All Comments (45)

poler pseudoparasitic southeaster cathay phrenosinic salpingitic predisability mealer
Margaret of Cortona
http://www.tulsalibrary.org/

Have to approve of anyone speaking on religious matters named 'Duckphup.'

At least compared to people calling themselves Thomas Aquinas.

One might forget we're talking to a Watergate guy here. :)

One song's as good as another, sometimes, Tim..

"Don't let it bring you down,
It's only castles burning..."

:)

Duckphup: "I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." ~ Mark Twain

Thanks. Perfect, as usual (both you and Twain).

Cal, Cal, Cal you really don't understand Catholic thought. The "one true church" could not be based exclusively on the verse you mention, since Matthew's gospel was not completed and distributed until probably the late 60s AD. The church was fully in place before that. Also, the Early Church did not have a printing press or a publisher to distribute Bibles to all the Christians. Remember that the Ecumenical Councils were, well, Ecumenical Councils, which means that there was understanding that the church was one, holy, and apostolic. You don't need Matt. 16 to come to that conclusion. The point of Matt. 16 is to support the primacy of Rome, not to establish one, catholic, holy and apostolic church.

And Anon above is right, the folks at Ignatius to which he links dismantle your "argument."

To see Cal's post utterly and swiftly destroyed, see:

http://tinyurl.com/2c4mg2

lepidopteryx wrote: "I also consider myself a student - I hope to be a student for the rest of my life.

"I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." ~ Mark Twain

That last post was mine..

Gaby doesn't exist..

The one "true" church doesn't exist.

The bible is a novel, created by throwing together a bunch of old scrolls and then calling it the word of god.

Jesus may have been a good preacher, the son of god he was not. Same goes for Mohammed and John Smith preacher, not prophets.

The bible has no more validity than the ancient Greek, Nordic, or Roman mythologies, or the various faiths of the Far East.

God is not a he or a she, if anything it is an IT. And IT definitely did not create two humans whose offspring went on to procreate in incesteous relationships to populate the earth nor did IT impregnate a married virgin so IT can be born as ITSELF.

All of the faith where invented by humankind's inability to explain the unexplainable and those ideas where then exploited by men to yoke the masses and enrich themselves

Read the Bible and learn: The Church is not for everybody. Those who are still outside the fold whose hearts really belong to the fold will be saved. Those already inside the fold whose hearts reject the doctrine will be lost.

According to the bible, the "church" is "the body of Christ" here on earth, made up of believers, and the head of the church is Christ himself, not a person (like the pope).

It's not about numbers or human judgment. It's about God's infinite love for each individual soul and the soul's response to God's invitation.

Eva Cassidy sings Curtis Mayfield:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdIQtwNRso4

People get ready
There's a train a-coming
You don't need no baggage
You just get on board
All you need is faith
To hear diesels humming
You don't need no ticket
You just thank the Lord
Yeah yeah yeah

People get ready
For the train to Jordan
Picking up passengers
From coast to coast
Faith is the key
Open the doors and board them
There's room for all
Among the loved and lost

Now there ain't no room
For the hopeless sinner
Who is hard on mankind
Just to save his own
Have pity on those
Whose chances are thinner
Cause there's no hiding place
From the Kingdom's Throne

Lepidopteryx: "I hope to be a student for the rest of my life."

So do I, even after my formal education is complete. My mother always says, "It is NEVER a waste of time to learn ANYTHING. Even if it doesn't seem useful at the time." I have found that to be true.

I have also learned that it requires an approach with an open mind.

I can appreciate your earlier thought that my answer to your post might be defensive. I have experienced many instances where those of other Chrisitan faiths have mis-information and preconceived notions about Catholics or Catholicism. It is difficult not to react defensively sometimes.

I was once told that I would not go to Heaven because I was an idolator, plain and simple. That it was not hateful to say so, just a "statement of fact". I also once read in one of these threads (if memory serves) that Mother Theresa and Ghandi were definitely in Hell because they were not "born again".

I would never claim that someone not of my faith was going to go to hell, "plain and simple", or that is "just a fact". I do not presume to ever KNOW who is in Heaven or Hell. Only God knows that for sure, and to claim otherwise is a bit judgemental and blasphemous...in my opinion.

I do not approach the prospect of learning the beliefs of others with the presumtion that they are just plain wrong. Nor would I accuse someone of believing what I "think" they believe.

Christian or not, your open minded pursuit of knowledge is admirable.

