Support NeoGAF

[Bolivar687]

Doesn't really answer my question but it's clear that the bowing and the submission to him contradicts what peter said when he told his followers all should stand to the lord. Not to mention the fact that bowing to a man contradicts the bible, as well as the pope and his underlings donning themselves in idoltry.

Peter role in the bible also doesn't match what the modern role of the pope seems to be either. Pope seems more like a "king" of Christians now.This is especially true if you read all the scriptures instead of the 'canon"

You asked for information on "the status and concept behind the position" and I tried to give you as much scriptural sources as I could. Maybe you could reword your question slightly if you were looking for something different?

The "modern role of the pope" is the same as it was in the days of Peter and the early Church - to authoritatively teach on faith and morals. It's not a matter of bowing, kingship, or submission but instead deference and unity. I don't think bowing contradicts the bible at all, it's a sign of respect, not a mortal sin. I don't think the pope or his underlings don themselves in idoltry, you're going to have to elaborate here with examples. If you think this stuff contradicts the Bible, you're going to have to a) show us where, and, more importantly, b) why it shouldn't be read in harmony with the fifteen Bible passages I provided.

 

[Freedom Gate Co.]

I don't think bowing contradicts the bible at all,.

Bible directly says not to unless it's toward god.

The Pope today does not do what Peter does and contradicts what peter does in the bible. Peter told men to stand and that he should not be praised he did not like being seen as more than a man. Jesus also never installed peter, so how is Peter considered the first pope?

 

[#Phonepunk#]

last week i discovered this book, The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints Vol. 1. im about halfway through it. it is fascinating, the most widely-reproduced medieval text after the Bible. it tells hagiographies of the saints and other Christian legends:

it tells stories of all the saints, and is quite interesting. i think i will need to read it a second time because i have trouble separating all the stories to the unique Saints. many of them are tragic tales. people tortured and publicly executed for simply saying what they want to. often there is graphic violence done to these people, they suffer tremendously: stretched on the rack until bone marrow seeps through the skin, scratched with nails and the wounds immediately salted, tied to a stake and burned, placed into a pot of boiling lead, stripped and rolled over hot coals, etc. nearly all the early saints were punished repeatedly before being beheaded. some of the women were simply refusing to consummate marriages to pagans who expected them to praise the Roman idols: they were raped, beaten, sold into slavery, tortured, and made examples of by public execution. all of the saints remained steadfast in their beliefs, they never caved to torture, they actually welcomed the punishment at times, the true meaning of "turn the other cheek" as really a revolutionary tactic of non-violence in an era of extreme violence.

the Roman Empire around 0 AD was quite a violent place indeed. the pagan Roman empire was putting to death nonbelievers and "cultists" who did not observe the idols of the Roman religion. Christians were living as hermits in the desert and caves and even tombs to escape this, driven quite literally underground by the state persecution. it is easy to forget the historical context that the Bible was written in, but it was really very dire circumstances, and Jesus's life seems to have been borne out by many people IRL. at any rate it's equal parts fascinating and horrifying to contemplate all this in 2018. it is puzzling how such an anti-Christian society turned into a world-spanning Christian empire, and the miracles of the saints seem to have played some part in that.

 

[Bolivar687]

Bible directly says not to unless it's toward god.

The Pope today does not do what Peter does and contradicts what peter does in the bible. Peter told men to stand and that he should not be praised he did not like being seen as more than a man. Jesus also never installed peter, so how is Peter considered the first pope?

I already showed you where in the Bible Jesus installs Peter and flat out tells him to lead - I think the onus is on you now to show us some concrete examples of what you think is inconsistent about the Pope today. We don't think the Pope is more than a man. I don't see how you think showing deference to another human being is against the ban on bowing, or where you're getting this ban on bowing from in the first place. Jesus did tell his disciples to listen to the ecclesiarchy (Matthew 22:3), just as Paul tells his readers to listen to those in authority (Romans 13). All of the apostolic epistles in the New Testament advise Christians to listen to the Church.

