All Comments (118)

a generically complimentary article on the recognized leader of all Christendom, for that i thank you, mr. mohler. and yet you fail to recognize that the 'divide' that you speak of is centuries in the making. the tone of the article implies that The Church could if She wanted to, 'come around' already! what many fail to realize is that The Church in fact IS The Church that Christ founded. The FULLNESS of Jesus Christ resides in His Church, folks. I know, hard to believe, and yet, it is the Truth. Suggested reading: Steve Ray, former evangelical-baptist persuasion, i believe wrote an exhaustively researched book titled: Upon This Rock. May the Peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all!

How true Al Mohler! What Vaticanists (with Rome officially secular one can hardly call them Romanists) are banking on is the sad fact that most professing "protestant" "christians" today are so illiterate and childish in their "touchy-feely" "tolerance" that knows nothing about truth or history that they'll buy the same old 500 year-old Trent refried beans the Pope has to sell.

Those of us who prefer truth and reality know that only come from God's Word (the Bible), not the ridiculous hypocritical vacuity of postmodernism's mindless asinine fascism that is hilariously ludicrous in its absolute certainty that there are no absolutes.

They absurdly mostly believe old refuted frauds like evolution and its recent intelligent design bastard (merely evolution with a god dress), exploded at www.answersinGenesis.org as absurd fraud that has to get lawless judges to do the dirty work, unable to defend the daft fairy tale religion disguised as science in public). We are thankful for the truth of the Christian faith that founded western civilization regardless of the lies of deranged revisionist deceiver bigots like those running wapo and newsweak, well showcased at www.desiringGod.org, founder John Piper being one of Mohler's friends.

Dave quote the who verse or none. When James wrote Those mighty words what he had in mind as the succeeding text makes clear is that FAith is shown by works not that it take both works and faith to be saved. AS Paul says "It is by Grace you are saved, though Faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,..

Faith in the one true and living God is not something people bring to their relationship with God; rather it is the gift of God that makes such a relationship possible.

Dr. Molhler's commentary on the Papal visit was balanced and a very accurate assesmnent of Pope Benedict and his views. The Roman Catholic church has theological beliefs which are quite different than those who hold to traditional, conservative reformation teachings - teachings evangelicals believe accurately reflect the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Dr. Molher is to be congratulated for articulating the evangelical position in a respectful and faithful manner.

For Nora Gates.

You wrote: "I (you) cannot embrace a (Catholic) church that claims to sacrifice Christ during the Mass every week." (Actually Mass is celebrated every day minus Good Friday and Holy Saturday).

Catholics don't sacrifice Christ daily or weekly. Catholics never have and never will.

What Catholics *CELEBRATE* is CHRIST'S sacrifice of HIMSELF once and for all 2,000 years ago.

God bless.

For Brian M.

Your post left me feeling like a mosquito in a nudist colony ........ just where do I start.

You wrote: "True Christians hold to the simplicity of the gospel not tradition. How do I know this? Because the bible says so."

No, the bible does not say that. Martin Luther said that and gave you the concept of "sola scriptura."

1. 1 Tim 3:15 NIV " ........the *church*, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Also see the below regarding the relevance of tradition:

2. 2 Tim 2:2

3. 1 Cor 11:2

4. 2 Thes 2:15

Please give me a verse where the bible underwrites the concept of "sola Scriptura" (scripture alone, only, exclusively).

Brian, I could go on and on picking your post apart but I don't want to make this a second career.

Brian, you *MUST* study the early church fathers ..... Polycarp, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Athenaeus etc., etc to get a fuller, more complete understanding of Christianity. Some of those fellas sat at the feet of the Apostles. Others were responsible for putting the cannonical bible together. All acknowledged a church heirarchy (episcopate).

PS. James gave Luther such fits regarding "works" he unsuccessfully tried to have James deleted from the bible.

James 2: 24? 27? 17? ....."Faith without works is alone and dead"

Other verses from James regarding works.

God bless.

It's refreshing to read a truly Biblical view on the Catholic Church. As Evangelicals we must see that we cannot both be right and thus blend together as if we were one in our beliefs. If I believe that Christ paid for my sins once for all, I cannot embrace a church that claims to sacrifice Christ during the mass every week. I can love those in the Catholic church just as I do Mormons or Jehova Witnesses, but cannot believe that we all believe the same thing.

