Vatican up to bat again

[quote name='BigT']Um, Ratzinger's not Polish...

Review your history. Hitler and the Germans attacked the Poles and felt that Slavic people were inferior...[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. I'm big enough of a kid to admit when I'm wrong instead of running away like the bulk of you - including you, BigT.

He was German.

Still a member of the Hitlerjugend, still someone more interested in politics and keeping up appearances than Christ, and still someone who harms the Papacy by continuing to reside there.
 
[quote name='seanr1221']This was always my understanding. Hell, some (all?) of the apostles were married.[/quote]
Not sure about the rest, but if you consider Paul an Apostle(I do, some don't), then I can tell you not all were. I'm pretty sure Paul was never married. He talks about how some are not meant for marraige, but not all. Some speculate the desire to marry was the "thorn in his side" that he refers to.

But then the reason why women can't be priests is great...none of the apostles were women :lol:
Click to expand...
which is absurd. That has more to do with the culture of the time than anything else.
 
[quote name='myl0r']Not sure about the rest, but if you consider Paul an Apostle(I do, some don't), then I can tell you not all were. I'm pretty sure Paul was never married. He talks about how some are not meant for marraige, but not all. Some speculate the desire to marry was the "thorn in his side" that he refers to.


which is absurd. That has more to do with the culture of the time than anything else.[/QUOTE]

I was just explaining the difference between a disciple and apostle to the wife.

My wife is a disciple of Robert Pattinson. If he ever turned around and fucked her, she would be an apostle.

Paul was never an apostle of Jesus. He didn't get zapped off his ass until Jesus had long gone home to Papa.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I was just explaining the difference between a disciple and apostle to the wife.

My wife is a disciple of Robert Pattinson. If he ever turned around and fucked her, she would be an apostle.

Paul was never an apostle of Jesus. He didn't get zapped off his ass until Jesus had long gone home to Papa.[/QUOTE]

um, perhaps you could explain the difference to me then, because I don't follow.
 
[quote name='myl0r']um, perhaps you could explain the difference to me then, because I don't follow.[/QUOTE]

Have you seen a picture of the Last Supper?

Was Paul there?

Were there only 12 people laying down palms the Sunday before?

Paul was a wannabe who forced his way in.

He is the ancient version of that freak who posted videos of "Leave Brittany alone!"
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Have you seen a picture of the Last Supper?

Was Paul there?[/quote]
Ok, just wanted to make sure I knew what direction you were coming from. I sense a bit of hostility, no need. Just got confused, because I'm not sure what your wife having sex with Robert Pattinson has to do with Paul being/not being an apostle.

Were there only 12 people laying down palms the Sunday before?
Click to expand...
Actually, no there were lots of people. Am I allowed to quote the Bible to back this up?
Matthew 21:8-"A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road."
Mark 11:8-"Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields."
John 12:12-13-"The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting 'Hosanna!', 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!', 'Blessed is the King of Israel'."
Luke does not mention palms/branches


Paul was a wannabe who forced his way in.

He is the ancient version of that freak who posted videos of "Leave Brittany alone!"
Click to expand...
Not sure I can agree with you that he "forced his way in". In Acts 9, Jesus tells Ananias, speaking about Paul, "This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel."(Acts 9:15)
Paul also refers to himself as an Apostle in the introduction to a few of his letters, such as Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. That leaves us with just 3 Paul written letters where he does not introduce himself in some way as an Apostle.
Further, in Galatians 1:15-18, Paul says "But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days."
So, some people don't believe Paul was an Apostle, but some do. I do. I believe Paul was God's chosen replacement for Judas, not Matthias in Acts 1.
The last example is theory, but I believe that in 2 Corinthians 12, when Paul talks about a man he knew who Christ called into the third Heaven, I believe Paul is referring to himself. I think that during his 3 years in Arabia, Paul received this revelation that contained the Earthly ministry of Christ(which was also 3 years in length) so that he would know the same things as the other Apostles. Again, this is just my theory.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Paul = The 5th Beatle?[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

Paul presumably showed up after Jeebus left this world.