This is what I don't get about anti-Catholicism - you have to read the Bible against its most plausible meaning, and in some cases, you have to read it as directly contradicting itself.

 

[Freedom Gate Co.]

I already showed you where in the Bible Jesus installs Peter and flat out tells him to lead

You actually didn't.

Also bowing to a man is directly stated by the bible. If Peter was installed than why a few verses after the phrased used by Catholics to justify Paul as pope, did Jesus call Peter Satan and a stumbling stone? The greek text even makes it more clear.

“You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church.”

Jesus was clearly referring to Peter’s confession that Christ is the Son of the Living God. The Greek word Jesus used for rock (a big boulder) is petra, which is in the feminine gender. Jesus identified Peter’s confession, not Peter, as the foundation of the church. This was nothing more than a play on words. To transliterate: “You are a little stone, and on your big boulder of a confession, I will build my church.”

If he was the pope why are the details of the office non-existent and who di he pass it off to? Why was Paul allowed to rebuke the "head" and why did Jesus call him "Satan"?

In in II Peter 1:1 and 5:5 Peter himself didn't describe himself as the pope. In the same book Peter himself says "jesus" was the rock. He also taught that He (jesus) was the foundation for the church.

Peter also said "Stand up, I am only a man myself." does that not contradict the current pope who also has several symbols of idolatry across his garments at some times? Please tell me.

We don't think the Pope is more than a man.

Yet you treat him as more than a man and give him too much power over doctrine as well as the ability to determine which doctrine is relevant. He is also able to walk around law and many will bow a pray through him which is a direct contradiction to the bible on prayer.

Not only that, but he as many Catholics believe that Mary is the mother of god when got is not begotten. The Bible also puts Mary among women and not above women so the position of mary is also not very pope like as it contradicts the scriptures.

Pope looking back historically authorized imagery as well. Does the Pope have a scripture confirming Jesus' appearance?

anti-Catholicism

This is a cop-out. You say this is about anti-catholicism when the only thing I mentioned was the pope and his influence. I've not throw any other part of Catholic tradition under the bus at this point which makes this a very strange statement. If this was about anti-catholisim I would have just used the current pope as an example because even some die-hard Catholics are moving away from his contradictions. That's not what this is about.

 

[Bolivar687]

You actually didn't.

Also bowing to a man is directly stated by the bible. If Peter was installed than why a few verses after the phrased used by Catholics to justify Paul as pope, did Jesus call Peter Satan and a stumbling stone? The greek text even makes it more clear.

“You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church.”

Jesus was clearly referring to Peter’s confession that Christ is the Son of the Living God. The Greek word Jesus used for rock (a big boulder) is petra, which is in the feminine gender. Jesus identified Peter’s confession, not Peter, as the foundation of the church. This was nothing more than a play on words. To transliterate: “You are a little stone, and on your big boulder of a confession, I will build my church.”

If he was the pope why are the details of the office non-existent and who di he pass it off to? Why was Paul allowed to rebuke the "head" and why did Jesus call him "Satan"?

In in II Peter 1:1 and 5:5 Peter himself didn't describe himself as the pope. In the same book Peter himself says "jesus" was the rock. He also taught that He (jesus) was the foundation for the church.

Peter also said "Stand up, I am only a man myself." does that not contradict the current pope who also has several symbols of idolatry across his garments at some times? Please tell me.


Yet you treat him as more than a man and give him too much power over doctrine as well as the ability to determine which doctrine is relevant. He is also able to walk around law and many will bow a pray through him which is a direct contradiction to the bible on prayer.

Not only that, but he as many Catholics believe that Mary is the mother of god when got is not begotten. The Bible also puts Mary among women and not above women so the position of mary is also not very pope like as it contradicts the scriptures.

Pope looking back historically authorized imagery as well. Does the Pope have a scripture confirming Jesus' appearance?



This is a cop-out. You say this is about anti-catholicism when the only thing I mentioned was the pope and his influence. I've not throw any other part of Catholic tradition under the bus at this point which makes this a very strange statement. If this was about anti-catholisim I would have just used the current pope as an example because even some die-hard Catholics are moving away from his contradictions. That's not what this is about.