I totally agree. I'm glad the differences between Catholics and Evangelicals are clear with this Pope. It's sad though that the Catholic Church snubs it's nose at the authority of Scripture, by way of the Papacy, Mary's sinlessness, works of righteousness leading to salvation etc. True Christians hold to the simplicity of the gospel not tradition. How do I know this? Because the Bible says so. Christ clearly communicated the gospel to lowly fisherman and made them His disciples. Were the disciples learned men that could not understand the Scriptures on their own? No, they make the statement that "this is the one (Christ) that the Scriptures foretold. They knew their Old Testaments. The Catholic Church does not know (or understand) Scriptural authority otherwise they wouldn't be practicing the doctrines they do. There certainly are abberations and distortions of the gospel on the "evangelical" side but that does take away from a true biblical salvation in Christ alone, according to the Scriptures (John 5:46-47). We are to be Bereans (study the Scriptures to see if these things are true Acts 17:11) not let some ecclesiastical hierarchy tell us what to believe in opposition to what the Bible says. We do need leadership in the church but those are spiritual elders--far from the type of church government in the Catholic Church.

For Thomas Baum.

We are both correct.

You wrote: "You (Dave) wrote, 'For Catholics, Baptism is necessary for salvation.'" (Please note: I did not write the *SACRAMENT* of Baptism is necessary for salvation in my initial post below).

You further wrote: "If you (Dave) mean the official sacrament of Baptism, so to speak, that is not even what the Catholic church teaches."

Actually, what the church teaches is that Baptism is necessary for salvation and that there are three forms of Baptism:

1. The sacrament.
2. Baptism of blood.
3. Baptism of desire

Paragraphs 1257 and 1258 of the Catechism refer.

GOD bless.

in regards to the previous post.

The Following was copied and pasted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature," member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

To me that sounds like the definition of salvation.

I would also like you to consider your statement that you will see all of humanity in heaven.

Jesus Himself warns in Matthew 7:21-23.

21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'

23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

I say this humbly as a former Catholic who did not come to know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior until I was presented with the Gospel message, and by God's grace was given the faith to see that I was a doomed sinner dead in my trepspasses and transgressions in need of a Savior. I repented of my sin and entrusted my life to Jesus Christ.

Jesus' finished work on the cross paid the full penalty for my sin. There is nothing that I can do to add to His righteousness.

I don't have to worry if I die in a state of grace. I am covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ. He is the way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through Him.

TO DAVE:

You wrote, "For Catholics, Baptism is necessary for salvation.".

If you mean the Official Sacrament of Baptism, so to speak, that is not even what the Catholic Church teaches, what about the BAPTISM OF DESIRE?

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO TRENT:

I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith, I do not speak for the Catholic Church and I do not speak for other Catholic's.

You wrote, "The Catholic church holds that salvation comes from the sacraments and obeying the church's teachings."

This is not Catholic teaching, not even close.

Salvation is a FREE GIFT of God, the Sacraments can be a conduit of grace, so to speak, but what you do with that grace is also important.

The Catholic Eucharist is Jesus and I say that as a fact since, when the Holy Spirit came into my body on 29 Jan 2000, He revealed it to me, I just knew. By the way, I say He but the Holy Spirit is not a He, She or It and neither is The Father but God-Incarnate was a Male, a Jewish Male.

You also wrote, "Protestants believe it is through grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone."

I kind of think that not all Protestants would agree with that statement.

For instance, what about if your faith is DEAD, as in "Faith without works is dead".

Granted, no one can earn Heaven but you can build your own hell.

You then wrote, " We protestants believe that the ultimate and final authority is the Bible."

I don't think that all Protestants would totally agree with your statement here either.

Like I said, I do not speak for other Catholics but this Catholic says that the ultimate and final Authority is GOD.

By the way, God has a Plan and His Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and His Plan is for ALL to be with Him in His Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth] and His Plan will come to Fruition.

Have you ever thought that being a Christian is saying YES to Jesus's invitation to "Come follow Me".

There is more to it than knowing God's Name even the demons know His Name.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

It's great to see one branch of organized superstition criticizing another branch of organized superstition.

We need some input from the astrologers and wiccans so we can get to the bottom of what the True Superstition is, once and for all.

