pope's authority if we need to".

Remember, catholics are the only 'church' that worships Mary, catholics are ones who ran the spanish inquisition...and guess what people were killed for? Being protestant sympathizers, owning bibles, disavowing the pope etc. Catholics are the ones with the global kid fucking scandal...not 'christians' or 'the church' a a whole.

So a few comments, first, Catholics don't worship Mary. Prayers involving Mary center around Mary's intercession with God. Mary is not God. Second, sola scriptura is fairly incoherent. Third, and finally, Jesus tells Peter to found a Church, and he and his successors will have the ability to "bind and loose" (i.e. make doctrinal decisions).

Post: #28

(08-31-2015 09:41 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 07:49 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  This is an important point to raise. People who sweep the catholic church together with Orthodox and Protestant divisions and call it 'the church' or 'christianity' are making an error. The entire protestant separation happened because people believed that the word of god is contained in the bible, not a man with a funny white hat. The catholic church kept the bible out of normal people's hands and said "oh no, we'll read it all to you in a language that you don't understand and then tell you what it means...and then trump it with the Pope's authority if we need to".

Remember, catholics are the only 'church' that worships Mary, catholics are ones who ran the spanish inquisition...and guess what people were killed for? Being protestant sympathizers, owning bibles, disavowing the pope etc. Catholics are the ones with the global kid fucking scandal...not 'christians' or 'the church' a a whole.

So a few comments, first, Catholics don't worship Mary. Prayers involving Mary center around Mary's intercession with God. Mary is not God. Second, sola scriptura is fairly incoherent. Third, and finally, Jesus tells Peter to found a Church, and he and his successors will have the ability to "bind and loose" (i.e. make doctrinal decisions).

I was not going to start cracking on about this subject, but what the hell.

Let's talk about the Spanish Inquisition in particular. It's one of the first things dragged out to stick one up the Catholic Church, but it only takes the briefest read on Wikipedia to conclude that it was not run by the Pope, i.e. not run by the Catholic Church's hierarchy.

As with Henry VIII's breakaway from the Catholic Church, forming the Church of England, the Spanish inquisition was the brainchild of the Spanish monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella. And it started basically out of paranoia that those Jews who hadn't submitted to forced conversion to Christianity were still practicing Judaism in secret. It was essentially part of the fallout from the Spanish Reconquista: having taken back their country from Islam, the Iberians weren't terribly keen on the idea of multiculturalism, and distrusted Jews as much as anyone else.

Pope Sixtus IV vehemently objected to this. While there was an office of the Inquisition in the Church hierarchy, it hadn't been used for about two hundred years at the time of the Albigensian Crusade. It was meant to be run solely under Papal authority and oversight, and it wasn't meant to be under the control of secular monarchs. The problem being that Ferdinand then blackmailed Sixtus: unless Sixtus gave Ferdinand the power to both control and run the Inquisition in Spain independently of Papal authority, he would withdraw military support from Rome at a time when the Turks were a threat to Rome. This was a time period when Islamic power was ascendant: a couple hundred years down the line, only an alliance of Catholic (and Protestant) nations turned back the Turks in southeastern Europe. Sixtus could not do without military support to defend the Catholic Church's capital and therefore issued a Papal bull that handed over power to run the Inquisition to Ferdinand.

The Spanish inquisition then proceeded -- as with the Fourth Crusade, which similarly threw off Papal control -- to go half-mad, burning people left, right, and centre. Sixtus kept trying to get control back, but he was again threatened with withdrawal of military support if he countermanded Ferdinand's demands or (as Innocent VIII later tried) created any right of appeal to Rome from the Inquisition's decisions.

Could the Popes have done a lot more to stop it? There was, of course, excommunication ... eeeexcept that means of controlling Catholic kings was more or less dead and buried from a few hundred years earlier; Henry VIII was excommunicated, and his country survived and thrived; German Holy Roman Emperors had been excommunicated but Germany lived on. But beyond that, the Pope, while a secular ruler, had no army or any feasible means of marching in and stopping the Inquisition personally.