Your denial of Peter's installation and much of the rest of your post, like him being rebuked after the Confession and later by Paul, does not explain Jesus telling Peter three times to lead the Church in John 21:15-17. Your explanation of the confession can be explained innumerable ways, most notably using a feminine noun (Petra) and making it the name of a man (Petros). Again, your readings are requiring you to read the New Testament in contradiction of itself, and assigning precedence according to your own heresy.

You're also again conflating deference with worship. Peter told the Roman soldiers to get up because they were worshipping him. And you need to start giving concrete examples of the idolatry worn by the Pope, Catholics treating him as more than a man, or people praying "through" him, the last of which is something I've never heard of.

I used anti-Catholicism for its plain semantics, not as a loaded term - you're attacking the Papacy and now Mariology, distinguishing characteristics of Catholicism. Everyone agrees that Mary was in fact a woman, and although Christ was pre-incarnate as the divine Logos, it is undisputable that the person of Jesus Christ was born of Mary.

 

[SirKicksalot]

I was at a Catholic wedding followed by a baptism last weekend. As an Orthodox, the speed and efficiency was stunning. I also enjoyed sitting down

Nothing beats an Orthodox choir though.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Good to see there was one here to try to speak some sense to some of you in my absence.

http://revelationtimelinedecoded.co...13-is-the-popes-of-the-roman-catholic-church/

The antichrist is not just one man, it is a position, like the President of the United States. It has been fulfilled by many Popes.

Messiah said that many would come in my name, and the many Popes proclaim to be the “Vicar of Christ” or the “substitute Christ.”

 

[Bolivar687]

Hey Sax!

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Hey Sax!

Hello there brother What do you make of this one?

 

[Bolivar687]

Hello there brother What do you make of this one?

My quick take is that Rome was indeed the center of the pagan world during the time of the early Church. This is probably part of why the leaders during and beyond the apostolic age deferred to the Bishop of Rome.

I can't really speak beyond that, because it's just a nebulous quote from some random guy, without any evidence or examples. The Catholic liturgy is rooted in Hebrew tradition, and every movement is directly and explicitly tethered to scripture.

I've noticed you're interested in novel ideas that don't really have any substance or scholarship behind them. All of the epistles in the New Testament (in addition to talking about the Church and deference to its leadership) warned against this kind of heresy, but you seem determined to keep illustrating the errors they warned against, over and over throughout the thread.

 

[SirKicksalot]

Rome was never called Saturnia.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

My quick take is that Rome was indeed the center of the pagan world during the time of the early Church. This is probably part of why the leaders during and beyond the apostolic age deferred to the Bishop of Rome.

I can't really speak beyond that, because it's just a nebulous quote from some random guy, without any evidence or examples. The Catholic liturgy is rooted in Hebrew tradition, and every movement is directly and explicitly tethered to scripture.

I've noticed you're interested in novel ideas that don't really have any substance or scholarship behind them. All of the epistles in the New Testament (in addition to talking about the Church and deference to its leadership) warned against this kind of heresy, but you seem determined to keep illustrating the errors they warned against, over and over throughout the thread.

Oh? And side stepping anyone who asks anything about how many things in Catholicism simply don’t align with the teachings of Christ or scripture is ok? You didn’t seem to answer any of freedom gates questions and you completely skipped over my post about the papacy being the seat of the antichrist. Seems odd.

 

[mcz117chief]

Guys, what is your opinion on fasting? Do you fast? How often and how much? For what reason do you fast? Some religious people I know don't like it and consider it self-harm therefore against the 5th in a sense. What about Fridays? Do you do any kind of fasting on Fridays? I usually eat fish on Friday and try to stay away from other meat products if I can help it.

 

[appaws]

Guys, what is your opinion on fasting? Do you fast? How often and how much? For what reason do you fast? Some religious people I know don't like it and consider it self-harm therefore against the 5th in a sense. What about Fridays? Do you do any kind of fasting on Fridays? I usually eat fish on Friday and try to stay away from other meat products if I can help it.

