The Pope Strikes Again! happywesty: First, we dont a man to tell us what we can or cannot forgive. When he issued his edict that priests can now "grant forgiveness" for abortion it reminds me of an inmate and a jail keeper ... like we are bound by what the Pope says .... Forgiveness is at the very nature of God. We ask Him for forgiveness ... not some priest. People should forgive if asked to do so. Believers are commanded to do so. They really have no choice. Because if they don't then they saying that they have some special dispensation from God to hold things against someone. Especially a fellow believer too. I do wish that Catholic church would abolish the office of the Pope. A church is an independent body under God .. not under man! The pastor represents God and prayerfully considers scripture, studies it, and tries to do their best to help the congregation. This business of a man ruling from Rome is so archaic. When will the Catholics realize that they have been bound FROM scripture and not to it by their leaders. I carry my Bible to church. Its sad that so many Catholics haven't read a Bible in years for their own personal study. If they did, like Martin Luther, they would no longer consider kissing the ring of the Pope as an honor. FYI: Peter's statue in Rome is actually a former pagan image. No wonder God ordered us to not erect images in the first place .... shadowline: "The pastor represents God and prayerfully considers scripture, studies it, and tries to do their best to help the congregation." That's what the Pope does, according to Catholic belief. The Church is believed to be, as you say, an "independent body under God", with a person in charge to do God's will. That's all. In this case the Pope has simply extended to priests the power to grant absolution for the sin (as it is seen to be in Catholic belief) of killing your offspring in the womb. Formerly only a bishop could do that. Catholicism is the oldest form of Christianity, and in that form ministers (called priests) are believed to be empowered by God to grant absolution to repentant sinners, just as they have the power to administer other sacraments, like the Eucharist. But it is God's forgiveness, not the priest's, not the Church's. The Church is believed to be a Divine institution, established to make available to those who believe the benefits of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. They believe that that's how God did it - by establishing an institution. Catholics are believers in God, in the Divine inspiration of the Bible, in redemption through Christ. Any of that sound familiar? You might like to focus on what you have in common with them, rather than on what divides you. And the statue of Peter in the Vatican was never a pagan idol. It was always a representation of the apostle to whom Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven. chronology: Yes Happy you are correct about Jupiter being cobbled into Peter. The most famous catholic image tho is Queen Samamerith. She was quite a lady indeed. When her husband died in Babylon normaly she would have been stripped of her social status and probably killed. But the wily Queen had her statue manufactured with her son sat on her lap and distributed around Babylon. She was now seen as the Mother of the King and kept her status and riches. Catholics copied the image for 'Mary and the Child' . happywesty: Good point, Chronology. I have read Hyslop's Two Babylons ... excellent read for those that have lost sight of the origins of things. shadowline: I presume chronology is referring to Queen Semiramis. That that lady has anything to do with the mother of Christ or the reverence accorded her is unsubstantiated fantasy. And if Jupiter was cobbled into anything it was God, not Peter. Alexander Hislop was a nineteenth century bigot who knew less about history than chronology does, and his book is simply nefarious nonsense which is taken seriously by no historian today, not one. As to what the oldest form of Christianity may be, it would be correct to say that that split into what are now Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in the eleventh century - the earliest form included both of them (and neither, since it was something else, something unified rather than divided). Naturally the Orthodox say that they are faithful to the original Apostolic church while the Catholics are schismatics who seceded from it, and Catholics say the same thing in the other direction. From an objective point if view, they are both right. And in any case the differences are small. (Edited by shadowline) Zanjan: "The pastor represents God " - happywesty Oh, I think that's going way, way too far. With all due respect, the Pastor/Priest is a scholar; he can advise on the correctness of text and ancient religious history and culture. Otherwise, he/she is no closer to God than any other person. God rates by the state of the heart and character, not by one's formal education. God's Representatives are His Manifestations - those rare, Holy and Perfect Souls, Whom He sends as His Ambassadors to mankind about once every 500 to 1000 years. For Christians, that would have been Jesus the Christ. He's the *Person in Charge* of Christianity, the one and only KING of Christianity. No religious leader in Christianity can match His excellence and purity.....not even come close to it! Zanjan: "Catholicism is the oldest form of Christianity" - Shadow No it isn't. The church was one church until it had it's first few split ups, starting around 400-500 AD; each splinter group had a different name but they either eventually dissolved or rolled into another sect, bringing all their baggage along. There was no such thing as the Catholic church until a thousand years after the advent of Christianity. Enter the 'Great Schism' (1054 AD) where mainstream Christianity literally broke clean in half - that resulted in the two factions being labeled the Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches. This ended their communion. Since those names didn't exist prior to that date, the *original* church (aka real Christianity) simply disappeared in a puff of smoke. Then came the Protestants, breaking Christianity into thirds. There's a lot of crumbs when you break bread together, eh. From there, it just went down hill. Today, there