Give me a break.

I am not an evangelical, but permit me to say:

AMEN

to your comments.

Candid,

The "original" Christians, as you call them, did not regard Jesus as divine because they didn't understand His message until after the resurrection. They simply couldn't understand what Jesus was telling them. The last thing they imagined was that this kingdom bringer woudl die at the hands of the pagan occupying forces. Nobody dreamed of saying, "Oh, that's all right - he'll be back again in a few days."

When Jesus was crucified, every single disciple knew what it meant: they had backed the wrong horse. Game over man, game over.

It is always funny to read evangelicals and Catholics denouncing one another. Neither has the true faith of Jesus. Jesus was faithfully followed by those around his brother James of Jerusalem. These original Christians did not regard Jesus as divine, they had no Trinity, they had no doctrine of atonement by Jesus' blood. This church was driven out by both the Romans and the gentile Christians. Paul invented a Christianity that had nothing to do with Jesus. Elements of the original Jewish Christianity survives in of all places, Shiite Islam. But in any case Christian evangelicals and Roman Catholics are alike in one important respect: Jesus would not recognize either of them as having anything to do with him.

Since there is no rational basis for deciding between the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Church, I vote Catholic because the Pope has a hell of a car.

Rev. Mohler's view could be reduced to the word "authority."

Some believe that the "Church" retains "authority," others believe that the "Church" lost the "authority" during the dark ages when it and its leaders corrupted things and broke the pristine chain of succession embodied in the "laying on of hands." Under this fiction, the "Church-Authority" folks believe that the chain was never tainted and was not broken.

The other believing crowd recognize a once pristine church that invalidated itself through sinful actions. As those believers sought a better authority, they read the scriptures (ultimately in English after several of the translators were burned at the stake), and they identified Jesus and the Word (Bible) as the source of "authority." These folks take special meaning from the scene where the curtain is torn as Christ hangs from the cross and they believe that each Christian can "go direct" to God in vertical prayer and communication and confession, or laterally with fellow Christians.

Since God is no respecter of persons, every believer is a Saint and each is a joint heir with Christ...now. Such a view can only be supported by the Authority of the Bible and it doesn't take much reasoning to understand why it would not sit well with the other group.

A few comments on a random selection of posts:

To all those Catholics who quote scripture to prove the authority of Church and Pope, like LESZX, who wrote: “Benedict XVI, on the other hand, traces his authority as pope and the authority of Scripture to Matthew 16:18, ‘... thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…’ ” I realize the likes of you are beyond rational analysis. So, let me just state for the record: It’s always amazing to see Cafeteria Catholics display an unintentional parody of themselves, and your statements read like a Saturday Night Live parody of people who turn to selective Biblical verses to find affirmation of their pre-conceived viewpoints.

There must be no more pluperfect example on earth of the capacity of the human brain for self-justification that Catholics throwing in our faces the Peter/rock/Church verse to “prove” the Pope’s authority. As if 500 years of objective, scholarly analysis questioning whether the statement was ever made—and, if it was, what it actually meant—never existed. Have true-believer Catholics ever heard of the word “tautology?” Look it up.

Would any of you true-believers explain to us one more time why a Catholic citing a bunch of words of unknown historical origin or provenance to prove the truth of Catholic beliefs is any different than a Mormon citing John Smith and Brigham Young to prove the truth of Mormonism? Or a Nazi citing Mein Kampf to prove that Hitler was right?

To Michael D. Houst, who wrote: “I do not beleive (sic) the pope is infallible... correct on the issue of "birth control…correct in saying that the Catholic Church is the only way...correct in not ordaining women to the priesthood.” Again, this surely must be a parody of the Catholic-who-wants-to-have-his-cake-and-eat-it-too. No rational human being would proclaim that he wants to be a Catholic, and at the same time reject the authority of the Pope and the Church’s basic doctrine! This is Cafeteria Catholicism on steroids. First, someone picks and chooses parts of the Bible and becomes a Catholic. Then, they pick and choose whatever parts of Catholicism they like. In the end, they have established their own personal church, which, for them, is the True Faith. Unbelievable. I much prefer the honesty of Catholics who acknowledge the full authority of the Pope than this exercise in narcissistic hypocrisy.

