This Pope is Special

[Danmark]

I am not a theist, but there is something special about Pope Francis.
We can all learn something from him.
The most important things cannot be put into words.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

I find it fascinating that both the Pope and JW claim the exact same book and the exact same god creature as the foundation for their belief systems...

Why? One could argue that if human beings were created by a higher being, then we would long to know our creator. And since there is historical truth regarding the man Jesus Christ, the start of His Church, and historical correlation to Scripture, why would it be fascinating that both the Catholic religion and the JW faith share many similarities?

JW loathing the Pope does not indicate many similarities to me. Neither does the massive difference between what the Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses say either. That was actually my point. With apologies to Winston Chruchill, maybe they are two religions separated by a common god creature?

The differences of course come down to an understanding of history and faith in where authority lies in interpreting Scripture. I personally believe Jesus Christ existed, established His Church (to who He gave authority). His Church then gave us Sacred Scripture and holds the power to interpret said Sacred Scripture, hence the necessity of recognizing BOTH Sacred Tradition (the Church) and Sacred Scripture as important and vital.

You lost me after telling me that the word of a god needs "interpreting"...

JW’s take said Sacred Scripture and developed or created their own interpretation/understanding of it. It is my opinion that in doing so, they might have gotten some things right, but in other cases got some things very wrong. Once they left the established Church (who Christ said, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “) they were no longer assured they were getting it right. This of course applies to each and every Christian denomination that broke off from Christ’s established Church and why all can believe in the same God, the same book, and yet still have so many very different beliefs.

I don't disagree. I'd only add that the Catholic Church falls into that as well. The various Codex clearly show the development of the Bible via editing, deletions, and insertions started quite early in Church history. The exclusion of gnostic texts like the Gospel of Bartholomew shows man's guiding hand in changing the supposed word of a god into what it is today.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 21 by Kenisaw]

You lost me after telling me that the word of a god needs "interpreting"...

Seriously? If I even type three simple words like, Got the keys

That sentence alone could have quite a few meanings depending on context, language spoken, speaker, audience, etc. The emphasis in the above phrase could be Got the keys (implying someone is stating they are in possession of the keys). It could be Got the keys (indicating emphasis on some specific/special keys). It could be interpreted as Got the keys (signifying the speaker is claiming he has keys and not something else). All of the above phrases could also be a question rather than a statement in case the speaker is actually saying, Got the keys? There might also be different interpretations or understanding based on what the word keys mean. Did keys always mean keys as we understand keys to mean today? Was the speaker speaking literally or metaphorically? What is the significance of those three words?

So, yeah, odd to me that you don’t think Scripture needs interpreting. Everything and Anything needs interpreting because we are human beings and have language barriers, or lack information to make complete or perfect sense out of written words. I can misunderstand what someone 3 feet away from me tells me in my own language. So I find it completely reasonable to think a 2000 year old book written in a foreign language might be something that needs to be interpreted correctly, less a great deal of confusion could ensue.

JW’s take said Sacred Scripture and developed or created their own interpretation/understanding of it. It is my opinion that in doing so, they might have gotten some things right, but in other cases got some things very wrong. Once they left the established Church (who Christ said, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “) they were no longer assured they were getting it right. This of course applies to each and every Christian denomination that broke off from Christ’s established Church and why all can believe in the same God, the same book, and yet still have so many very different beliefs.


I don't disagree. I'd only add that the Catholic Church falls into that as well. The various Codex clearly show the development of the Bible via editing, deletions, and insertions started quite early in Church history. The exclusion of gnostic texts like the Gospel of Bartholomew shows man's guiding hand in changing the supposed word of a god into what it is today.

The Church gave us Scripture. It did not fall from the sky! The Church determined what texts made the cut to be considered part of Sacred Scripture and which ones did not. The Church could have included a great many writings from a great many sources but compiled the Bible as determined by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if anyone is going to then take the Bible and go forth to make changes, additions, deletions, or claim they know better than the Church who compiled Scripture what Scripture means that seems extremely illogical.

[marco]

So I find it completely reasonable to think a 2000 year old book written in a foreign language might be something that needs to be interpreted correctly, less a great deal of confusion could ensue.

Juvenal wisely asked: Who will judge the judges. Who will determine what a "correct interpretation" is? Each interpreter believes his/ her version is correct, hence the various schisms that confound Christianity.

Therefore, if anyone is going to then take the Bible and go forth to make changes, additions, deletions, or claim they know better than the Church who compiled Scripture what Scripture means that seems extremely illogical.