are more than 200,000 different sects and the list of so called "mainstream churches" is too long to care about. Thus, I'm quite certain that NONE of the modern churches resemble those of a thousand years ago. If one wants to find commonality, they have to be honest about it - all are products of divisiveness. None have a leg to stand on (as Christ, Himself, said). Better that they should work on unity, which means bonding through acceptance of diversity. Get back that old time spirit, eh. What made them all the same before they forgot that?? Their sameness was in the object of adoration - God; their Revelator was Jesus the Christ; their Book was the New Testament. This created the bond in thought and also in love for each other. Until they start learning unity (to bond) amongst themselves, they're definitely incapable of doing it with non-Christians and other religions of God. In that case, Christianity will be consigned to the small, dusty box of tattered relics as thinking people drain out through its doors. Same for Islam. The dynamics never change. (Edited by Zanjan) Zanjan: Happywesty: " First, we dont [need] a man to tell us what we can or cannot forgive." You're exactly right! We can all absolutely forgive anyone anything anytime........or not. Forgiveness is between the individual and God - it's nobody else's business. Therefore, we don't have to wait for another to ask for forgiveness nor do we have to inform the other whether we've forgiven them or not. Nevertheless, we sometimes feel the urge to do that when someone apologizes. Having said that, I respect that the church is an organization which has laws, which ever church that is. The administration must see that those who break the laws are disciplined appropriately - that has nothing to do with forgiveness, it's about justice. The world doesn't run on forgiveness, which is a very personal thing. Courts aim at justice; otherwise, there could be no order and chaos would reign. An authority in the position of making an official judgement must keep their own feelings out of it - that is, they can't absolve anyone of wrong-doing when the evidence indicates guilt. To do that, is derelict of duty and breach of trust. (Edited by Zanjan) Zanjan: In the case of abortion, the Catholic church has a law against it. Nevermind that Christ didn't make this law, the church felt it had to provide a ruling because it was trying to keep up with the times. The spirit in which they made that law was 'respect for life'. I'm sure nobody takes offense at that. Abortion has a few complications so, the church needs to place certain provisions/exclusions, just as it would do for other exemptions. If you could save one life, the mother's or the babe in her womb, who's life would you choose to save? Thus, there are a few circumstances where abortion wouldn't be a wrong thing to do, provided certain conditions exist. The church decides, in their own court, if a wrong was committed. The Church has authority to excommunicate anyone and they generally don't do so without lots of proof of disobedience to the law. The current Pope is the first to kick out the pedophiles and the Mafia - he warned the Mafia first, not that anyone expected them to reform, it's just that warnings are mandatory for the ignorant. That the Mafia had been members of the church for so long, demonstrates what happens when forgiveness doesn't work. It ruins the *whole* religion's reputation. That means all Christians are in this together. In my humble opinion, one should be thankful the Catholics now have the best Pope they've ever had. (Edited by Zanjan) shadowline: "Catholicism is the oldest form of Christianity" - Shadow "No it isn't. The church was one church until it had it's first few split ups, starting around 400-500 AD; each splinter group had a different name but they either eventually dissolved or rolled into another sect, bringing all their baggage along. There was no such thing as the Catholic church until a thousand years after the advent of Christianity." You are in effect making the case that Catholicism is the oldest form of Christianity. The Apostolic Church, which was already being referred to as Catholic (i.e. universal) in the second century, was what the splinter groups splinted away from. It established itself as an arbiter of orthodoxy from the early second century on. Even the Eastern Orthodox acknowledge that. They just don't agree that that makes the Bishop of Rome a universal authority, or that the Catholic Church has any prerogative to innovate on the earliest formulation of the Creed. In any case, being the earliest form of Christianity isn't supposed to be some kind of honour - it's just a historical clarification. Inevitably Christianity changed over the centuries. Differences accrued. It happens. It's not a question of authenticity - not to me anyway. chronology: 'Rome' that is, the people of Rome who had converted to Christianity attempted to settle disputes within the Faith and foster a spirit of unity within a cohesive faith. Fair enough this had nothing to do with any 'catholic' church. But the First Council of Nicaea was the creation of the Roman christians. Rome was disturbed by heresies which were multiplying like cockeroaches and attempted to establish a clear concept of christianity. Clostridia Perfingen: Our Holy Patriarch of Moscow and Kiev-Rus Signed Appeal to Ban Abortion in Russia All Patriarchy is Real , Georgia , Greece , Serbia , Bulgaria , Kontantinopol , Jerusalem ,Antioch ,Alexandria, Metropolitan of Kiev , They are The True Apostolic Universal Catholic Church , while Papacy and Roman Catholicism is Pure Blasphemy and were invaders and were like merciless group of nomads - The Union of Brest , and Fall of Byzantine explains the bloody face of Catholics and Popes Zanjan: There is no true Christian church anymore. That's a fact. The reality is, there are only denominations - these aren't different religions, they're different interpretations by humans of one religion. Not a single one of them can claim to be more correct than the other. Recently, in the news, Poland just officially made Jesus Christ the King of Poland. Somebody tell these people to read the NT - Christ can never be a temporal king - He said so Himself. That they decide to call Him one doesn't change His place or