While I am no theologian, I hope my above explanations can clarify a little bit of what we believe, as opposed to what we are often (erroneously) accused of believing.

Student:

I also consider myself a student - I hope to be a student for the rest of my life.

I know a ggod bit about the Baptist version of Protestantism, having grown up with it. And even though I am no onger Christian, there are aspects of the life of Jesus that I find eminently worthy of imitation.

And I have a general curiosity about religious beliefs in general, whether or not I subscribe to them.

Most of what I "know" about Catholicism is what I was taught about it by Baptists (which I'm sure is every bit as erroneous as what they told my former mother-in-law about the UU church I belong to being a cult). My husband grew up Catholic and is no longer Christian, but he doesn't like to talk about Catholicism - he was not happy as a Catholic, and prefers to not dredge up those memories. So I seek information elsewhere.

Lepidopteryx,

Yes, that is one draw-back to this medium. Thanks for understanding.

Student: **And I gave an honest answer without attitude or condescention...like yours above. Way to encourage further coversation!**

Sorry. My reading of your post gave me the impression that you were upset. With only text and no body language/facial expresssion/vocal tone clues, sometimes things get misread. My apologies for having misinterpreted your post.

You mean THE, THE Frank Collins. Hey there's no one like him. I only agreed with the statement of the true church being the universal body of believers, not an organization. Otherwise all that other hateful rant can go. But I definately see some Frank Collins personality in his statements. Geesh. I've been on this site for way too long to know who people are.

I have no life.............

David,

Let's see..."Frank" says...

Twisted context:

I suppose he learned nothing from the Holocaust and the Civil Rights era, but of course, that involved Jews and Baptist, which he feels are not worthy of salvation.

Ridiculous Demand Based On Twisted Context:

I challenge any Catholic or John Ratzinger himself to tell me when Jesus said that only member of the Roman Catholic church are worthy of salvation.

Purely Inflammatory Statement To Bolster Argument Based On Twisted Context:

The Church of God isn't a church or a Nazi Pope or a bunch of dirty priests waiting to prey on innocent little boys.

Yes, it would be fair to hypothesize that that Frank is, in fact, THE Professor Frank Collins, Representative of Muslims...or whatever he claims to be.

The one red herring would be the attempt at grammar usage...this Frank used the shift key and paragraphs.

lepidopteryx:

"Easy, tiger. It was an honest question."

And I gave an honest answer without attitude or condescention...like yours above. Way to encourage further coversation!

Love You Cal, My Man!!! i mean it dude!!!

boy, you just said the first thing ever you said that i agree with.

why on EARTH would lovely jesus stake his whole wad on a single, sinful man. Peter or anyone else. we are all imperfect.

jesus's main message was Love God and Love.

THAT is a good message.

then, LOVE thy neighbor as yourself.

that all doesn't depend on peter. that depends on each of us and jesus and our conscience.

peace brother cal
i love ya
henry

To whoever anonymius was; he said:

A joke from my Catholic boyhood...

OMG! I laughed for five minutes! A saver!

We sure seem to get caught up in things that are a distraction to say the least. I am a catholic and I cherish my catholic faith, and my job as the New Testament Moses is to tell the whole world that everybody will be in the Kingdom of God or if you prefer the Kingdom of Love, since God is Pure Love. The catholic Eucharist is Jesus by the way, that is what Jesus said at the Last Supper and that is what He meant and also when the Holy Spirit came into my body on 29 Jan 2000, He revealed it to me, thank you Holy Spirit. God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, the only true religion is taking care of widows and orphans, which basically is the whole human race since we are all brothers and sisters. Thank you Dad for Your Plan, thank you Brother for your obedience to The Plan and thank you Knitting Buddy for bringing The Plan to Fruition. By the way the preceding sentence is referring to God the Trinity; Father-Jesus said to think of Him as our Dad, Brother-Jesus by choosing to become a human being and asking permission from Mary, who freely said her Yes, became humanity's Brother as in the entire human race, Knitting Buddy, the Holy Spirit who knits us together in our mother's womb. Jesus won the keys to hell and spiritual death and He will use them in due time. God has never sent anyone to hell because He can't, you have to build it yourself first. People that slice and dice the bible would be better off throwing the whole bible away, Jesus said a lot of things when He was walking on this planet a while back and if you don't know what He was talking about, don't try to mislead others. The whole bible is true and there is probably plenty in there that I don't know what it means but I don't have too, I am just a messenger and the message is: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable; we are in the sixth day, they are God Days by the way, and night is coming, be ready, the dawning of the seventh day will also be here. It seems like a lot of people will be trying to hide behind their religion but God looks at what you do and why you do it and also what you know. God is so so so much nicer than some of the people that call themselves christians think that He is and sad to say, than some want Him to be. Take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hey Frank,

Are you the Frank Collins that posts a lot? Or a different Frank.