One could hold this view only if one had unshakeable faith in Church infallibility. When indulgences were being sold across Europe Martin Luther ( for whom I have no love) pointed out some errors in Church ways. When Galileo concurred with Copernicus he was wrongly declared a heretic, and remained with that title till John Paul 11 removed it. There is good advice from the Psalmist:

Psalm 146: (KJV)
 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish


I say this as someone who enthusiastically heard: Introibo ad altare dei....and stood to declare credo in unum Deum. When I was a child ....as Paul says.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

Juvenal wisely asked: Who will judge the judges. Who will determine what a "correct interpretation" is? Each interpreter believes his/ her version is correct, hence the various schisms that confound Christianity.

Exactly! So, I ask you . . . what would make the most sense . . . that if Christ were going to establish a Church, would He not give that Church and only that Church the authority to interpret Scripture? And that is exactly what Christ did. He gave authority to His Church and said, “He who hears you, hears me� and He promised to remain with His Church guiding her in all truth. “Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.� Peter was the first Pope!

Therefore, it is obvious to me in answering your,

Who will determine what a Correct interpretation� is?�

is the Church established over 2000 years ago by Christ Himself. Not any that broke off from said established Church. John Calvin established Calvinism in 1509, John Knox Presbyterianism in 1510, John Smyth Baptists in 1570, John Wesley Methodism in 1703, Joseph Smith Mormonism in 1805, Charles Taze Russel JW’s in the 1850’s, etc.

One could hold this view only if one had unshakeable faith in Church infallibility. When indulgences were being sold across Europe Martin Luther ( for whom I have no love) pointed out some errors in Church ways.

Not exactly. The Church has both a human element and a Divine element. The Church is made up of fallible human beings. However despite this reality Christ gave His assurance that He would guide her in all truth. So, while individuals within the Church can screw up, the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from ever making a mistake regarding teachings on matters of faith and morals. The Catholic Church has remained true to her teachings (unlike many Christian denominations who have changed and altered their teachings based on the fashions of the day)

The selling of indulgences was something done by a few bad priests. It was NEVER Church teaching. And many, many good Catholics at the time were protesting against it (including Martin Luther who was originally a Catholic priest). Saint Catherine fought hard to rebuke the Church leaders at the time as well to stop some of the corruption that had crept up within the Church. However, she, unlike Martin Luther, did not say, “I will leave the Church and establish my own.� She knew such could never be the case, less what happened when Luther did so would inevitably result – thousands of splinter groups all teaching different things.

The Church needed cleaned up, but NOT dismantled. God from the beginning had a habit of choosing unlikely individuals to speak through. He always chose fallible men. Even Peter denied Christ 3 times and yet Peter was put in charge and Christ told everyone to listen to Him. So, even if Peter had gone on to be a jerk and do some bad things, as long as he was speaking for the Church, the people could have been assured that what he was telling them was right (Do as they say and not as they do) – thank God! Nothing else makes sense. An earthly, visible, infallible institution is the only thing that makes sense. Do we trust God? Do we trust that the Scripture handed to us is the word of God? Well, then you trusted the Church, because it is the Church that gave you that Scripture. If you trusted her with that – why? Or why stop there?

When Galileo concurred with Copernicus he was wrongly declared a heretic, and remained with that title till John Paul 11 removed it. There is good advice from the Psalmist:

Psalm 146: (KJV)
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish


I say this as someone who enthusiastically heard: Introibo ad altare dei....and stood to declare credo in unum Deum. When I was a child ....as Paul says.

<sigh> Galileo. One can expect in any discussion regarding Catholicism Galileo’s name will come up. Nothing is more misunderstood then the Galileo affair. The way the Church handled Galileo was not perfect and like you said JPII tried to make amends. The truth however is Galileo was suggesting Scripture was wrong or that science contradicted Scripture. However, this was not true. Galileo’s scientific findings were not even proved yet and everyone, even within the scientific community at the time were giving him a hard time about them, including the Church and in part because Galileo himself was known to be quite a flamboyant personality. History actually shows the Pope was actually one of his good friends at the time and encouraged his scientific endeavors. It wasn’t until Galileo began crossing the line and over stepping his bounds in speaking about Church matters – which he had no right to do. Then of course a lot of emotional and personal conflict ensued and both the Church and Galileo were at odds and did and said things they probably shouldn’t have.