He wrote letters claiming to be an apostle of Jesus. Sorry. Writing a letter saying you're something and getting it published doesn't make it so.

Paul clashed with the leadership Jesus left in charge. Paul promoted Jesus his own way and led to its early success, but that doesn't make him an apostle even if he was the best disciple of Christ.
 
I love not running adblock on CAG.

imgad


Google Ads is absolutely convinced I'm a middle-aged gay tea-partier who's worried about Obama's role the apocalypse (of 2012).
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Exactly.

Paul presumably showed up after Jeebus left this world.

He wrote letters claiming to be an apostle of Jesus. Sorry. Writing a letter saying you're something and getting it published doesn't make it so.

Paul clashed with the leadership Jesus left in charge. Paul promoted Jesus his own way and led to its early success, but that doesn't make him an apostle even if he was the best disciple of Christ.[/QUOTE]
Well, if you want to discuss the validity and accuracy of the Bible, that's a different debate.
As for now, I will accept the Council of Carthage decision that Paul's letters are considered Scripture, meaning his writings are accurate.

What I'm more concerned with is your proof that Paul clashed with the leadership of the early church? Actually, just go ahead and give me some evidence of what you are talking about in the entire last paragraph.
 
[quote name='myl0r']Well, if you want to discuss the validity and accuracy of the Bible, that's a different debate.
As for now, I will accept the Council of Carthage decision that Paul's letters are considered Scripture, meaning his writings are accurate.

What I'm more concerned with is your proof that Paul clashed with the leadership of the early church? Actually, just go ahead and give me some evidence of what you are talking about in the entire last paragraph.[/QUOTE]

I haven't been Christian in a good decade, but here's an easy one:

http://savinggracemobile.org/home/1... the Titans - web sermon.pdf?sec_id=140005410

"Paul writes, “11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."

The last time I checked, Jesus made the Peter the leader of the Church.

As far as Paul's letters being considered scripture, does that make him an apostle?

Also, are all of Paul's letters included in the Bible? The Church has a bad history of not including everything in the Bible.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I haven't been Christian in a good decade, but here's an easy one:

http://savinggracemobile.org/home/140005410/140005410/docs/Clash%20of%20the%20Titans%20-%20web%20sermon.pdf?sec_id=140005410

"Paul writes, “11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."

The last time I checked, Jesus made the Peter the leader of the Church.

As far as Paul's letters being considered scripture, does that make him an apostle?

Also, are all of Paul's letters included in the Bible? The Church has a bad history of not including everything in the Bible.[/QUOTE]

So, yes, they clashed, but it was because Peter was acting like a bigot. Peter was sinning with the way he acted, and Paul rebuked him for it. Peter changed his ways, proving that he acknowledged the fact he was wrong.
It's no different than when "Jesus made Peter the leader of the Church"(I'll get to that in a minute) in Matthew 16. Just a few verses later, Peter tells Jesus he surely won't suffer and die, and Jesus rebukes him, saying "Behind me Satan!". Peter screwed up, not worrying about what God's will was, more focused on what he thought should happen.

If Paul never stood up to Peter, you would just take offense to the fact that Peter was a bigot. It's better for Paul to have corrected Peter.

As for Peter being the leader of the church, that is strictly the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16. The Protestant view is that the "rock" Jesus says he will build his church on refers to Peter's confession that Jesus is the Son of God.
EDIT:I should say that is one Protestant view. We do not hold Peter as any sort of Pope or leader. He preached the Sermon in Acts 2 at Pentecost that started the movement of Christianity, but I do not believe Jesus gave Peter more authority than anyone else.

Even if Peter was the leader of the Early Church, that doesn't mean he can't screw up, which Peter did numerous times. The thing is, Peter corrected himself after he made mistakes, such as when he withdrew from the Gentiles to please the circumsized crowd(which is the basis for the disagreement in Galatians 2 that you quoted). Paul rebuked him, Peter changed his ways back to more accurately represent the Gospel of Christ.
Isn't that what this entire thread is about? The Catholic Priests made a HUGE mistake when they molested children, but the Catholic Church made an even BIGGER mistake by trying to cover it up, and now it has affected the Papal seat. Had Pope Benedict XVI, the current pope, corrected these problems at the time, it hopefully would not be an issue now like it is.

