Would Jesus really condone the Catholic Church?

From all of the stories of Jesus, it seems as though the Catholic Church does not fall in line with anything that Jesus himself would create. To me, Jesus seemed very relaxed and patient, and did not have any arrogance or inflated sense of self-worth. He seemed to mostly care about people being selfless and loving his Father and each other.

So I don’t think he would set up his church anything like the Catholic Church. I personally don’t think he would want this extensive hierarchy of priests and cardinals. I doubt he’d want the pope to concern himself with whether or not he was fallible. I think that Jesus would think that the money spent on elaborate and ornate robes for the priests would be better spent actually helping out the poor. I also think that Jesus would think it’s weird to see pictures and statues of himself being crucified . . . why not just a good portrait? I also can’t see Jesus getting all worked up about whether or not priests were married.

Remember the story of Jesus going to the temple and getting all pissed because people were using it as a marketplace? I think that if Jesus were alive today, he would get all pissed at the Catholic Church because they missed the mark.

I think that Jesus’s church would involve everyone gathering and celebrating God without the formality and rules of the Catholic Church. After everyone met, they would go out into the community and do what they could for other people.

Your thoughts?

I think Jesus would think, you think to much…

I don’t think Jesus would have intended to start another religion at all. I think Jesus thought he was a Jew. I think he would be appalled at his own deification.

Well, if he went around saying he was the Son of God, how could he not be deified?

Woah. That’ll teach me to go out clubbing on a Monday night. My tired and bleary eyes just misread that thread title as “Would Jesus condone Charlotte Church?”

(Incidentally, I hope he wouldn’t.) :wink:

Jssus railed against the Pharisee’s - only for them to change allegiance and call themselves “Christian Fundamentalists”. That’s where the real tragedy is.

The phrase “son of God” did not connotate divinity to the ancient Jews. It was just a way to say that someone was especially righteous or favored by God.

Really? I seem to recall that when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table. Like you, the disciples were indignant at the waste, and pointed out that the perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor.

Jesus rebuked them and praised the woman, pointing out that the poor would always be with us.

Didn’t He?

  • Rick

The high priest at His trial didn’t seem to think so.

Nothing is known about what Jesus looked like, so good portraits of Him are hard to come by.


I see Bricker beat me to it.


Depends on how much validity you put in the quotes. The Jesus Seminar and many scholars seem to believe many of the quotes attributed to Jesus in the four gospels are not authentic.

One bottle of perfume is not the same as an entire institution that spends alot of money on elaborate material things used in their rituals.

There is a generally accepted image of Jesus, used in both portaits and crucifixes. Although it may be an inaccurate protrayal of what Jesus actually looked like, it is equally inaccurate for any way that he is protrayed. Was your argument supposed to justify the use of crucifixes rather than portaits? Because in either case, it would be an equally inaccurate portrayal of Jesus. In my OP, I was suggesting that Jesus would find it weird to see a statue of himself nailed to a cross, all bloody and tortured. If I was Jesus, I would prefer to see people with non-death pictures and statues of myself.

How many bottles of perfume would the woman have to waste on Jesus before He became upset?

And what “elaborate things” are you picturing used in the rituals of the Catholic Church?

  • Rick

Are you suggesting that the Church is not relaxed and patient, is arrogant and with a self-inflated, and does not care about people being selfless and loving the Father and each other? You’ll have to back that up with more explanation.

Why? What is wrong with it? The Church – by which I mean everyone from the pope to the most recently baptized – is immense and couldn’t possibly function without a hierarchy.

This statement suggests you don’t really understand papal infallibility. It is question about the infallibility of doctrine, not of this or that particular person. The Church believes that it is teaching Truth, not just what happens to be popular on Wednesday to be dropped on Monday. Try [url=http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp]here[/url for more.

This issue is not directly addressed in scripture that I know of, but there is one case where someone said to Jesus, “hey why didn’t you use that to help the poor?” That was when Mary (Martha’s sister) poured perfume over his feet and wiped his feet with her hair. Jesus approved of her action. Remember how God instructed the Hebrews to build the Ark and all that other ceremonial paraphenalia out of gold? The Church would maintain that these are quite proper instances of using material wealth to glorify God. So are the ceremonial robes, which are only for worship. Do you ever see a priest shopping at Kmart wearing those robes? Of course not. They wear black. For the same reason Amish wear black, because it is plain.

This criticism is unfounded. An instance of selective memory. The crucifixion scenes are ones you find most striking and are the ones you remember. Make another visit to a Catholic church. **

Right. Which is why it is not a doctrinal issue. Priests can be married, just at present most of them may not. I believe the formal adoption of this practice as more than voluntary had to do with Church reform to stamp out nepotism. All the arguments for and against have to do with practical issues about the role of priests and the functioning of the Church, though.

** And in what way is the Church like the moneychangers?


  1. Big statues
  2. The pope’s hat
  3. Robes of many varieties
  4. The churches themselves
  5. Steeples with big bells

Those are the only ones I can immediately think of that are actually used in rituals.

But I bet that Jesus would not be pleased with the $455 million that the Catholic Church has spent on sex scandal lawsuits. I think he’d be pretty pissed. You can but alot of stuff for poor people with a half-billion dollars.

Maybe, maybe not. But whether the Church does this or not has little to do with whether or not its normal functions correctly represent the Church established by God.

Do you think I put enough nots in my last post? :slight_smile:

And I’ve got the biggest bells of all!

how does he wear that thing? isn’t he old and frial?

In case you haven’t noticed, the overwhelming majority of Catholic people are similarly pissed about both the scandal of tolerating pedophilia and the further scandal of cover-ups.