Anti-Catholic spin has resulted in years of falsehoods regarding the Church standing in the way of science. Such nonsense! And not sure how the whole Galileo mess demonstrates the Church is not infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals. If anything, it actually shows she does have the authority to claim infallibility. Galileo was suggesting his findings were about to contradict Church teaching. That's a little arrogant and mistaken. The Church wanted to make sure he wasn't given her flock misinformation. They clearly should have handled it better, but does show the Church takes statements about how to interpret Scripture from outsiders very seriously.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 24 by RightReason]

They threatened to torture Galileo, and your response is "they should have handled it better." And you were basically justifying in a rather disturbing way the church's reasoning that whole last paragraph. God forbid an "outsider" has something negative to say about the church. How about the Inquisition? Should they have handled that better? How about the child molestation cover-ups? Should they have handled that better too?

Why take the Roman Catholic church seriously when they've commited such immoral acts throughout history? Thankfully, their power is an ounce of what it was in the middle ages.

[RightReason]

[Replying to jgh7]

They threatened to torture Galileo, and your response is "they should have handled it better."

Check your history. Galileo was never tortured. And you are forgetting that historical context is in order. This was a time in history when there was no separation of Church and state (not a good idea, but that is how it was then), so in understanding historical perspective one has to realize things were handled differently then. When the governing body is also the state religion there is over lap regarding disciplinary action. This is a bad set up, but in a less democratic and more uncivilized time things were handled differently. Not exactly fair to apply same standards today when judging certain events.

And you were basically justifying in a rather disturbing way the church's reasoning that whole last paragraph. God forbid an "outsider" has something negative to say about the church.

Nope. Not at all what I was saying. The Church is NOT a democracy. The Church does not take her “suggestions� or cues from anyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents. It doesn’t work that way and the Church need not apologize for that! If Galileo was attempting to speak on matters regarding the Church – yes! He had no right to and the Church had every right to tell him so. No, they did not have to imprison him, but again an understanding of historical context is necessary.

And people have and will continue to say negative things about the Church. And the Church will listen to what is said. In some cases, the Church will take the advice/opinions of lay persons and try to improve certain practices or behavior within the Church. The Church cares deeply about if and how her message is being received by others. But this is not the same thing as thinking one can tell the Church to change a teaching that the Church herself cannot change because the Holy Spirit will not allow it.

Why take the Roman Catholic church seriously when they've commited such immoral acts throughout history?

Because we take Christ seriously. And Christ promised to remain with His Church. The Church recognizes its human flaws, but that does not change her authoritative power.

Thankfully, their power is an ounce of what it was in the middle ages.

Actually, her power is the same as it’s always been. The Church continues to hold the power given to her by Christ Himself.

“Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�

[marco]

“Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.� Peter was the first Pope!

I could have delivered your defence myself. I know the catechism, the four marks and the justification from Christ for regarding Peter as the first Pope. I once believed it and all the accompanying ceremonies and prayers sent heavenwards with the incense from the thurible to a rendering of the lovely Dies Irae.

I agree the reformers gave their own version of what may have been truth, distorting it towards their own devices, replacing wine with vinegar.

The Church has both a human element and a Divine element. The Church is made up of fallible human beings.

Yes, I understand all this and can accept that God works with the hands of a murderer, mysteriously. Jesus chose Judas and indicated that among the chosen there will be wickedness. When I said the Church is not infallible I was not speaking about the limited infallibility accorded to the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra; I was simply saying that we cannot accept all the church has done and said through history. I know the story of Galileo; he was spared death because of his friendship with the Pope, and given house arrest instead. Giordano Bruno, on the other hand, an eminent mathematician, philosopher and cosmologist, was hung naked upside down and then burned. It is hard to believe that Jesus condoned such brutality. And yes, I know the heretical details that might "excuse" his torture. The Church was wrong. Full stop.

Anti-Catholic spin has resulted in years of falsehoods regarding the Church standing in the way of science. Such nonsense!

It did, without question, kill those who suggested a science that contradicted Genesis. It may have found other pretexts to murder them, but basically it was silencing the advance of science. And I know perfectly well how monasteries were also the repository for lost learning, thanks to the industry of devoted monks.

The Church has been blessed with wonderful people, some ready to give up their lives for others. In Rome, years ago, I spoke to JP11 in his native tongue and have always admired him and his obvious goodness and humility. Francis too is worthy of admiration. But these are the singers who make the song they sing beautiful. The Dalai Lama also makes his song beautiful. In the dark garden that is humanity there are some magnificent blooms that offer hope. Sadly, some of these were in the past called heretics, and were murdered. If Christ gave the keys, man has broken them and their replacements are useless.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

I could have delivered your defence myself.