Bottom line:
Catholic Church-more concerned with their own image, not God's will
Peter-more concerned with God's will than his own image.

As for all Paul's letters being considered Scripture, every letter that we have found by Paul, I believe they are part of the Canon. There are instances where we don't have certain letters, so they are not in the Bible. For example, 1&2 Corinthians are actually, we believe, the 2nd and 4th letters Paul wrote to Corinth, but we have never found the 1st and 3rd. We don't call them 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians because they are the first and second overall, just first and second that we currently have.
Canon was established by the Council of Carthage in the 4th Century.
The Apocrypha was not added by the Catholic Church until 1546 at the Council of Trent, which was after Martin Luther had already broken away(1517).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now their are arguments over whether the pope can be held liable. Heads of state are usually not held liable, but some are arguing the vatican shouldn't be considered a state.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Now their are arguments over whether the pope can be held liable. Heads of state are usually not held liable, but some are arguing the vatican shouldn't be considered a state.[/QUOTE]

What about Rico?
 
If this was an elementary school and the teachers were molesting the boys wouldn't we be talking about jail? Wouldn't we be screaming for blood (figuratively speaking)? What the hell is going on here?
 
Let me preface everything with this. You read Mother Goose your way and I'll read Mother Goose my way.

[quote name='myl0r']So, yes, they clashed, but it was because Peter was acting like a bigot. [/QUOTE]

I didn't say whether he was justified or not. Thanks for agreeing.

Trying to say Peter wasn't the organizational heir to Jesus is nice redact like most of the Bible.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Let me preface everything with this. You read Mother Goose your way and I'll read Mother Goose my way.



I didn't say whether he was justified or not. Thanks for agreeing.

Trying to say Peter wasn't the organizational heir to Jesus is nice redact like most of the Bible.[/QUOTE]
No problem for agreeing. You backed up your claim, it was just a bit different from what I expected(I thought you were saying they taught conflicting doctrine).
But your arguement that Paul is not an Apostle because he disagreed with Peter is absurd.

Why do you think my claim that Peter wasn't the org. heir to Jesus is redact, especially by claiming it is in line with what move of the Bible does? Peter was one of the leaders of the early church, but he wasn't the only one. And you didn't have to be an Apostle to be one, because James, the brother of Jesus, was also a key member in the early church.

Simply because the Catholic Church interprets Scripture one way does not make it the correct way. No offense to Catholics, but the Catholic Church has a long history of interpreting the Bible to match what they WANT it to say, not what it actually says. Infant Baptism, Transubstantiation, Mary as an elevated figure nearly to the point of worship, just a few examples of things that I can not find in the Bible that the Catholic church adheres to or did for a long time.

Also, IRHari is absolutely right, the men involved should be held fully responsible in court for their cover-up. They should be held to the full letter of the law for what has been done.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What about Rico?[/QUOTE]
I guess you could defend that for Catholic leaders here, but internationally? I don't know how that would be possible.
 
[quote name='myl0r']But your arguement that Paul is not an Apostle because he disagreed with Peter is absurd.[/QUOTE]

The argument is that Paul wasn't an apostle because Jesus or his heir, Peter, didn't make him one. Paul wrote letters claiming to be an apostle, but that would be on the same order as me writing a letter claiming to be the King of Siam. Unless you can point to a historical or biblical account of Paul getting a promotion to Apostle outside of his own letters, he wasn't an Apostle.

[quote name='myl0r'] Why do you think my claim that Peter wasn't the org. heir to Jesus is redact, especially by claiming it is in line with what move of the Bible does? Peter was one of the leaders of the early church, but he wasn't the only one. And you didn't have to be an Apostle to be one, because James, the brother of Jesus, was also a key member in the early church.[/QUOTE]

Back when Peter was "pope", Christianity wasn't fragmented yet. If you were a Christian between ~32 and ~67 A.D., Peter was your leader. Does the Bible say so? No. Of course, it doesn't say Peter was crucified either. So, examining only the Bible to review the last 20 centuries of Christianity is inadequate.