Post: #29

I've spoken about this before, having had a relative who was a member of the Catholic priesthood. Here's the insights I've been privy too.

When Pope Francis declares his endorsement for gay and lesbian works, speaks about various social issues and so forth, it's often quoted by the masses as showing acceptance and encouragement of social progression in the 21st century. After all, how many times have you read or heard about the how church has to 'modernize' or become irrelevant?
It goes without saying that, as opposed to a propagation of an original message, this has the distinct air of kowtowing, indeed pandering for acceptance. Since religion has fallen into the wayside of the lives of everyday people throughout western civilization, it's logical to conclude that this is an attempt to stay relevant.

However, this begs the question - when the Bible and theological doctrine condemns homosexuality, how can the Pope engage in such behaviour?
Simple. Akin to when a politician expresses his personal opinion but states that it doesn't reflect the views of his party, when Pope Francis makes these declarations he isn't spreading catholic views but his own.
Unfortunately there's little distinction in the eyes of the layman. To them, the Pope is the church and so consider what he says to be indicative of the church's position.

This has the inevitable ramification of spreading dissent through the church. However, once elected by the Synod, the Pope is unable to be recalled or dismissed. He's Pope for life as historians will no doubt be aware. It's not an exaggeration to say that there's only 2 ways for a new one to be elected - death or retirement. As a result, this type of conduct isn't likely to go away any time soon.

Edmund Burke said that the only thing necessary for evil triumph was for good men to do nothing (he never said anything about women Emma Watson you misquoting little shit) Well, there's no shortage of good men in the Catholic church who are doing sweet fuck all at the moment. They're well aware of what's going on and it disturbs and angers them quite profoundly. Unfortunately there's nothing that can be done as to voice any expression of dissent is an invitation to be ridiculed, disciplined ultimately dismissed - basically everything just shy of being turned into a leper.

But there is some hope.
Pope Francis suffers from ill health, specifically difficulty with his mobility and breathing after having had a lung removed circa the age of 40.
While his dissemination of pro-LGBT causes will have to be tolerated a while longer, the hushed consensus is that he, as with Pope Benedict, will choose to retire.
When that time comes, the Synod will be able to elect a new head and, God willing, he will help to restore the Catholic church to some degree of prominence.

Post: #30

I don't know who the next Pope will be, but I do know he'll be much more conservative than Francis.

Post: #31

I'm just going by memory here, I don't really pay close attention to the pope or catholic church, having said that...

I thought when this guy was elected that people were saying he's more conservative than recent popes?

I also saw that he's saying abortions should be forgiven. For chits and giggles, I decided to read the comments on NPR. Predictably, they were slamming him for suggesting that abortions 'need' to be forgiven lol

Post: #32

Quote:Fucking disgusting. The Pope is a pedophile most likely as well. What man supports teaching of children about homo relationships? It is beyond filthy, not to mention contradiction of everything taught in the Bible. If Catholics do not completely abandon their churches after this, then they just aren't even a little serious about God.

Samseau we generally agree on religious issues both here and via PM, but this comes off as spiteful and excessive. What doctrine did the Pope change? Is gay marriage now condoned by the Catholic Church? The Pope said something we both disagree with, but how does calling him a pedophile give you the moral authority to write off Catholics as "less serious about God" for not abandoning the denomination?

Casting complete judgment on Catholics for the opinion of one man seems to be a greater violation of Scriptural doctrine than the issue you're posting about. Accepting and living the faith saves a man, church and denomination do not. Unless we're leading perfectly righteous lives (which we aren't) there are probably other aspects of Christianity more deserving of our attention and concern.

Quote:If you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? - Romans 2:19 (NIV)

Christians are justified in criticizing changes to doctrine. What you're saying though is essentially, "Obama said something bad about gun owners. Since it's in our Constitution, if Americans don't completely abandon their country now, they're a little bit less serious about freedom."

Post: #33

(08-30-2015 07:49 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 04:14 PM)FilipSRB Wrote:  I will be honest, as an Orthodox Christian I find a certain level of amusement reading about the the current Pope and his successful undermining of the Catholic Church.