To Riley, who wrote: “(Protestantism) is a free-for-all of biblical interpretation with no central authority.
Kind of makes you long for a pope, doesn't it?” Let me see if I can apply this reasoning to the political realm. “Democracy is a free-for-all of discussion and debate, with no central authority. Kind of makes you long for a king/dictator/Czar/Der Feuhrer.” I am embarrassed for you, Riley, at what you have unintentionally revealed about yourself. Some of us value individualism and do not feel the necessity for some holy father or holy mother to take us by the hand and lead us through life. I know, it’s kind of frightening, but hey, remember when you got over being afraid of the dark?

To Ed O’Donnell, who wrote: “The Catholic church has for thousands of years propagated the sense of values for the good of all.” Including the following?

-- Teaching that all Jews at all times bear a blood libel for killing Christ
-- Teaching that the earth is the center of the solar system.
-- Burning witches at the stake
-- Subjecting human beings to torture to root out the heretics and Satan worshipers
-- The right of Christians to singlehandedly baptize Jewish children and then to kidnap said children and raise them as the Christians they became by virtue of being baptized.
-- Teaching that Jews are driven to obtain Christian blood, for a variety of uses inherent to their religion
-- Kings and such rule by divine right, and challenging their rule is equivalent to challenging God. (See Riley, above).

But the final word goes to Fred, who wrote:

“My Holy Leader can beat up your Holy Leader! Stupid wankers, the lot of you.”

Before Gutenberg it was Catholic Priests (friars) that transcibe the bible. Remember where "your " bible came from. Not a sermon just a thought.

Before Gutenberg it was Catholic Priests (friars) that transcibe the bible. Remember where "your " bible came from. Not a sermon just a thought.

I smell a Rat too.
It has caused a lot of stench in a short time.

The Pope comes to America for a pastoral visit, Bishop to his Church, what should be a reasonably private affair, (as private as being the leader of as many as a quarter of the Nations Population can be), and the Evangelicals go ballistic.

Why? Catholics will continue to ignore them, especially when they are watching their Pope. We ASSUME that Evangelicals, who so solidly reject the Church and its Pope, have no reason to pay attention.

Except for the poor victims of D.C.'s horse and buggy road system, which fails catastrophically whenever as much as a quarter inch of snow falls or a few Boy Scouts jay walk in a group, who have yet another day of no movement due to acts of God or his Vicar, nobody should be even slightly inconvenienced.

If you don't like the Pope, just ignore him.

Of course, there is that slight suspicion you might have that HE actually has some claim to authority, biblically and historically. Obviously, reading the many different Protestant posts, no Protestant accepts the authority of anyone but his own preacher.

Treat him the way the rest of the world treats the SBC's conventions, pay as little attention as you can.

Let us Catholics celebrate together in?

It will be interesting to watch how this leader of the Roman Church, who in essence led the organization which at one time led the Inquisition, will get around the Roman Church's efforts at global ecumenism. This is a supremely political prelate who is versed in the knowledge that his church is in total dissarray and if it were not for "cultural pockets of superstitions," it is but a shadow of its pompous past. His unification will be politically expedient, not based on articles of Chritian faith.

Amen to Mr. Mohler's assessment of the divide between Orthodox Protestantism and the Roman, Popish Church. The fact that the media most often uses images of Roman Catholicism as the ifentifying icon of "Christians" could not be further from the truth.

Pope Benedict, I'm sure is an honest, well-intentioned man, but his religion is as far away from being Christian as is Mormonism.

right on. its to bad you wasted it on this site. on can count on my fingers and toes the believers who comment here. funny the catholic church can't see the comparison with the pharisees of the time of Jesus.

Theists are so adorable when they argue with each other over their fairy tales. Makes me want to pinch their fat little cheeks.