I just have to say I agree with you but without all the hateful rhetoric that comes along with it. It's obvious you have read the Bible knowing that Paul talks about the "true church" being the body of Christ and that those who are in Christ are part of that true church. But why the anger man? Who cares what poop benny says?

.
.
.

Let's face it -- the Pope is a fascist jerk. He was raised as a Nazi, and that's probably where he got his need to dominate other and separate everyone into "us" and "them." I suppose he learned nothing from the Holocaust and the Civil Rights era, but of course, that involved Jews and Baptist, which he feels are not worthy of salvation.

I challenge any Catholic or John Ratzinger himself to tell me when Jesus said that only member of the Roman Catholic church are worthy of salvation.

The Church of God isn't a church or a Nazi Pope or a bunch of dirty priests waiting to prey on innocent little boys. It's the universal body of believers in Christ.

Man, I get so sick of this kind of this crap. My only hope is that this Nazi Pope and his army of pedophile priests will one day end where they belong -- in the realm of irrelevance. Of course, playing God the way the pope does might get him sent to hell.

.
.
.

"Disillusioned words like bullets bark
As human gods aim for their mark
Made everything from toy guns that spark
To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark
It's easy to see without looking too far
That not much
Is really sacred.

"While preachers preach of evil fates
Teachers teach that knowledge waits
Can lead to hundred-dollar plates
Goodness hides behind its gates
But even the president of the United States
Sometimes must have
To stand naked.

"An' though the rules of the road have been lodged
It's only people's games that you got to dodge
And it's alright, Ma, I can make it."

Bob Dylan, It's All Right Ma

Religion: Just people's games you got to dodge.

I believe in GOD, but I don't believe in religion! Its so ungodly!

CATHOLIC SCHOOL STUDENT, that's a very good explanation of confession but it's less than 50 years old. According to many writings of the past 200 years alone priests are directly in line from St Peter given the power to forgive sins, Gospel according to Matthew 18:18. Even 'fallen' priests retain both that power and the power to convert bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.

The old version corresponds to protestant 'saving' with the notion that a person who is insincere about seeking forgiveness will instantly fall back into sin so the minister need not get involved beyond bestowing God's grace or whatever stupid idea can be conjured to reel the victims in.

Hell is a gun to your head. Nice people don't do that, hold guns to other people's heads, so look for the origin of religion in 'not so nice' people and you won't be disappointed.

The foundation of all three great collections of faiths, Jews, Christians and Muslims is the Bible. Within the Bible, a single story is the cornerstone, Moses and the burning bush, Exodus. Like the rest of the Bible that story can be interpreted different ways.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is one way of looking at that story. If there was really a supernatural being in that ball of fire then which one was it God or Devil. Take your best definition of God and compare it to the God(s) in that story. Do the same thing for Devil.

Betcha a nickel,, I'm real confident so make that a quarter. You should run from any worship of Devil shouldn't you? Of course if you're studying to be a priest, brother or nun then your career says it's God. Frustrating isn't it.

Student:

Easy, tiger. It was an honest question. Even when I was Christian, I didn't see any point in talking to a pastor if I had done wrong. I knew what I had done, I knew what I had to do to make it right (if it was possible to make it right), and I knew how to pray for forgiveness. No intermediary needed.
But then again, I was always highly independent and questioning, which was one of the reasons I wasn't very good at being Baptist.

I continue in that mindset. If I know I have wronged you, and it's possible to undo that wrong, then it's my responsibility to come to you and undo it, not go to a priest/pastor/priestess/guru/etc and first tell them what I did. I beleive that only the person wronged can forgive the wrong, and being forgiven does not void my obligation to work toward erasing the negative karma I generated by my wrongful act.

A joke from my Catholic boyhood...

Mary and Susan are going to confession together, and on the way, they discuss what they're going to confess. Mary admits to some back-seat hanky-panky at the drive-in.