This is an important point to raise. People who sweep the catholic church together with Orthodox and Protestant divisions and call it 'the church' or 'christianity' are making an error. The entire protestant separation happened because people believed that the word of god is contained in the bible, not a man with a funny white hat. The catholic church kept the bible out of normal people's hands and said "oh no, we'll read it all to you in a language that you don't understand and then tell you what it means...and then trump it with the Pope's authority if we need to".

When the papacy shows its corruption, serious protestants say "told you so" they don't try to defend it. Much of english and irish history has people dying to oppose the catholic church and vice versa.

Remember, catholics are the only 'church' that worships Mary, catholics are ones who ran the spanish inquisition...and guess what people were killed for? Being protestant sympathizers, owning bibles, disavowing the pope etc. Catholics are the ones with the global kid fucking scandal...not 'christians' or 'the church' a a whole.

It's funny that this is the same method hardcore Islam uses to maintain it's fundamentalism, but it's more or less backfired on maintaining control among Christians for a long time.

The Catholic argument that I've heard among Catholics and those that have converted to Catholicism to be more traditional is "The Catholic church is the most orthodox because it's the one Jesus founded". I don't know the validity of that argument, but I thought it was an interesting take that I'd like to know more about.

Post: #34

(09-01-2015 11:20 AM)Hardy Daytona Wrote:  But there is some hope.
Pope Francis suffers from ill health, specifically difficulty with his mobility and breathing after having had a lung removed circa the age of 40.
While his dissemination of pro-LGBT causes will have to be tolerated a while longer, the hushed consensus is that he, as with Pope Benedict, will choose to retire.
When that time comes, the Synod will be able to elect a new head and, God willing, he will help to restore the Catholic church to some degree of prominence.

St. Malachy has something to say about that.

Post: #35

Does this mean I can't use "is the Pope Catholic?" as a rhetorical expression any more?

Post: #36

Poll suggests most US Catholics wrongly believe Pope Francis backs gay ‘marriage’

Quote:August 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- A considerable majority of U.S. Catholics are in conflict with Church teaching on abortion and marriage, a new study says, and a startling number of those also believe Pope Francis backs homosexual “marriage.”

Quote:The findings suggest what many Catholics have said is a climate of confusion in the midst of the Francis pontificate. Concerns over that confusion prompted a coalition of pro-family groups to respond with an international petition effort asking the pope to reaffirm Church teaching, drawing more than a half-million signatures.

Quote:Of the Catholics who back homosexual “marriage,” 49-percent also think the leader of the Catholic Church backs it along with them. Fifteen percent of those Catholics who oppose homosexual “marriage” also mistakenly believe Pope Francis supports it.

Post: #37

As a catholic myself, It upsets me that the Pope Francis supports the cultural decay, the homosexuals and the annoying SJWs. I'm not surprised that the Catolic Church membership is beginning to diminish.

Post: #38

great insights on this thread. I am by no means an expert on religious history, just dangerous enough with it to prompt discussions.

Post: #39

(09-01-2015 12:13 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Quote:Fucking disgusting. The Pope is a pedophile most likely as well. What man supports teaching of children about homo relationships? It is beyond filthy, not to mention contradiction of everything taught in the Bible. If Catholics do not completely abandon their churches after this, then they just aren't even a little serious about God.

Samseau we generally agree on religious issues both here and via PM, but this comes off as spiteful and excessive. What doctrine did the Pope change? Is gay marriage now condoned by the Catholic Church? The Pope said something we both disagree with, but how does calling him a pedophile give you the moral authority to write off Catholics as "less serious about God" for not abandoning the denomination?

Except the Church is supposed to be your communion with God, you can't get that with homosexual and morally impure clergy.

Quote:Casting complete judgment on Catholics for the opinion of one man seems to be a greater violation of Scriptural doctrine than the issue you're posting about. Accepting and living the faith saves a man, church and denomination do not. Unless we're leading perfectly righteous lives (which we aren't) there are probably other aspects of Christianity more deserving of our attention and concern.