[quote name='myl0r'] Simply because the Catholic Church interprets Scripture one way does not make it the correct way. No offense to Catholics, but the Catholic Church has a long history of interpreting the Bible to match what they WANT it to say, not what it actually says. Infant Baptism, Transubstantiation, Mary as an elevated figure nearly to the point of worship, just a few examples of things that I can not find in the Bible that the Catholic church adheres to or did for a long time.[/QUOTE]

Like I prefaced: Mother Goose.

If you want to keep splitting hairs, you can and I'll probably play However, I, like you, am curious as to how much longer the Catholic Church will try to cover up known crimes.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The argument is that Paul wasn't an apostle because Jesus or his heir, Peter, didn't make him one. Paul wrote letters claiming to be an apostle, but that would be on the same order as me writing a letter claiming to be the King of Siam. Unless you can point to a historical or biblical account of Paul getting a promotion to Apostle outside of his own letters, he wasn't an Apostle.



Back when Peter was "pope", Christianity wasn't fragmented yet. If you were a Christian between ~32 and ~67 A.D., Peter was your leader. Does the Bible say so? No. Of course, it doesn't say Peter was crucified either. So, examining only the Bible to review the last 20 centuries of Christianity is inadequate.



Like I prefaced: Mother Goose.

If you want to keep splitting hairs, you can and I'll probably play However, I, like you, am curious as to how much longer the Catholic Church will try to cover up known crimes.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I was actually feeling the same way. We can continue this on, but I think it's better to agree to disagree. We really were just splitting hairs, and as I said before, I feel that there is adequate support for my belief for Paul as an Apostle, but some don't agree and that's ok too. It's really not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
It also seems we have a theological gap between us(meaning I'm a Christian, and view things through such a lens, and you are not).

Getting back to the topic, the Catholic Church really needs to do something about this, even if it means removing the Pope from his seat and replacing him, and also doing a thorough investigation of this scandal. Further denial will only harm the church more than handling this problem right away.
 
[quote name='myl0r']Getting back to the topic, the Catholic Church really needs to do something about this, even if it means removing the Pope from his seat and replacing him, and also doing a thorough investigation of this scandal. Further denial will only harm the church more than handling this problem right away.[/QUOTE]

Remember when Bush W. had a 19% approval rating. He was down to the one person in five who would have voted for Dubya no matter how many unnecessary wars he got the US into, no matter how many natural disasters he failed to respond to, no matter how many fundie policies he enacted, no matter how many people his VP shot in the face.

I think the Catholic church is just taking his cue and trying to separate out the true believers.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I dunno, how could you impeach the pope? He's infallible![/QUOTE]

You can always throw him down the stairs. He isn't unfallable.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You can always throw him down the stairs. He isn't unfallable.[/QUOTE]

And bring a whole new meaning to "holy roller."
 
"Thirty six does seem like a whole lot. A hundred is even more. Five hundred is even more," he told correspondent Brian Ross.
Asked if he had apologized to any of the young teen victims, Wielgus responded, "You feel I need to apologize to them?"
He added, "I think it's unfair for you to ask me whether individually or me as the representative of an organization to apologize for something when all we are trying to do is everything we possibly can to create a safe and healthy environment for kids who are participating in our particular activity."
Click to expand...
What an ass.
 
adding to the subject, and I guess you can say broadening the subject so people realize it is a widespread issue. you can let the hate rain on catholics all you want, doesn't really affect me =\
 
Gay outrage over Cardinal's child abuse comment

Gay rights groups have expressed outrage over comments made by a senior Vatican official linking homosexuality to child abuse.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who also serves as the Vatican's Secretary of State, made the comment during a news conference while on an official visit to Chile.

"Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia," he said.

Tony Green of the London-based Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement said Bertone's comments came as no surprise given recent controversial statements by Church leaders.

"Of course we're appalled by it but not shocked -- people like this are bound to say this. It's a bit like comparing attacks on the Catholic Church to the Holocaust and all that. It is desperate people trying to come out with desperate answers," he said.
Click to expand...

Way to try to deflect from the real issue...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top