rank. (Edited by Zanjan) I K R: Yes thats right Zanjan is the only the only person to have a true relationship with God...the rest of you are just putting it on for a bit of attention geeez u should all feel ashamed! Next time yo speak to God Zanjan, tell him about the Polish people....they should all be punished chronology: Zan, we can only hope people in Poland stay within the bounds of sensible behavour. I forget what country it was, but in one of the Latin American countries back in the late 70s the President of the country became deeply committed to Pentecostalism or something. He was surrounded by Jesus praising fellow 'Jesus People' even at work and began praying and praising Jesus and interpriting political problems using New Testament examples. The inevitable soon happened and the Military stepped in and escorted him from his Office to his home for home arrest. By the standards of most coups it was completely none violent and Military simply announced 'the mad man is gone' . They were really tollerant and never used violence probably because the 'Born Again' Jesus devotee had only tried to show the love of Jesus in day to day Government. But for most of the countries establishment and the Military Establishment he was seen as a man who had 'gone crazy' on religion. He was no longer seen as fit to hold Office in Latin America. Well folks in Latin America have shown us religion gone out of bounds can be dealt with none violently. Other Latin American Leaders seem to think alike in commenting the outgoing Leader meant well but was unfit for Office. Religion seems more entrenched in Poland than Latin America so it seems unlikely any help for the country will come from human efforts. Zanjan: Shadow - That's PART of God's Covenant, not all of it. With each successive religion, God makes slight adjustments, adding more things to the Covenant but, the Base always remains the same with every religion: In the first part, God makes a pact with the believers: "If you do this for Me, I'll do that for you". This means that all of God's promises to believers and His favours and bestowals upon them are conditional on their obedience to God. In the OT, you saw how the Jews lost all their battles, insight, vision and power when they broke the Covenant. They saw that as punishment from God for displeasing Him but God reminded them who was at fault. A deal is a deal. As with all contracts, if one breaks it, the other is not obligated to fill their end of the bargain; the contract is immediately dissolved between the individual and God. You know what happened next. The second part - the section you referred to - is a guarantee to ALL of mankind that God will always keep sending His Revelators; He will never leave mankind alone. Nothing can prevent this because it's already set up. However, due to the first section of the Covenant, only believers are required to accept the next Revelator when He appears - if they haven't heard of Him fine, no problem, but if they have, their duty, as part of this bargain, is to accept Him. Individual believers who've denied Him have done so because they'd already broken the Covenant, having lost all the favours that go with it, including Heaven. Meanwhile, God doesn't leave believers without a clue; He gives them signs to know when the next Revelator will appear. There are Prophecies all through the Bible, especially in Revelations; and, if you knew how those worked, you'd understand their birth names are never disclosed. Instead, God has given Them titles. The named title "Baha'u'llah", translated to English, means "The Glory Of God". He appeared in the Glory of the Father, and is the "Prince of Peace", the "Comforter", the "Councillor", and the "Helper". (Edited by Zanjan) Zanjan: Chron, yes, religion and politics don't mix - they're entirely different fields. A politician can certainly be religious, and his sense of right and wrong influences his decisions; but, laws of any particular religion only apply to its followers, not a national body where freedom of religion is honoured throughout the country. A country that doesn't acknowledge the existence of other religions or permit other religions to function is as backwards and wicked as it gets. (Edited by Zanjan) Zanjan: Now, back to the Pope. Does he know about Baha'u'llah? Undoubtedly, yes. The Vatican has a letter from Baha'u'llah, which contains directions to the Pope. Seems to me, as long as the Pope does his job according to that guidance, the Pope is doing the Will of God. God never forgets His people because He has a claim on them. As Christ promised, He's given each of them a place; and, whether they've done right or wrong, all have a chance to gain or re-gain His good pleasure before they pass on from this world. That isn't so for those who don't believe in God. Since they've forgotten Him, He's forgotten them. (Edited by Zanjan) chronology: I see Zan, this prophet of yours has mystical knowledge that can enlighten the Pope if takes note of its sacred meaning. Do you think you should be the one to explain to his Holiness the hidden meaning of this sacred scrolls? shadowline: Would Baha'ullah have done what he was told if the Pope had sent him a letter with instructions? Obviously not, no matter how much the Pope considered himself to be God's appointed. People have their own beliefs, and human experience is replete with them. As far as Christians are concerned Scripture's "Prince of Peace" and "Counsellor" are Christ. The "Comforter" is the Holy Spirit, who was received by the Apostles after Christ's resurrection. It isn't very surprising that the belief of a relatively small nineteenth century offshoot of Persian Shi'ism that these terms refer to their own teacher is not shared by believers in Christ. Nor will it ever be, anymore than the Christian belief that revelation ended with Christ is shared by Baha'is. Nor will it ever be. That's life. Zanjan: Chron "Do you think you should be the one to explain to his Holiness the hidden meaning of this sacred scrolls? " Scrolls are so passe. I've read a copy of the letter - it's very clear, forthright, and majestically written by the hand of a King, Who identifies Himself as such, as One Who ranks higher than the Pope. Nothing mystical about it. | Religion Chat Room 29 People Chatting Similar Conversations |