The church is one of the main ways man stays in communion with Christ. You realistically cannot be saved without a good Church to attend. This is not because the Church is necessary, but because men aren't designed to be alone and need to be with a community of faithful in order to maintain their own faith. Typically a man's sin cannot be controlled without others to help him through it.

If people are more committed to being part of the corrupt Catholic church because of prestige or "tradition" then they are committed to being a part of God, then it's not me who is judging them, it is they who judge themselves. They automatically reveal themselves to be hypocrites.

Quote:

Quote:If you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? - Romans 2:19 (NIV)

Christians are justified in criticizing changes to doctrine. What you're saying though is essentially, "Obama said something bad about gun owners. Since it's in our Constitution, if Americans don't completely abandon their country now, they're a little bit less serious about freedom."

Except Obama isn't in control of America. He's just an elected official. The people are in control of America (at least they are supposed to be). So if the people of America believed in banning guns and making life hell, then yes of course I would get the fuck out of here. The president isn't the person with total control so having a shit president isn't the end-all-be-all.

Conversely, the Pope is in control of the Catholic church. What the Pope says is what the church does. So if the Pope wants to contradict 2000 years of Christianity then that's what the Church does. The Pope is the end-all-be-all.

What Christian in his right mind would stay in such an organization?

Post: #40

(09-01-2015 12:21 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  It's funny that this is the same method hardcore Islam uses to maintain it's fundamentalism, but it's more or less backfired on maintaining control among Christians for a long time.

The Catholic argument that I've heard among Catholics and those that have converted to Catholicism to be more traditional is "The Catholic church is the most orthodox because it's the one Jesus founded". I don't know the validity of that argument, but I thought it was an interesting take that I'd like to know more about.

Giving a very brief and from-memory summary of it, it basically comes from something Jesus said to Peter.

The Catholic Church believes that Jesus founded it when Peter first realised "You are the Christ, the Holy One of God". To this Jesus responds (paraphrasing it) "Blessed be you, Simon son of Jonah, because it is not man or reason that has revealed this to you, but God. You were named Simon, but I say you are Peter (khaifa -- we'll get to this), and on this rock I will build my church, and all the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

Peter had been named Simon before this point, but Christ gives him the name Peter, or rock. The original text is thought by Catholicism to have been khaifa in Aramaic, which means both "rock", but also had a meaning in Aramaic as "the foundation of a community" -- I think they assert that Jacob is referred to in the same way. Thus we have those words: "You were named Simon, but I say you are rock, and on this rock I will build my church." -- that church being the Catholic Church. From that day forward, Peter is referred to as Simon Peter, Simon rock, Simon Khaifa.

It's put out there explicitly in the Catholic Catechism -- sort of the definitive set of beliefs for Catholics -- that the Catholic Church teaches only what has been given to it, and it considers it has been given not only the text of the Bible itself, but also the traditions and teachings of the early patriarchs of the church in its infancy, which may not be in the Bible itself but which are deemed significant enough for Catholicism to order its affairs by them. That tradition -- handed down first by the very early St. Iraenaeus, in the old text Adversus Haeresies, that is, "Against Heresies" -- is that Peter was the head of the church, its highest authority, and that his successors were similarly invested with his pre-eminence as first among the disciples. That is, the Pope. The Catholic Church, thus, is the church founded by Jesus. And it should be noted that the word catholic means universal. You will find any number of explicit rulings in catechism saying that those brought up in alternate Christian sects -- Protestant, etc. -- are still considered Christians and should be considered brothers by Catholics. It's part of the Catholic (i.e. the Nicene) creed that Catholics only acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins -- i.e. that within the Catholic Church -- because it's the only rite of baptism the Catholic Church has been given by tradition and the patriarchs.

You can probably see where Protestant thought would have differed heavily on this. Part of the Protestant line of thought/belief was that (a) the Bible alone was sufficient for Christians to know, i.e. that the traditions had no particular significance and (b) Jesus was not giving Peter any special significance above the other disciples when he spoke the above words.

