Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

[jakspar0w]

My eyes are tired, so I'm going to take the easy way out without reading much and say
he isn't right unless you believe in infallibility hah!
I'll go more into it later, as this was a nooby attempt :/

[devonin]

That objection only applies if the Pope were actually speaking from office in that manner (which rarely happens)

If you consider that he's speaking from the conception that the Catholic Church is the correct faith, you can fairly easily point out where he feels justified in making that claim, even though I'm pretty sure (though you admittedly didn't read much) that we showed that he never actually said such a thing in those precise words.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Philpwnsyou

If what im saying is so shaky, explain to me how "abstain from things strangled, abstain from blood", would not be in use in this instance of transubstantiation?

Well, firstly, non-Jews were never expected to be held to the Mosaic Law. "Don't drink any blood whatsoever" was never a part of church or natural law to Christians.

According to Church scholars, the mention in Acts 15 was more of a Pastoral command; the Jerusalem Council was a big meeting of Jews and Christians, and to tell the Christians to abstain from those things that were particularly abhorrent to Jews was more of an olive branch to establish a common ground and good relations between the groups. Surely you can imagine why drinking the blood of strangled animals in front of Jews would be a bad idea.

Paul finds out that the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem believe that he has encouraged them to abandon the Mosaic Law in Acts 21, but he actually had no objection to their retaining of the law there. This goes to show that he doesn't mind if they practice the Mosaic law (or, at least, the particular things mentioned at the Council), but does not extend the Mosaic Law as a command to all Christians.

This makes sense when you take into consideration how the apostles went out and professed the Real Presence of the Eucharist to the world.

There were certainly reasons to establish the abstinence from blood in the Mosaic law, but there's no reason to assume it widely applies to all people, Christian and Jew alike. Even then, blood doesn't carry some mystical "life force"; it's just a bunch of plasma, platelets, and blood cells. It's a good symbol for life, but not especially significant in any way.

Bloody sacrifices were raised up to God to indicate that all blood comes from him and is his. As such, who are we to say that he can't give his blood out when he wants?

--Guido

[Philpwnsyou]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Paul finds out that the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem believe that he has encouraged them to abandon the Mosaic Law in Acts 21, but he actually had no objection to their retaining of the law there. This goes to show that he doesn't mind if they practice the Mosaic law (or, at least, the particular things mentioned at the Council), but does not extend the Mosaic Law as a command to all Christians.

--Guido

Christians who had converted from Judaism were putting too much of an emphasis on the mosaic law, such as in the case of circumcision. Trying to impress upon the gentiles that they should have this procedure preformed.
(Acts 15:1)

Because of this, the convening of the apostles and older men of the congregation in Jerusalem, under divine inspiration came to this conclusion.

Acts 15:19,20
"Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood."

To say that this was merely an attempt to make Christianity more palatable to the Jews is absurd. There was no need for such a thing, with all the signs, portents and gifts of the holy spirit.

Not to mention, gentiles had no qualms about eating or drinking blood and this issue was raised largely because the new gentile proselytes were uncircumcised, and the gentiles were not preoccupied with the mosaic law.

Paul did not write, "it doesn't really matter, but if you don't want to, you don't have to drink or eat blood" He made it clear that Christians did not have to be burdened with every aspect of the exhaustive mosaic law, but of that law, this (Acts 15:20) is what they were required to adhere to, a facet of worship to God that had not changed.

Furthermore, about seven years after the Jerusalem council issued the decree, Christians continued to comply with the “decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.” (Ac 21:25) And more than a hundred years later, in 177 C.E., in Lyons (now in France), when religious enemies falsely accused Christians of eating children, a woman named Biblis said: “How would such men eat children, when they are not allowed to eat the blood even of irrational animals?”—The Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, V, I, 26.

Early Christians abstained from eating any sort of blood. In this regard Tertullian (c. 155-a. 220 C.E.) pointed out in his work Apology (IX, 13, 14): “Let your error blush before the Christians, for we do not include even animals’ blood in our natural diet. We abstain on that account from things strangled or that die of themselves, that we may not in any way be polluted by blood, even if it is buried in the meat. Finally, when you are testing Christians, you offer them sausages full of blood; you are thoroughly well aware, of course, that among them it is forbidden; but you want to make them transgress.” Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer who lived until about 250 C.E., made the same point, writing: “For us it is not permissible either to see or to hear of human slaughter; we have such a shrinking from human blood that at our meals we avoid the blood of animals used for food.”—Octavius, XXX, 6

[kommisar[os]]

If god wanted peace for us why did he create satan

[Philpwnsyou]

God did not create a wicked creature in opposition to himself. Rather, one of the angelic “sons of God” developed a selfish desire to seize for himself the worship rightfully belonging to God. (Job 38:7; James 1:14, 15) This desire led him to embark on a course of rebellion against God. By rebelling, this spirit creature made himself Satan (meaning “resister”) and Devil (meaning “slanderer”).