Not sure I’d call it a defense – just the truth, but glad you concur.

I know the catechism, the four marks and the justification from Christ for regarding Peter as the first Pope. I once believed it . . .

You know I would be amiss to not suggest you must not have really believed or fully understood if you no longer believe . . .

As bishop Fulton Sheen once said, “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.�

I agree the reformers gave their own version of what may have been truth, distorting it towards their own devices, replacing wine with vinegar.

You mean replacing the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ with wine/grape juice. If one ever only saw the wine, then I would argue you never really saw it.

I was simply saying that we cannot accept all the church has done and said through history.

I can certainly agree with that. We couldn’t accept all that Moses said and did in his life time either, but it doesn’t mean God did not intend to use him and speak through him. It also means that even though Moses may have screwed up in his personal life or not even followed the commandments of God himself very well that he was prevented from speaking truthfully when he relayed the Word of God to the people. It meant the people could have trusted and believed the 10 Commandments were from God and exactly what God wanted to convey to us. So, like I said, just because the Church might have messed up with people like Galileo or Bruno doesn’t mean the Church was not still Christ’s Church and kept free from teaching falsehoods when it comes to matters of faith and morals. Again, also important to understand the culture at the time.

It did, without question, kill those who suggested a science that contradicted Genesis.

Disagree. Genesis is not a scientific treatise and the Church does not claim it to be. Therefore, some might suggest science contradicts Genesis, but that is not true and the Church is within her rights to tell those spreading falsehoods to stop.

It may have found other pretexts to murder them, but basically it was silencing the advance of science.

Wrong. You may have made this conclusion, but IMO, it is wrong. The Church had no problem with science. It did not like when some tried to speak on Church matters. And you’re right the monks and many prominent scientists were Catholic and are responsible for a great deal in the advancement of science.

If Christ gave the keys, man has broken them and their replacements are useless.

Thank you for your opinion, but if one believes in Christ and takes His words seriously then what you are suggesting is impossible. Christ promised to remain with His Church. Christ would not establish a useless Church. If you get hung up on the human element of the Church alone, then yes, I would agree it would be useless, but then I would suggest you are missing the divine element which gives us, “With God, all things are possible.�

[marco]

You know I would be amiss to not suggest you must not have really believed or fully understood if you no longer believe . . .

As Bishop Fulton Sheen once said, “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.�

Very good. I commend your teacher. I like when intellect furnishes faith with good responses.

As It happens I learned a lot from my teaching; I do not regret the experience at all. My words were your words once and my heart believed them absolutely.

I agree the reformers gave their own version of what may have been truth, distorting it towards their own devices, replacing wine with vinegar.

You mean replacing the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ with wine/grape juice. If one ever only saw the wine, then I would argue you never really saw it.

No, I don't mean that, or I would have used words that said this. I wasn't referring to transubstantiation; I meant simply that REFORMERS (such as Zwingli, Calvin, Luther...) changed something sweet (the previous faith) into something sour. The magnificent Latin music and its rich solemnity were abandoned, for example. I was speaking figuratively..... and I suspect you agree.

So, like I said, just because the Church might have messed up with people like Galileo or Bruno doesn’t mean the Church was not still Christ’s Church and kept free from teaching falsehoods when it comes to matters of faith and morals. Again, also important to understand the culture at the time.

I agree with your logic. If Christ promised to be with his Church it is essential to accept that, in times of uncertainty, he will infallibly guide his servant. I accept that Alexander Borgia or Sixtus vi were perhaps imperfect instruments that could still, mystically, pass on God's word. So if I were to opt for an institution that conveyed a divine message across centuries, I would not hesitate to accept the one you defend.

My quarrel is not with the Son, but with the Father. I can accept there is no real Yahweh, just an artefact, but indubitably Jesus is his son. His message is sensible.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 26 by RightReason]

I said they threatened to torture Galileo. Your justifications about how the times were different back then make little sense to me. Why do times matter at all? Why should standards be different? Shouldn't Christ's church be held to the same standards no matter what time it is or was? The fact that they tortured countless people during the Inquisition should be judged with more lenient standards because it happened during a more uncivilized time?

The Roman Catholic Church has shown such corruption throughout its distant past and recent times that I fail to see how it is any different than any other religious organization claiming Godly representation. And yes, its power is an ounce of what it once was. The church no longer polices us. We police the church.