On top of that, there is the Pope's own authority among other bishops. This is a big difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern or Russian Orthodox Churches. In essence, the Catholic Church holds that the Bishop of Rome -- i.e. the Pope -- being the successor to Peter is paramount above all the other bishops in the various churches across the world. The orthodox churches don't accept this point of view and hold that the Pope is only one of other equally-ranked speakers for the churches. And to be fair, history does tell us that it took the better part of a few hundred years for the belief/tradition/idea to take hold that the bishop of Rome was the head of the church. This belief was at the heart of what's called the Great Schism of, oh, 1064 or so if I remember right, which was as big a split in the church as the Reformation that took place four hundred years down the line. It's a schism that's still being healed, though as I understand it all the Christian churches have at least cordial relationships these days under the banner of ecumenicism -- something John XXIII was keen to push back in the 1960s or so.

Post: #41

The fact that Bishop of Rome was the superior became a serious issue and final nail in the coffin for the Great Schism of 1054 because The Papal Throne was usurped by the Frankish nobility. Before that, the pope was of Roman descent. It was a political and theological fight between the conquerors of western Roman territories and Eastern unconquered provinces.

John S. Romanides wrote extensively on the subject, his writings can be found on http://www.romanity.org/ The site is pretty old fashioned as far as design is concerned, but the information there is invaluable.

Post: #42

(09-05-2015 07:08 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:21 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  It's funny that this is the same method hardcore Islam uses to maintain it's fundamentalism, but it's more or less backfired on maintaining control among Christians for a long time.

The Catholic argument that I've heard among Catholics and those that have converted to Catholicism to be more traditional is "The Catholic church is the most orthodox because it's the one Jesus founded". I don't know the validity of that argument, but I thought it was an interesting take that I'd like to know more about.

Giving a very brief and from-memory summary of it, it basically comes from something Jesus said to Peter.

The Catholic Church believes that Jesus founded it when Peter first realised "You are the Christ, the Holy One of God". To this Jesus responds (paraphrasing it) "Blessed be you, Simon son of Jonah, because it is not man or reason that has revealed this to you, but God. You were named Simon, but I say you are Peter (khaifa -- we'll get to this), and on this rock I will build my church, and all the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

Peter had been named Simon before this point, but Christ gives him the name Peter, or rock. The original text is thought by Catholicism to have been khaifa in Aramaic, which means both "rock", but also had a meaning in Aramaic as "the foundation of a community" -- I think they assert that Jacob is referred to in the same way. Thus we have those words: "You were named Simon, but I say you are rock, and on this rock I will build my church." -- that church being the Catholic Church. From that day forward, Peter is referred to as Simon Peter, Simon rock, Simon Khaifa.

It's put out there explicitly in the Catholic Catechism -- sort of the definitive set of beliefs for Catholics -- that the Catholic Church teaches only what has been given to it, and it considers it has been given not only the text of the Bible itself, but also the traditions and teachings of the early patriarchs of the church in its infancy, which may not be in the Bible itself but which are deemed significant enough for Catholicism to order its affairs by them. That tradition -- handed down first by the very early St. Iraenaeus, in the old text Adversus Haeresies, that is, "Against Heresies" -- is that Peter was the head of the church, its highest authority, and that his successors were similarly invested with his pre-eminence as first among the disciples. That is, the Pope. The Catholic Church, thus, is the church founded by Jesus. And it should be noted that the word catholic means universal. You will find any number of explicit rulings in catechism saying that those brought up in alternate Christian sects -- Protestant, etc. -- are still considered Christians and should be considered brothers by Catholics. It's part of the Catholic (i.e. the Nicene) creed that Catholics only acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins -- i.e. that within the Catholic Church -- because it's the only rite of baptism the Catholic Church has been given by tradition and the patriarchs.

You can probably see where Protestant thought would have differed heavily on this. Part of the Protestant line of thought/belief was that (a) the Bible alone was sufficient for Christians to know, i.e. that the traditions had no particular significance and (b) Jesus was not giving Peter any special significance above the other disciples when he spoke the above words.