An evangelical finding fault with Catholicism! Well, what else would one expect? True, it takes an awful lot of credulity to believe in the Catholic line--I mean, come on, have you ever really looked at the doctrines?--but is there anything more far fetched and intellectually stagnant than evangelical Christianity? Mark Noll, the evangelical scholar and author who writes about evangelical Christianity as a "wounded lover," says it well in his book "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind": "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind." So if the Catholic Church--which with all of its faults is at least not a religion of uneducated rubes--fails to fall in line with evangelicals, more power to it! Now if we can just get the Catholic Church to do something about its pedophilia problem, its absurd prohibition on birth control (except for the rhythm method, the birth control method of mothers), its made-up rules (no meat on Fridays during lent, etc.), its misogyny--well the list is just too long. But at least Catholic theologians, unlike evangelicals, have subtle and nuanced minds--even if they start from some pretty fantastical premises.

jim filyaw wrote "mohler's scoundrels in the sbc"

Unless you can give us some proof, then you are the real scoundrel that you're talking about.

i am convinced that both mr. mohler and herr ratzinger are charlatans. this piece, to me, is no more than one hustler's critique of another con artist's m.o.

no, i am not an atheist, not even an agnostic. thank god i don't flinch from seeking after the almighty by my own lights. neither mohler nor the pope own any exclusive franchise in that regard.

the only difference i see between the two is that ratzinger's mob has been around a lot longer than mohler's scoundrels in the sbc.

i'll continue to use my god-given mind, no thanks to these two frauds. damn them both.

From another blog Ryan Haber wrote " The Church isn't worried that she will sink. She has the promise of her Lord that "the powers of Hell shall not prevail against it."

Well, God has given this church too much extended time already to repent. But sadly it has never learned. It will commit another grave mistake and that would be its last straw. The Vatican, which is the seat of satan, will be destoyed soon together with the other major stupid doctrines in this world.

The "powers of hell" (gates of hell) refers mainly to Catholicism as it tried to extinguish thru wars and execute those saints whose "fault" were just spreading the Bible and preaching the gospel of Christ. And guess what, the Bible is still spreading and the saints it produced are still aplenty.

Why is one of the head mullahs of the American Taliban, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., given a voice at all?
Cat'lickers are horrible, but evangelicals are if possible even more deluded.
There are sane voices from religious people, but they are mostly low key.

Why must the Pope (or Catholics)move to close the gap. Why don't evangelicals make concessions in belief. After all Catholic theology has survived and the Church has continued to grow for 2008 years. Evangelicals do not have a consistent doctrine among themselves. The Ppope knows well his Church and he knows well where heresy lies. Christ made Peter the head of his Church, even your gospels sya so. The Pope traces his authority all the way back to Christ. Why must he move away from 2000 years of faith that have served us well for that of fragmented dissenters unable to even agree on doctrine among themselves?

Dictionary:

catholic (kăth'ə-lĭk, kăth'lĭk)

adj.
Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: “The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found” (Scientific American).
Including or concerning all humankind; universal: “what was of catholic rather than national interest” (J.A. Froude).
Catholic
Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.

n. Catholic
A member of a Catholic church, especially a Roman Catholic.

Just some general observations:

1) a catholic places high value on the community of believers. the church is more than just rome or the bishops or the stone building with all the shiny things inside... it is everyone who has been baptized in "the name of the father, son, and holy spirit." most catholics would say that all christian groups have Truth... but the catholic church (here is where we get people upset) has the fullness of truth (and not just pieces of it).

2) the problem among the christin groups is a lack of humble charity... however, dr. mohler seems to be writing from a sense of that charity.

Both Rev. Mohler and Pope Benedict are wrong: neither group is in 'spiritual danger' for their strongly held beliefs. 'Spritual danger,' in my opinion, kicks in at a much deeper level. Just think about it. I believe it's self-evident.

Mr. Mohler's article is fair; though it fails to provide any real substance in response to the Pontiff's position on the Roman Catholic Church's authority.

What isn't written is the important detail that when Benedict XVI spoke of the Catholic Church as being the "true church", what a Catholic means by "Church" is something very different than what an Evangelical means by "Church." For example, to a Catholic, for "church" to be happening it must have a valid "Eucharist" consecrated by a priest or bishop that has "apostolic succession". A line that can be traced to Peter himself who was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom" in Matthew 16. It is clear that it is here that Jesus established His Church. To an Evangelical, "wherever two or more are gathered in His name", church could be or is happening...which gets pretty hazy depending on where and when Christians are gathered. Are you always having "church" simply because you're always a Christian?

Anyway, language is important here and the authority used to interpret words is even more important. We can't forget that God used Catholics to put the Bible together in the first place, for there was no other Church in the 4th century. So if all we needed was sacred Scripture alone, then why so much division in the Protestant communities over the years? Maybe because it's a breakdown in authority? Somehow, if the Catholic Church's own priests and bishops over the centuries haven't been able to kill that Church, then maybe it is Christ's Church after all?