When Mary exits the confessional, Susan is curious about the penalty for hanky-panky: "What did he give you for penance?"

Mary replies: "One 'Our Father' and three "Hail Mary's... and he said I have to wash my hands with Holy Water."

Susan reflects for a few moments, then says: "Try not to get the Holy Water too dirty... I think I might have to gargle."

"So, if you don't need the priest to tell you whether what you've done is a sin, then what purpose does it serve? Why not just make a sincere apology to God and ask him directly for forgiveness?"

If one is not Catholic, what purpose does it serve to have and/or consult a Pastor on the subject of sin and sinfulness?

Going to Confession puts one in a particular state of self assessment and involves directed focus on one's sinfulness. In the confession the Priest offers counsel, helps one sort out what can be done to correct the wrongs done, not only to God, but to others as well. He will advise you as to how to avoid continuing down a sinful path.

Sure, one can receive forgiveness directly from God, without confession. Even a Catholic without access to a Priest can say a sincere Act of Contrition on their deathbed and have it count.

But confession, for a Catholic, is a way of ritually and regularly seeking out forgiveness and counsel so as to maintain the soul's state of grace, and thus be worthy of receiving the Blessed Sacrament (Communion) and be ready to join The Lord, when the time comes.

To say you can do it without Confession is fine, but do you? Regularly? Do you regularly seek advice in avoiding sin?

A Catholic who makes regular confessions is doing just that...unquestionably.

Cal Thomas wrote: "Martin Luther, who led the Protestant Reformation, and others since then *** REASON *** that Jesus would not likely build his church -- which he saw as a body of believers in whom He would dwell, not an ecclesiastical hierarchy which he fought against in His time -- on a mortal, sinful man."

I am really surprised that you would say such a thing...

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." ~ Martin Luther

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not -- struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." ~ Martin Luther

"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason... reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed." ~ Martin Luther

"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." ~ Martin Luther

"To be a Christian, you must 'pluck out the eye of reason'." ~ Martin Luther

"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters which concern the soul and God. For it is more possible to teach an ass to read than to blind such a reason and lead it right; for reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed." ~ Martin Luther

(Considering readers' sensibilities, I left out this lunatic's more grotesque utterances.)

Student:

**Furthermore, an insincere confession will not result in forgiveness from God, and the memeber of the Clergy hearing the confession cannot know for sure if you are sincere. Only God can do that.**

Then what exactly is accomplished by telling another person what your sins are? If God knows what you did (or thought about doing) and only God can forgive, and only GOd knows if your apology is sincere, then why is it not sufficient to approach God directly with sincere contrition?

**The Sacrament of Pennance in the Catholic faith is a formal means of assessing ones own sinfulness, and discussing that with your priest who can provide spiritual counsel. With the absolution by the priest, a sincere confession results in forgivness of sin by GOD.**

So, if you don't need the priest to tell you whether what you've done is a sin, then what purpose does it serve? Why not just make a sincere apology to God and ask him directly for forgiveness?

Angela B.

"To even believe that a pope (a fallen man) can forgive sins..."

Catholics do not (or, at least, should not) believe that the Pope can forgive sins. Only GOD can do that. Furthermore, an insincere confession will not result in forgiveness from God, and the memeber of the Clergy hearing the confession cannot know for sure if you are sincere. Only God can do that.

The Sacrament of Pennance in the Catholic faith is a formal means of assessing ones own sinfulness, and discussing that with your priest who can provide spiritual counsel. With the absolution by the priest, a sincere confession results in forgivness of sin by GOD.

There are several interpretations of what Jesus was saying when he renamed Peter, "Rocky." One is the traditional RC version, which makes Peter the earthly leader of the church. It does not imply, however, apostolic succession - a later development in the theology of the RC church as it tried to carve out a unique position among various centers in the early church (including also Ephesus, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople). This came to a head in the first great division, between the Orthodox and RC church in the eleventh century.

The standard interpretation of Jesus' saying in the Protestant churches is that Jesus was referring to Peter's confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." It is this confession of faith which was the standard in the early church (before the time of the other creeds) that identified the church.

The identification of Jesus as "the rock" is something new to me - I've never heard it before.