On top of that, there is the Pope's own authority among other bishops. This is a big difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern or Russian Orthodox Churches. In essence, the Catholic Church holds that the Bishop of Rome -- i.e. the Pope -- being the successor to Peter is paramount above all the other bishops in the various churches across the world. The orthodox churches don't accept this point of view and hold that the Pope is only one of other equally-ranked speakers for the churches. And to be fair, history does tell us that it took the better part of a few hundred years for the belief/tradition/idea to take hold that the bishop of Rome was the head of the church. This belief was at the heart of what's called the Great Schism of, oh, 1064 or so if I remember right, which was as big a split in the church as the Reformation that took place four hundred years down the line. It's a schism that's still being healed, though as I understand it all the Christian churches have at least cordial relationships these days under the banner of ecumenicism -- something John XXIII was keen to push back in the 1960s or so.

A debate on the Issue if you are interested:

Post: #43

Pope Francis is all about PR. I won't be surprised if he leads a SlutWalk sometime soon.

Post: #44

He also wants parishes to care for migrant families.

Absolute worst pope.

Post: #45

(09-06-2015 04:34 PM)duedue Wrote:  Pope Francis is all about PR. I won't be surprised if he leads a SlutWalk sometime soon.

The pics will be absolutely priceless.

And depressing, given I'm Catholic.

Post: #46

I'm completely unsurprised by this development. Francis strikes me as a faggot.



That pussy-ass, defeatist face and expression is symbolic of Europe as a whole right now.

Post: #47

(09-05-2015 07:08 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Giving a very brief and from-memory summary of it, it basically comes from something Jesus said to Peter.

The Catholic Church believes that Jesus founded it when Peter first realised "You are the Christ, the Holy One of God". To this Jesus responds (paraphrasing it) "Blessed be you, Simon son of Jonah, because it is not man or reason that has revealed this to you, but God. You were named Simon, but I say you are Peter (khaifa -- we'll get to this), and on this rock I will build my church, and all the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

Peter had been named Simon before this point, but Christ gives him the name Peter, or rock. The original text is thought by Catholicism to have been khaifa in Aramaic, which means both "rock", but also had a meaning in Aramaic as "the foundation of a community" -- I think they assert that Jacob is referred to in the same way. Thus we have those words: "You were named Simon, but I say you are rock, and on this rock I will build my church." -- that church being the Catholic Church. From that day forward, Peter is referred to as Simon Peter, Simon rock, Simon Khaifa.

It's put out there explicitly in the Catholic Catechism -- sort of the definitive set of beliefs for Catholics -- that the Catholic Church teaches only what has been given to it, and it considers it has been given not only the text of the Bible itself, but also the traditions and teachings of the early patriarchs of the church in its infancy, which may not be in the Bible itself but which are deemed significant enough for Catholicism to order its affairs by them. That tradition -- handed down first by the very early St. Iraenaeus, in the old text Adversus Haeresies, that is, "Against Heresies" -- is that Peter was the head of the church, its highest authority, and that his successors were similarly invested with his pre-eminence as first among the disciples. That is, the Pope. The Catholic Church, thus, is the church founded by Jesus. And it should be noted that the word catholic means universal. You will find any number of explicit rulings in catechism saying that those brought up in alternate Christian sects -- Protestant, etc. -- are still considered Christians and should be considered brothers by Catholics. It's part of the Catholic (i.e. the Nicene) creed that Catholics only acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins -- i.e. that within the Catholic Church -- because it's the only rite of baptism the Catholic Church has been given by tradition and the patriarchs.

You can probably see where Protestant thought would have differed heavily on this. Part of the Protestant line of thought/belief was that (a) the Bible alone was sufficient for Christians to know, i.e. that the traditions had no particular significance and (b) Jesus was not giving Peter any special significance above the other disciples when he spoke the above words.