A. Mohler has no more of a Gospel than the Pope. He bases Salvation on a false interpretation of scripture , e.g, Romans 3.22 as a tautology! Justified by faith in Jesus Christ( accusative objective)for all who believe... ( in Jesus Christ).Instead of the same statement from the Gr. Text: Justified by the faithfulness ( and obedience , Romans 5,19ff)of Jesus Christ( genitive subjective) for all who are constantly trusting... ( on their Walk with Jesus, present tense active voice participle).Now we have a meaningful statement, not circular reasoning.

m'eh they're all the same to me. Believers in fairy tales all believe they have a hold on the truth because of what? Because they believe what their parents & elders tell them, not because there's any objective evidence that any of their beliefs have any truth to them. A lot of Christians are the result of forced conversions if you trace back far enough. It's all silly, especially the cannibalism stuff. Yech! Seriously, why would Jesus want his followers to cannibalize him, even if only symbolically?

I keep hoping more people will get over these delusional fantasies but they need them to feel superior to others. When all you have is your fairy tales to buttress your self-esteem, you're a sad soul indeed.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion--even if it is wrong. Thank you very much and God bless! :)

Dear Dr. Mohler,

Thank you for a well stated position of the Christian faith as it was handed down to us providentially through the Scripture. As for me and my household we cannot, in good conscience, regard Roman Catholics as anything more than another world religion claiming a faith they have no authority or true knowledge to claim. They are simply put "Roman Catholics" (sic), just another world religion like Mormonism or Islam. No offense intended to them other than the offense of the Gospel itself...that mans relationship with God is not by human proxy but quite personal....not by organizational bigotry...but by the very essence of the contractual relationship between God and man through the merit of His son's sacrifice. His authority over the gathering of His blessed children is complete. The counterfeits abound, some new and some very old such as this one, but the Gospel does not change any more than God's contract with man changes in this age. Grace and peace to you dear brother.

-Michael Williams

>>If Pope Benedict is right, we evangelicals are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Yet, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right in understanding the church>> -- Albert Mohler

Mr. Mohler: If you TRULY believe in the same God as the pope, then you must be explain why a person you consider both good and sincere -- is so WRONG about what God wants from his followers???

Let me guess-- this is another one of "God's mysteries"???

Even though you can't answer this most BASIC question, you don't miss a beat that it is you who really knows Gods requirements.

Pathetic! I am an ex-Southern Baptist myself. Haven't missed the old brain fog you display one bit.

This tiresome debate has gone on for hundreds of years. Aren't you bored? Aren't you terribly, terribly bored? What kind of small man has to invent an imaginary world differing slightly from another person's imaginary world and then write articles about how the other person is wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh yes! And those people with no imaginary worlds, those wretched secularists! Ra Ra Ra Sis Boom Ba!

Belief is a myth. It is nothing more than wishful thinking. Religion is obsolete. The more religions that pop up, the more ridiculous it all seems. The evangelicals are writing themselves into a corner. Eventually, facts will have to reconcile. I wish the Pope well, but he is completely wrong. For religion's sake, he is right to oppose evangelicals, but it is already over. Eventually, such visits will be as quaint as the Miss America pageant.

As the Vicar of Christ, the Pope IS right on all those issues you feel he is wrong about. He will hopefully continue to convey the love of Christ to all of our Christian brothers and sisters, but never compromise the teaching of Christ simply to 'improve relations'. To 'get right', it is you who need to cross the void and return to the authentic Gospel.

A Pope, teaching the world about MORALS, should use the same principles when it comes close to his home.

There is by far too much hipocracy in the modern world relating to religion, from Christianity to Muslim, to any other doctrine.

A Pope, not willing to prosecute those who are implicated in a sex scandal, ESPECIALLY those concerning male victims, is as guilty of the offense, as the perpetrators.

A Pope that looks away, is a Pope that condones the action of his minors.

I do not think this Pope has an idea of regular life outside the Vatican; his protection of the guilty parties will wear out... then what?

But WHY is he so protective of his Brothers?