God's intelligent creatures are given the option as to whether or not they will serve him, in this case we know what happened.

[devonin]

Though I will say, Lucifer had a pretty strong point as far as "reasons to be pissed off" goes. But that's a seperate discussion entirely.

[Grandiagod]

Originally Posted by Philpwnsyou

God did not create a wicked creature in opposition to himself. Rather, one of the angelic “sons of God” developed a selfish desire to seize for himself the worship rightfully belonging to God. (Job 38:7; James 1:14, 15) This desire led him to embark on a course of rebellion against God. By rebelling, this spirit creature made himself Satan (meaning “resister”) and Devil (meaning “slanderer”).

Considering that God is omnipotent he DID create a wicked creature in opposition to himself.

He knew what would happen, he had the power to stop it or the power to never let it happen. But he decided to create it. Pretty much just to mess with us.

[super kid]

The pope is a weiner for saying that.

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by super kid

The pope is a weiner for saying that.

*Sigh* I don't have anything fancy to say, so I'll just keep it simple:

Type intelligently or GTFO.

[Sir_Thomas]

By the way. The Pop also said he believes Evolution is cool and it can coexist with the church.

[Philpwnsyou]

Originally Posted by Grandiagod

Considering that God is omnipotent he DID create a wicked creature in opposition to himself.

He knew what would happen, he had the power to stop it or the power to never let it happen. But he decided to create it. Pretty much just to mess with us.

To understand the matter of foreknowledge and foreordination as relating to God, certain factors necessarily must be recognized.

One factor to be considered is the free moral agency of God’s intelligent creatures. The Scriptures show that God extends to such creatures the privilege and responsibility of free choice, of exercising free moral agency (De 30:19, 20; Jos 24:15), thereby making them accountable for their acts. (Ge 2:16, 17; 3:11-19; Ro 14:10-12; Heb 4:13) They are thus not mere automatons, or robots. Man could not truly have been created in “God’s image” if he were not a free moral agent. (Ge 1:26, 27) Logically, there should be no conflict between God’s foreknowledge (as well as his foreordaining) and the free moral agency of his intelligent creatures

A second factor that must be considered, one sometimes overlooked, is that of God’s moral standards and qualities, including his justice, honesty, impartiality, love, mercy, and kindness. Any understanding of God’s use of the powers of foreknowledge and foreordination must therefore harmonize with not only some of these factors but with all of them. Clearly, whatever God foreknows must inevitably come to pass, so that God is able to call “things that are not as though they were.”—Ro 4:17.

The question then arises: Is his exercise of foreknowledge infinite, without limit? Does he foresee and foreknow all future actions of all his creatures, spirit and human? And does he foreordain such actions or even predestinate what shall be the final destiny of all his creatures, even doing so before they have come into existence?

Or, is God’s exercise of foreknowledge selective and discretionary, so that whatever he chooses to foresee and foreknow, he does, but what he does not choose to foresee or foreknow, he does not? And, instead of preceding their existence, does God’s determination of his creatures’ eternal destiny await his judgment of their course of life and of their proved attitude under test? The answers to these questions must necessarily come from the Scriptures themselves and the information they provide concerning God’s actions and dealings with his creatures, including what has been revealed through his Son, Christ Jesus.—1Co 2:16.

The view that God’s exercise of his foreknowledge is infinite and that he does foreordain the course and destiny of all individuals is known as predestinarianism. Its advocates reason that God’s divinity and perfection require that he be omniscient (all-knowing), not only respecting the past and present but also regarding the future. According to this concept, for him not to foreknow all matters in their minutest detail would evidence imperfection. Examples such as the case of Isaac’s twin sons, Esau and Jacob, are presented as evidence of God’s foreordaining creatures before their birth (Ro 9:10-13); and texts such as Ephesians 1:4, 5 are cited as evidence that God foreknew and foreordained the future of all his creatures even before the start of creation.

To be correct, this view would, of course, have to harmonize with all the factors previously mentioned, including the Scriptural presentation of God’s qualities, standards, and purposes, as well as his righteous ways in dealing with his creatures. (Re 15:3, 4) We may properly consider, then, the implications of such a predestinarian view.