On top of that, there is the Pope's own authority among other bishops. This is a big difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern or Russian Orthodox Churches. In essence, the Catholic Church holds that the Bishop of Rome -- i.e. the Pope -- being the successor to Peter is paramount above all the other bishops in the various churches across the world. The orthodox churches don't accept this point of view and hold that the Pope is only one of other equally-ranked speakers for the churches. And to be fair, history does tell us that it took the better part of a few hundred years for the belief/tradition/idea to take hold that the bishop of Rome was the head of the church. This belief was at the heart of what's called the Great Schism of, oh, 1064 or so if I remember right, which was as big a split in the church as the Reformation that took place four hundred years down the line. It's a schism that's still being healed, though as I understand it all the Christian churches have at least cordial relationships these days under the banner of ecumenicism -- something John XXIII was keen to push back in the 1960s or so.

A few corrections, but otherwise, well done: the Great Schism was 1054, not 1064. Also, the Aramaic for rock is Kephas, which appears in most English translations as Cephas. Peter's name is also attested as such in pre-Pauline creeds, such as 1 Corinthians 15, specifically 15:5 "And he (Jesus) appeared to Cephas..."

The passage you're referring to is Matthew 16:13-20.

Post: #48

The Pope landed in Washington DC today meeting with Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/p...t-updates/






Also, did some of you catch his propaganda interview with ABC one week before going to the US? He talked to a bunch of people from three cities: Chicago, LA, and McAllen, Texas which are heavily Latino.

He's trying to push his gay agenda and open border agenda down Americans throats.





On Thursday he will speak at capitol hill to a joint congress and push his leftist agenda to Americans.

Post: #49

Obama’s latest invite for Pope Francis: a Catholic schoolteacher fired over her gay ‘marriage’

Quote:WASHINGTON, D.C., September 22, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- The lesbian teacher fired from a Philadelphia-area Catholic school after complaints over her homosexual “marriage” has been invited to the White House to attend the welcoming ceremony for Pope Francis.

Homosexual activist organization Human Rights Campaign (HRC) verified Monday that it had gotten tickets from the White House for Margie Winters and her homosexual partner Andrea Vettori for the event. The Wednesday ceremony is not open to the public.

The women, who were already planning to attend papal events in Washington D.C. and the World Meeting of Families, were reportedly “giddy” about the news of their invitation.

"Obviously we won't be talking to the pope, but we will be in the vicinity," Winters said of the White House event. "But symbolically, it's a great step forward."

Quote:A report surfaced late last week that the Vatican had taken offense to a White House list of controversial invitees.

An unnamed Vatican official reportedly expressed concern that the photo opportunities with members of the group that publicly violate Church teaching, a pro-abortion activist nun, an openly homosexual Episcopal bishop, and gay activist Catholics, would be used by the Obama administration to indicate Pope Francis approved of their actions.

Winters had been informed in June she would not have her contract as Director of Religious Education renewed at Waldron Mercy Academy in Merion Station, eight years after entering into a homosexual “marriage” with Vettori.

An openly homosexual lesbian as the Director of Religious Education at a Catholic School...

Post: #50

(09-23-2015 01:16 AM)EL CHAPO Wrote:  The Pope landed in Washington DC today meeting with Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/p...t-updates/


Also, did some of you catch his propaganda interview with ABC one week before going to the US? He talked to a bunch of people from three cities: Chicago, LA, and McAllen, Texas which are heavily Latino.

He's trying to push his gay agenda and open border agenda down Americans throats.


On Thursday he will speak at capitol hill to a joint congress and push his leftist agenda to Americans.

I lost my mind watching the pope news today. Its like they aren't even trying with the propaganda...

Some 5 year old illegal immigrant 'sneaks' through security to give him a card? I am supposed to believe that? How fucking dumb do I look?

Also, all this year christians (non-catholics) were being lynched by the legal system for not baking cakes, hosting weddings, signing documents but when the pope comes to town its all out media cock sucking? What the fuck, where's the church of satan and other blue haired anti christian protestors? Where is the freedom from religion foundation when the pope speaks to congress.

The fact that the pope doesn't get the 'chistian treatment' when he comes to america and pretty much puppets democratic causes like immigration and climate change tells me that something is up.