The author of this article appears to be demeaning and marginalizing other Protestants by speaking only of Evangelicals, since by representing the whole by a only a part he manages to ignore the richness and variety, and also the historical roots, of the Protestant movement. It is a form of spiritual arrogance to write as if we do not exist or matter, and this is the kind of arrogance that is making many of us Republicans take a second and much harder look at the important role that the Evangelical movement claims for itself within our party.

A Pope, teaching the world about MORALS, should use the same principles when it comes close to his home.

There is by far too much hipocracy in the modern world relating to religion, from Christianity to Muslim, to any other doctrine.

A Pope, not willing to prosecute those who are implicated in a sex scandal, ESPECIALLY those concerning male victims, is as guilty of the offense, as the perpetrators.

A Pope that looks away, is a Pope that condones the action of his minors.

I do not think this Pope has an idea of regular life outside the Vatican; his protection of the guilty parties will wear out... then what?

But WHY is he so protective of his Brothers?

we are smart people... we are told that we must do this and that.. but the media and political crap .... seeks its own end... theirs...

How many of us think.. and research and learn... mostly just think...
we are a great country.. but we have to work at doing what is fair and respectful and honest.. and of course.. those are mostly words that know one knows..

Not impressed by views? Last time I checked the Pope was advocating that Catholics should martyr themselves in the name of their religion...

Why is it that most of the American press(which in many ways are biased and selecyive in reporting) always play to the negatives of everything. As a subscriber to the Post I find that their reporting is most always incomplete. It contributes to emphasizing the negatives .

"Perhaps I'll rebel against all this by buying a deck of tarot cards or wearing a crystal around my neck to bring good luck. We humans are absurd creatures."

Peter,

Why not just show some real courage and give up on the childish notion that there are some "magical" forces setting out your path before you and intervening in your life. Why do you need to believe there is such a thing as god?

and .... paid my taxes.. and now my tax dollars go to protect a person that is not part of my religious choice.... the Roman Catholic church has more money then any other group on this planet and they pay no TAXES..... and a small child interviewed by cbs says he is the leader of the church.... so

where is separation of church and state... am an educator we can and we can not... make me so mad...........

Both Mohler's Southern Baptists and Benedict's Catholics wend wildly into an attempt at Certitude.

Mohler believes his way is the One Way as does Benedict. It is relatively easy to view both positions from a distance, and to see that neither has sole, or even primal, claim to truth.

'Truthiness' is more accurate.

"Perhaps I'll rebel against all this by buying a deck of tarot cards or wearing a crystal around my neck to bring good luck. We humans are absurd creatures."

Peter,

Why not just show some real courage and give up on the childish notion that there are some "magical" forces setting out your path before you and intervening in your life. Why do you need to believe there is such a thing as god?

Mr. Mohler,
Might I suggest you go to the website www.catholic.com. There is some great information and explainations of the Catholic faith on this site. If there is one thing that the Catholic Church has been consistant on is that it does not change just because "times have changed." My understanding is that time is a human concept, one that is insignificant to God.

God bless.

Utterly amazing! The Pope is Catholic and
Rev. Mohler isn't! And, wonder of all wonders, he thinks the Pope is wrong and that he is right.
Trot the nay-sayers out for the occasion and hear the same old, same old and lots of nonsense from the ignorant bigots in the comments section.

I am not Catholic but I hold some of their objections to the evangelical position, specifically your objection to separation of church and state, a value that most Americans hold dear, your insistence on evangelizing Jews, your refusal to accept leadership from women and your obstinacy in making anti-Catholic statements when you should be making peace.

You have set yourself up like the popes of old, seeking power with a greed that would have made some of them jealous.

maybe we should finish interpreting all the ancient text there is like the dead sea scrolls for one reinterpret the way things are and should be?

I hesitate to write this, because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but isn't it time we outgrew this need for superstition?

Really, all anyone is doing is arguing over invisible companions. The Christian churches arose from the pagan religions - just look at all the similarities to Mithra and other dieties.

I fear that most of the world is infected with this phenomenon of creating "truth" from what we want to believe. Let's be honest - "believing" in this unprovable stuff, stuff for which there is no evidence whatever, is mental illness.

Let's care for humans, not some Absolute Good who turns out to be the manifestation of the worst flaws in humanity, . . . some father who would inflict unspeakable horrors on those not ready to "worship" (whatever that means) him.