Protestant theologians talk about both a "visible" and an "invisible" church. The visible church is the one which we see on any Sunday morning, and includes all of the ecclesiastical orders, etc. But there is also an "invisible" church composed of all the faithful, which only God knows. The true church cannot be composed only of the visible church, because there are those who nominally belong to that church who are in no way Christian. The "invisible" church, likewise, must also be "visible." Luther, for instance, said that we know the church is present when the Gospel is properly taught and the sacraments rightly administered. What he, and the rest of the reformers, rejected, is the idea that the heirarchy of the church were the "true church," or that they had the sole authority to speak for Christ. Popes and councils err - even the church as a whole sometimes errs. That is why the emphasis on scripture as the standard. It is true that there must always be a church that interprets scripture, just as it was the church that decided upon its own canon. But both the heirarchy of the church and the church itself are always subject to a higher standard - the Gospel which is contined within the testimony of scripture. Finally, it is only the Spirit itself that guarantees its own truth - for only God cannot err.

I believe it's about time that Christian group scome together and make the distinctions clear. It's obvious that evangelistic Christians (doesn't mean fanatical) do not agree with the creeds of the Catholic church or for that matter, Mormons or other cults as they've made up their own religion. To even believe that a pope (a fallen man) can forgive sins, and confession and the misinterpretation of christening babies to keep them from hell is a totally unblblical truth. We need to as fellow Christians, speak with some of over 1,000 different Christian denominations as we surely don't believe in the same thing. Let me ask Bgone a quick question: do you believe in tractor trailers, if you do or not, if you walk in front of one, you'll get crushed. We as fallen man should know that there has to be a creator and we as Christians don't need what you consider a crutch or are weak. We were all created in the image of God and are moral human beings. If you're on a jury for a convicted child-molesting murderer, you'd want to have him executed or pay; how much more severely do you believe God will judge this world. Who's the non-reality thinkers. We are or this unbelieving, morally corrupt world who've turned their backs on the one who gave them life.

Mafia operators hold real guns to people's heads and demand 'protection' money, pay up an we won't blow your head off. Ministers hold the GUN of HELL to people's heads and demand 'protection' money, "render to God" and you won't go to hell.

The mafia and religion have all that in common, Mr Cal. There are differences. The mafia is required by law to pay taxes on their income, tax evasion being commonplace with criminals, and their real estate is taxed, no matter. And, the mafia would love to control the government, one more striking similarity. Just where are the real differences between the mafia and religion, the mafia is honest about what they are doing?

Rejoice! Thank God! The Bible, the foundation of all three great faiths is a proved literary hoax. http://www.hoax-buster.org has the proof and now millions know all about it. Yes, the pope has the Bible based authority to condemn to hell but hell is a proved hoax. It's better than taking the bullets from mafia guns. Halleluiah!

The pope's definition of "true" needs some expansion and context. He says the Catholic Church is the one "true" church. True in what sense? Is it true that the LA Catholic diocese paid out over $600 million to settle sex abuse scandals. What divine truth resides in that situation?

Hey - I never thought I would enjoy (or even learn anything) from one of Cal's posts. Thank you for teaching this agmostic something about the origins of the Church. I was always taught that "the Rock" meant Peter, too.

It's an interesting fact about the Greeks - and shows how even in the early days of the Church there was disagreement on what Scripture meant.

Wipe That Smirk Off!: Assuming the interpretation (based on a translation from the Greek) is correct, why is the church in Rome presumably the superior one, as opposed to the others that St. Peter founded? Afterall, it was not even the first one!

We forget that religion was invented by cavemen.
I can see the first caveman sitting outside his cave,smoking some weed and contemplating the world around him,and looking up at the sky for answers to the big questions like,"Hey man,what's happening?
What's it all about? Who put those clouds up there,
why are those trees moving like that? Some big dude must have made all this for me and the the gang!
Like whow man.Its all so cool."
It was all downhill from there.

"Not only does the Greek support such a conclusion, so does logic. Peter would deny Jesus three times. Martin Luther, who led the Protestant Reformation, and others since then reason that Jesus would not likely build his church -- which he saw as a body of believers in whom He would dwell, not an ecclesiastical hierarchy which he fought against in His time -- on a mortal, sinful man."

While I will accept the view that is contrary to the Catholic belief as logical, to call the Catholic belief "illogical" is typical of your sense of religious superiority. Humility is a Christian virtue, Sir.

The logic you give is that Jesus would not entrust his church to a "mortal, sinful man."

I find THAT logic interesting for several reasons.

Peter cannot be forgiven and redeemed? How is he different?

Jesus taught by example. He consorted with undesirables. Wouldn't this be an excellent example for the whole of posterity to name a man who is not perfect, but ultimately faithful to lead The Church?

