I don’t see how it promotes intolerance, Satan. THe Catholic Church merely maintains that it is better than the other Christian offshoots. I’d be surprised if they said “Welcome to the RCC second to Godliness only to the Lutherans.” or some such.
It seems to me that this is an attempt to qualify the differences between Christian sects, and what the RCC sees as flaws within the others. You will realize off course that most of the other sects existed because they saw flaws in the RCC which promoted a schism. Turnabout is fair play.
I will admit that a certain superiority on the part of the RCC may be justified. They are after all the oldest branch of Christianity, and throughout their history the RCC has made just about every mistake conceivable. I’ like to think that they’ve learned from some of them. It is my opinion that some of these newer fundamentalist groups exist mainly to make the same mistakes all over again.
Then too, having attended Catholic school, I believe that my eight years of being forced to wear green plaid pants, yellow shirt, and green plaid tie, and spending seven hours a day in the company of nuns has earned me time-served status as far as purgatory goes. St. Peter’ll just hold the door for me and I’ll get to cut the line ast all the snake handlers and rabid fundies.
jmullaney dies and goes to the land of happy, fluffy bunnies.
Is that justice? Justice for whom?
Or
jmullaney dies and goes to the land of slimy, prickly things and paper cuts.
Is that justice? Justice for whom?
Or
Here on Earth, all me know jmullaney as a murderer and, armed with such knowledge, kick ‘im in the nuts whenever they see him.
Justice?
Or
Since society and Tymp, the individual, failed to protect themselves from jmullaney, and his deed passes unprevented, unavenged and unknown. jmullaney lives happily ever after fully justified in his action because there is no identifiable adverse effect of his murderous deed.
I just can’t imagine a God who was not just. If everyone can do whatever they wanted and everyone goes to heaven when they die, which some Protestant Churc… er… um, well, whatever they are supposed to be called now (waiting for a Baptist to start a thread in the Pit – hey johnpaul02, c’mere!)…
Where was I? Oh yeah, so God has to be just otherwise everyone could just be as bad as they wanted to be.
Of course, if you don’t believe in God, you don’t believe in Hell, so it doesn’t really apply.
You misunderstand me. It doesn’t promote intolerance for NORMAL people, just as watching a black person being taken off in handcuffs on Cops doesn’t promote racism to NORMAL people.
I’m talking about giving a reason for those who don’t need much of one. The one who sees the television show and decides that is just more “proof that niggers ain’t nothing but theives,” and the one who says, “This is why Catholics are bad.” Them. Not us.
In a nutshell, if what they pointed out was so obvious to everyone, why point it out at all in this decree? Instead, we have “evidence” for one more religious bigot to start dissing Catholics.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, four weeks, 17 hours, 30 minutes and 1 second.
6029 cigarettes not smoked, saving $753.65.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 22 hours, 25 minutes.
jmullaney, if you had indeed killed Tymp, then let’s suppose members of Tymp’s family wanted to hunt you down and kill you. Why? Out of a misguided and imperfect sense of justice. If they indeed were able to lop off your head, they would be held accountable to both our law and (in your opinion) God’s law. That would imply that their action was wrong, springing forth from man’s flawed reasoning.
But you argue that when God does just this, his deed is perfectly just, extracting punishment for your misdeed. How then does the cause of justice change, simply because God is the actor? Does an act or the reasoning go from misguided to divine mandate simply because God is the one exacting what is essentially revenge?
Instead of looking at it from the angle of God (well of course he is justified, and besides his fifth commandment is for us, not him), look at it from the human aspect. Why can you conclude that a drive for ‘justice’ is neither just nor beneficial, but then posit that that same imperfect human drive is a fundamental aspect of God? I just don’t get it.
tracer, at the risk of earning a serious whooosh, I will point out that several fugitives from the increasingly totalitarian and paranoid LBMB have established their own MB at The Pizza Parlor that uses a “Pizza parlor” theme with a red/white checkered “tablecloth” background.
