Pfft! The catholics think every other group is going to hell and every other group thinks the catholics and every other group other than themselves are going to hell. Big deal.
“Christians? Christians? Ah yes. I’m sorry I’m afraid the Jews were right.”
Toby (Satan) -Rowan Atkinson - Youtube
Except that they don’t.
Just like every religious war since time began.
So we can toss “religion as a cause of war” into the bin then - since it is a very short hop from here to realizing that even in the absence of religion folks would still find excuses to bop the tribe from over the hill upside the head.
Sunni & Shi’ite get along OK in other times & places. Colonial powers benefit from conflicts among the people they “rule.”
My co-workers are a diverse lot, including Sunni & Shia. There haven’t been any fights in the workplace.
The Northern Irish have been getting along better lately.
(Where Rev Paisley’s coming from.)
Yeah, right. And the fact that they said they were killing people because they were Protestant or Catholic, and identified themselves as Protestant or Catholic was purest coincidence. They weren’t fighting over the Gospels; they were fighting over the labels, Protestant and Catholic.
They would lack the motivation and the excuse of religion, which would make a large difference. Few things promote ruthlessness and aggression like religion; few things are as good at creating divisions.
Now, go back to pretending religion is all sweet and fluffy and never, ever is the cause of anything bad.
Well, this is quite interesting. I must admit that I had gotten the impression that the RCC, while seeing itself as having it right in a way that other churches didn’t, at least recognized other denominations as churches in the post-Vatican II era, and as valid expressions of Christianity, at least with respect to the basics.
Sure, they’re their own club, and can set their own rules. Ditto the Lutherans, the Southern Baptists, the Mormons, and whoever. But as best as I can tell, I still can ridicule them if I think their rules say they’re jerks.
And in the case of the RCC under Joey the Rat, this is the case. If the RCC wants to look down their noses at the rest of Christianity, that’s their prerogative. But they can’t expect to do that and be thought of kindly by their fellow Christians. If the RCC doesn’t give a flip what Protestants, Mormons, and whoever else that they regard as outside of the apostolic succession think about them, then at least they’re not trying to have it both ways. They still have to live with the brickbats; it just means we won’t hear a lot of complaining from Catholics about the fact that Protestants don’t like their attitude.
And if you don’t fight in the name of god, you don’t attach an afterlife component to it. Thus, you can actually* stop fighting*.
Can’t everybody else learn to do what Catholics have done for ages: ignore the Pope except as an amusing anachronism, like Queen Elizabeth or Chevrolet? Do they have to jump on everything he says as if it mattered?
Absolutely true. And these periodic reminders are a good way of keeping the inferior faiths from getting too uppity.
I received communion at the local Roman Catholic church for years before suddenly being excluded, shortly after JP2 ascended to the throne. A couple of decaded ago, I remember an Episcopal priest saying that the RCC, American Episcopal Church and one of the Lutheran branches had come to an ecumenical agreement that allowed or even urged communicants to receive communion in each other’s churches. As I recall, that led to three local churches (the Roman Catholic, the Episcopal and one of the Lutheran churches) trading off Thanksgiving eve services. I attended those services for several years, then wandered away from church altogether.
Obviously, that agreement, if it ever existed, has long since gone by the wayside. Does anyone remember anything like this?
Roman priests can hardly afford to “ignore the pope.” If you don’t believe, really believe, a church’s doctrine, you need to walk away.
And my Impala gets terrific mileage, takes me across the country quite comfortably, and is just pretty darn stylish, thank you very much.
The Catholic church says that the other denominations are valid expressions of Christianity, just not “churches”. From the Catholic perspective, the “Church” was founded by Jesus, who picked his apostles to lead it. Then, as the apostles got older, and the Church got bigger, they picked other people to lead it, and in doing so, passed on the authority they got from Jesus (Then these people named successors, and so on). This doctrine is called the Apostolic succession; that the Christian Church exists in an unbroken, continuous line from Jesus and the apostles to today. That’s what gives the Church it’s authority.
So, from the Catholic Church’s perspective, groups that don’t have this unbroken line of tradition and authoity from the first apostles, like Baptists and Methodists, aren’t “really” churches…that is to say, the leaders of the group don’t have authority to lead that was passed down from Jesus. They’re still Christians, though. They’re just organizations of Christian laymen and women, the same way that a bunch of Catholics who formed a bible study would be. Both the bible study and the Baptists are valid expressions of Christianity…they just don’t have the special teaching authority given to the Church by Jesus.
Nevertheless, the pope is in a position to make the tension better or worse, and this kind of pronouncement don’t make it better.
But it’s not clear that it makes it any worse. This isn’t anything new or different.
(obligatory abuse reference) An awful lot of priests have been going their own way with what they think they can afford to do. Anyway, I was talking about the laity, many of whom have been picking and choosing doctrine for as long as I can remember and patting the Pope’s head patronizingly whenever he (present or past) said anything that showed he was out of touch.
I don’t think I can find any common ground with anybody who calls the current Impala “stylish.” 
The 94-96 Impala SS was as stylish as all get out. The new ones are as stylish as a base model refrigerator.
They absolutely do recognize other denominations as being Christian. For instance, if a person is baptized in a Protestant faith, and wishes to convert to Catholicism, they do not have to be re-baptized. What the Pope is talking about here is the definition of the word “Church,” which is not the same as the definition of “religion.”
Right, it’s not anything new or different. Right, it’s a private club and can require its members to follow any rules it wishes.
However, many of those members are political leaders at the national, state and local levels. They make and enforce the laws by which we live. There are a number of examples of bishops telling their member legislators that they must legislate in accord with church doctrine and that affects me.
Other members are pharmacists or doctors who want to practice their trade on the general public in a way that conforms to church doctrine, and that can affect me.
If the members want to follow the club rules strictly within the club I don’t give a damn. When they try to apply their club rules to actions that affect me I think I have a perfect right to protest. If I can do anything to get them out of activities that affect me I think I have a right to do that too.
FriarTed, that is not correct. As a Catholic I have only personal experience in this matter, but trust me, some Baptist friends of mine do not consider Catholics to be Christians.
Baptism is a sacrament. I didn’t realize the RCC accepted informal faith groups’ administration of sacraments. Or is it just some sacraments but not others?