If Jesus could not stay himself, there is no choice other than a mortal, is there?

Furthermore, for one who would not believe that God redeemed Mary at the moment of her conception to render her in a state like that of Eve, thus making her a sinless worthy vessel to carry THE MESSIAH...why does it not follow "logic" that he would leave The Church to the charge of one of his chosen Disciples? A mortal MAN chosen by HIM to lead MEN? If God's SON is worthy of being carried in a sinful mortal, certainly the Earthly institution of The Church for sinful mortals doesn't preclude Peter.

I respect the differences of all faiths, despite adhereing to my own. It is a shame, Sir, that you ooze intlerance and superiority with even the slightest thoughtless utterance.

The basic Roman Catholic view, shared by the Eastern Orthodox, is there is one visible Church of Christ, from which there can be separations. The Church Fathers of the first five or six centuries were unanimous in the consensus that "there are not any divisions in the Church, but only divisions from the Church."

Protestants may participate in the mystery of the Church AS INDIVIDUALS by virtue of their baptism, but not as ecclesial bodies. The ecumenical movement is founded on the Protestant dogma of the invisible Church, which is something the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches cannot accept.

It isn't a matter of arrogance on the part of the Roman Catholic Church to reaffirm its teaching, which Vatican II reaffirmed, that it is the true Church of Christ and that Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy are incomplete. Most columnists and pundits are completely ignorant of the concept of ecclesiology, which is a sub-discipline of theology. When Vatican II said the Church "subsists" in the Catholic Church, it was harmonizing seemingly contradictory pronouncements.

On one hand the Catholic Church had defined that there was "No Salvation Outside the Church," yet on the other hand it taught that those who were outside the Church through no fault of their own could be saved.

The CDF decree was nowhere near as harsh as the pronouncements of Boniface VIII or the Council of Florence.

For example, the Council of Florence taught:

"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Why the Protestants care about what Rome says is beyond me, considering it wasn't that long ago they were calling the Pope "The AntiChrist."

In the Catholic concept there can be no unity, short of corporate reunion with the Catholic Church. The Protestant idea of Church unity is nothing but a false union.

The basic problem is the Catholic pope "cult" culture that has grown over the centuries i.e. only the pope "talks" to God and the pope cannot error in matters of dogma.

Hmmm, well history and realism are catching up with cults of any kind.

One definition of a cult:

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader

e.g. 1 )Muslims and their Mohammed, and the clerics, ayatollahs, imams and "angel freaks" who follow the illiterate, warmongering, hallucinating Arab's koranic ways 2) "Jesus Freaks" like Bob Jones' followers 3) "Latin Mass /Catholic only/"angel loving" Filiciders brainwashed by the likes of B16 and the previous all white male, "celibate, "aarpie", European "charismatics" called popes.

Then there are the foundations of this pope "cult" culture.

What reality and history now conclude:

Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and pagan sects. These embellishments also include all the scriptural references to papal authority and Rock foundations.

e.g. See Professor Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus:

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20
Since Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:

x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani (sp?)
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=B16

The church has stated that the pope believes that real progress can ONLY be made if each side clearly understands where their differences are.

Clearly the pope felt that not only within the Catholic church but among other Christian denominations what the Church stands for was for some reason becoming unclear.

I have to respectfully disagree. I am not a Catholic but I respect and think it's helpful that the pope released this document. Parties that have stated their commitment to continuing dialog can only benefit when each side makes attempts to be clear about their beliefs.

I was always taught (as a Protestant Anabaptist) that Jesus was referring to Peter...whose name (from Petra) means "Rock."

The questionable part is the Papal claim that the office is inherited directly from Peter; it would seem that history makes it an invention of the Roman Emperor.

Protestants, of course, have their own biases and all think they are the only "real" Christians, and the distinction is usually something trivial (like the One Suspender Amish who think they're more humble than the Two Suspender types...)

My Grandfather used to tell the joke about the man who gets to heaven and is taken on a guided tour; heaven is full of joyful people singing and praising God, but in one corner a high hedge separates one group of saints from the others. "Be very quiet here" tha man's guide instructs him. "Those are the Mennonites; they think they';re the only ones here."

You may of course substitute your own denomination and use the joke yourself. Grandpa wouldn't mind., although he would insist that, like the Bible it's much funnier in the original German...

Regards

A Hermit