IF I believed that the Vatican’s statement translated into “Everybody but us Catholics will burn in Hell,” I’d repudiate it at once. I suspect that’s not precisely what it says.
Bottom line is this: All religions are not the same. They vary in significant ways. Many of them are diametrically opposed on key points. This SHOULD be obvious and uncontroversial, but these days, most religious groups seem to want to gloss over the differences, and pretend they don’t matter.
Well, let’s face hard facts: certain things either ARE or AREN’T true. WAS Jesus Christ the Son of God? Did he rise from the dead? IF the answer is yes, then Christianity IS better than all the alternatives. If not… then it’s a waste of time at best, and a dangerous fraud at worst.
If Jesus WAS divine and offered salvation to those who followed him, then Christianity IS better than Judaism, Islam or Hinduism. That doesn’t mean I’m inherently better or more virtuous than any Jew, Moslem or Hindu. Nor it doesn’t give me the right to oppress (or even pester) Jews, Moslems and Hindus. But it DOES mean I must reject the notion that “my religion may be right for me, but not right for you.”
The tenets of Catholicism are either true for everyone, or they’re true for nobody. Wishy-washy, modern American Catholics find such facts unpleasant, and would prefer to pretend that all religions teach the same basic things. John Paul II is merely stripping away their pretenses.
Well, let’s face hard facts: certain things either ARE or AREN’T true.**
Okay, here’s your first mistake. Black and white thinking. To a monotheist, such as yourself, you’re condition to think in terms of only black or white, no gray situations what so ever. WRONG Yes, some answers will have can be TRUE or FALSE. Most do not. Example, the Commandment; Thou Shall Not Kill. If someone is attempting to seriously hurt or even kill you, can you kill him in self-defense? The commandment give the explicit order to NOT kill. No ifs, ands or buts about it. So, do you follow this direct order from God or not?
If Jesus WAS divine and offered salvation to those who followed him, then Christianity IS better than Judaism, Islam or Hinduism. That doesn’t mean I’m inherently better or more virtuous than any Jew, Moslem or Hindu. Nor it doesn’t give me the right to oppress (or even pester) Jews, Moslems and Hindus. But it DOES mean I must reject the notion that "my religion may be right for me, but not right for you."
Your conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. How is Xianity better than any other religion simply because your god’s messiah claimed divine status and offers salvation?
To draw an analogy; you’re a doctor. One patient comes to you with an bacterial infection. You give them an anti-biotic. That cures their condition. Another patient comes to you with a viral disease, you give the same anti-biotic? A couple come to you with a child who is sick with a typical childhood ailment that will cure itself over time and offer life-time immunity from it. Are you still going to tell them to use that same anti-biotic?
Please do not play the One-Religion-Fits-All game.
That seems to be precisely what the document says:
(emphasis theirs)
Regarding non-Catholic Christians, they get their kudos, and 'at-a-boys, but essentially, they’re riding on Catholicisms coattails:
In my dreamworld, people would behave like “good” Christians/Muslims/Hindus/et al, without the complexity of tying it all to an unknowable afterlife and deity. Mmmm…that would be nice.
No. The document says that the Church (which is the Body of Christ, therefore, the physical presence of Jesus in the world) is required for salvation. (If you are Christian, you pretty well have to believe that Jesus is required for salvation, and from the RCC perspective, the Church is here to make Jesus present to the world.)
The document then points out that the RCC view of this Church is that the RCC is the core of the broader Church and is doing the best job of carrying on the work of Jesus.
The rest of the world will also be saved through the Church, NOT necessarily by joining the Church, and certainly not simply by joining the RCC.
The other Christian denominations are not simply “riding the coattails,” they are part of the Church–just separated by their (RCC perceived) errors. The statements, elsewhere, that the other denominations are not “Churches” is an assertion that there is only one Church–not the RCC, but Christianity. The RCC, of course, asserts that it has the best handle on the beliefs and practices that Jesus wanted humanity to follow (and what denomination preaches that they have the “second best” beliefs?), but it does not claim that other Christians are outside the Church. It claims that, to the extent of their “errors” (“theological defects” in the language of this document), the other denominations are removed from sharing in the fullness of the Church.