This concept would mean that, prior to creating angels or earthling man, God exercised his powers of foreknowledge and foresaw and foreknew all that would result from such creation, including the rebellion of one of his spirit sons, the subsequent rebellion of the first human pair in Eden (Ge 3:1-6; Joh 8:44), and all the bad consequences of such rebellion down to and beyond this present day. This would necessarily mean that all the wickedness that history has recorded (the crime and immorality, oppression and resultant suffering, lying and hypocrisy, false worship and idolatry) once existed, before creation’s beginning, only in the mind of God, in the form of his foreknowledge of the future in all of its minutest details.

If the Creator of mankind had indeed exercised his power to foreknow all that history has seen since man’s creation, then the full weight of all the wickedness thereafter resulting was deliberately set in motion by God when he spoke the words: “Let us make man.” (Ge 1:26) These facts bring into question the reasonableness and consistency of the predestinarian concept; particularly so, since the disciple James shows that disorder and other vile things do not originate from God’s heavenly presence but are “earthly, animal, demonic” in source.—Jas 3:14-18.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Grandiagod

Considering that God is omnipotent he DID create a wicked creature in opposition to himself.

He knew what would happen, he had the power to stop it or the power to never let it happen. But he decided to create it. Pretty much just to mess with us.

Satan and God are not opposites. Satan and Archangel Michael are opposites, and both under God in terms of power.

[omgwtfToph]

Current pope is a douche and is missing the point of christianity if he really called other churches fake.

The bible defines "the church" as not a building or organization (i.e. denomination) but people who serve Christ. The Catholic church is IMO too filled with ritualistic fluff and I think that gets in the way a lot. Actually, I think that of pretty much all religion since 95% of "religious" people are just going through the motions, they don't have any real deep contact with God.

See, if all "religious" people did what they were supposed to, holy war wouldn't exist. I don't think I need to explain myself on this one, but "holy war" is a stupid misunderstanding between retarded sheep who think that historical "religious" disputes and differences in scripture override the overarching message of love.

Pope is missing that point.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by omgwtfToph

Current pope is a douche and is missing the point of christianity if he really called other churches fake.

The bible defines "the church" as not a building or organization (i.e. denomination) but people who serve Christ. The Catholic church is IMO too filled with ritualistic fluff and I think that gets in the way a lot. Actually, I think that of pretty much all religion since 95% of "religious" people are just going through the motions, they don't have any real deep contact with God.

See, if all "religious" people did what they were supposed to, holy war wouldn't exist. I don't think I need to explain myself on this one, but "holy war" is a stupid misunderstanding between retarded sheep who think that historical "religious" disputes and differences in scripture override the overarching message of love.

Pope is missing that point.

Did you even read the thread?

It's been agreed upon that it was not the Pope who called the other churches "defective," but rather something was literally lost in translation and construed as such. Something about how the other churches were "missing an integral part" and therefore "cannot be called Churches in the proper sense," or something like that.

I'll go find it for you now.

EDIT: Here we are.

Originally Posted by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

FIFTH QUESTION
Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].

There you go. Because these churches follow different practices, Catholics cannot call them as such.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by omgwtfToph

The bible defines "the church" as not a building or organization (i.e. denomination) but people who serve Christ.

The Bible defines "the church" as a visible entity, something in which others can see the unity of all brothers under Christ.

The invisible umbrella of all those who call themselves Christians does NOT fit that description, especially the part about the visible unity.

The Catholic church is IMO too filled with ritualistic fluff and I think that gets in the way a lot.

All that "ritualistic fluff" carries deep spiritual meaning and is one of the things I find the most beautiful about the Catholic Church. Absolutely everything we do is meaningful, and understanding the meaning in the smallest things we do in mass and everywhere else really helps people to better understand their faith and connect more with God.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[jewpinthethird]

Aren't there three churches in the Catholic faith? Or something like that? I remember the comparison of all of mankind representing the body, Catholics as the heart, and the divine world as the spirit...a sort of Unity of all people of sorts.

Do I fabricate this? Or is it on the right track to being true?

[GuidoHunter]

Nope, completely fabricated.

Jesus is the head, and the Church is his body, if you're thinking of that reference.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Nope, completely fabricated.

Jesus is the head, and the Church is his body, if you're thinking of that reference.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Maybe. Mine sounds cooler. I'm calling my church Jesus Ninja Commando Team. I am infallible now.

[omgwtfToph]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

Did you even read the thread?

nope, too lazy and didn't care enough

also: k gotcha