Again: feel free to be amused or contemptuous (not that you need my permission), but please understand what the Declaration has actually said.
<< However, how do we know The Church isn’t right? I mean, their authority “comes directly from God through the pope.” >>
[wicked grin] Well, of course, it’s that “through the pope” bit that’s the stumbler. And, of course, really the authroity “comes directly from God, to Jesus, to Paul, through the Popes”, innit? All those layers of human beings where someone might have misinterpreted… So frankly the best approach is Judaism, where the message comes directly from God to the people Israel, period; no intermediary, no hallucinations/visions by Paul, no pope to interpret. [/heresy]
What has always amazed me is the way that organized religions try to limit and contain God. The pope (or a priest or a dead saint or a pastor or the Puritan elder or the televangelist or …) can tell God whom to save and whom not to save? Can change God’s rules on how to behave? Can assert that there is ONLY ONE route to God?
They start with a God who is the unique and supreme Creator of this amazingly complex universe; power and comprehension and complexity far beyond our understanding. Such a God, seems to me, would not be so limited as to have only ONE route for human beings to strive for holiness. Seems to me that there would be many routes to God; they would certainly have some things in common, like “Thou shalt not steal,” and “Thou shalt not murder”, and “Do unto others etc.” But the notion that God is so limited, so bureaucratic, so narrow that there can be only ONE way to reach him… that always makes me laugh.
Jonathon Swift described war in Lilliput based on which end of the egg to crack, the big-end or the little-end… but seems to me that the wars (whether actual massacres or mere media-fights) over which is THE ONE WAY TO GOD are even sillier.
From a Fugitive, Protestant, and Root-Beer-drinker’s perspective – the Document in question really says nothing new concerning RCC outlook towards non-RCC-Christians – simply emphasizes that “all religions are not the same” which the RCC never really claimed to begin with.
But negative sentiment regarding RCC dialogue with other religions generates the perception in some non-RCC Christians that Rome is the bug-a-boo “Whore of Babylon”; undifferentiated from any pagan religions, humanistic/aetheistic evil coalitians, and any other underwater extraterrestial triple-secret societies out to undermine truth, justice & the american way.
American Christianity stems in large part from a “Fugitive” perspective anyhow.
I think the statement itself is basically a good thing – a careful technical document of affirmations and denials – media accounts of it (like anything else) are just media accounts of it.
Did David Jannsen ever play in anything else besides the original “Fugitive” series?
It is off the subject, but Pope John Paul II has also teed off the Jewish people by deciding to beatify a 19th-century pope (forget his name). Anyway, apparently, one step in the beatification process is to exhume the candidate - evidence of his/her holiness is provided by the fact that the body hasn’t decayed. my question-where in RCC doctrine does this come from? I thought that being spritual beings, what happens to the body after death is of little importance.
Anyway, what is the Churche’s definition of incorrupt? Do corpses really stay in such good shape? If so, why did the Egyptians need mummification?
Also off subject…I was elated to hear about how SELFISH I am because I’m married but don’t have children. Like it’s any of his Holiness’s freakin’ business.
Pius IX. (I have referred to JP II as Pius Ninth II on several occasions on the grounds that I know he’s the “second” pope of a two-name set and he certainly reminds me of Pius IX.)
JP II also teed off not a few Catholics with the same act. Pius IX was extremely authoritarian , pushed the whole issue of Papal Infallibility to a vote in 1869, was rather hostile to Jews (he defended the kidnapping of a Jewish child who had been secretly baptized by a Christian house-servant so that, following Italian law of the time, the child could be raised Christian), and was generally overbearing.
JP II’s statement that we have to consider Pius IX’s actions in the spirit of the times when he lived rings hollow with people who see the way that JP II’s Curia has treated people on judicial matters in this century.
St. Peter’ll just hold the door for me and I’ll get to cut the line ast all the snake handlers and rabid fundies.