I've been reading about it lately, but from the health/medical perspective (Dr. Jason Fung) and not from the religious perspective.

And yeah, I do the fish on Fridays thing as well. I will say though, that if the point is to deny yourself something, replacing that Friday burger with a lobster tail or mussels marinara does not seem like much of a sacrifice.

 

[mcz117chief]

I've been reading about it lately, but from the health/medical perspective (Dr. Jason Fung) and not from the religious perspective.

And yeah, I do the fish on Fridays thing as well. I will say though, that if the point is to deny yourself something, replacing that Friday burger with a lobster tail or mussels marinara does not seem like much of a sacrifice.

Heh, that last part was actually pretty fun and true

So tell me, man, what did you find out? Any tips?

 

[appaws]

Heh, that last part was actually pretty fun and true

So tell me, man, what did you find out? Any tips?

Well, Jason Fung is a doctor in Toronto, a nephrologist (kidney specialist) who has been treating patients with both intermittent and longer-term fasting. There is a lot to absorb, but basically fasting regimes work wonders for people with many of the issues of modern society, obesity, diabetes, inflammation, etc.

He also discusses the fact that seemingly every faith around the world works some sort of fasting element into their observances, probably because it is so good for well being and mental-focus.

His youtube channel is a wealth of information, but it is better to go back a bit to the videos of him doing more university presentations and stuff, and not the more recent ones which seem more like clickbait type of stuff.

My personal advice. Skip a meal, use the time for a bible reading or pray the rosary. Drink a lot of water.

If you try to go over a day or two, and you get lightheaded at any point, get some pink Himalayan salt and add it to some water. That will help.

 

[mcz117chief]

Well, Jason Fung is a doctor in Toronto, a nephrologist (kidney specialist) who has been treating patients with both intermittent and longer-term fasting. There is a lot to absorb, but basically fasting regimes work wonders for people with many of the issues of modern society, obesity, diabetes, inflammation, etc.

He also discusses the fact that seemingly every faith around the world works some sort of fasting element into their observances, probably because it is so good for well being and mental-focus.

His youtube channel is a wealth of information, but it is better to go back a bit to the videos of him doing more university presentations and stuff, and not the more recent ones which seem more like clickbait type of stuff.

My personal advice. Skip a meal, use the time for a bible reading or pray the rosary. Drink a lot of water.

If you try to go over a day or two, and you get lightheaded at any point, get some pink Himalayan salt and add it to some water. That will help.

I usually just skip one meal a day when I fast or just eat light foods that day (veggies and fruits).

 

[materdolorosa]

Guys, what is your opinion on fasting? Do you fast? How often and how much? For what reason do you fast? Some religious people I know don't like it and consider it self-harm therefore against the 5th in a sense. What about Fridays? Do you do any kind of fasting on Fridays? I usually eat fish on Friday and try to stay away from other meat products if I can help it.

I usually only eat one meal a day to begin with, with intermittent snacks

 

[mcz117chief]

I usually only eat one meal a day to begin with, with intermittent snacks

So like, no breakfast, lunch and dinner?

 

[materdolorosa]

So like, no breakfast, lunch and dinner?

Just dinner

 

[mcz117chief]

Just dinner

Love your avatar and name btw

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Guys, what is your opinion on fasting? Do you fast? How often and how much? For what reason do you fast? Some religious people I know don't like it and consider it self-harm therefore against the 5th in a sense. What about Fridays? Do you do any kind of fasting on Fridays? I usually eat fish on Friday and try to stay away from other meat products if I can help it.

I fast for health and for religious reasons. I don't follow any of the saints' days or pre-determine fasting periods. I'd encourage people to skip a meal or two and then perhaps try a longer fast if they feel the conviction to do so.

A religious fast should also be paired with time devoted to prayer and reflection, so it's kind of pointless to do if you are just going to be irritable and distracted throughout your entire day i.e. fast for a reason and do it privately.

 

[Wings 嫩翼翻せ]

I fast for health and for religious reasons. I don't follow any of the saints' days or pre-determine fasting periods. I'd encourage people to skip a meal or two and then perhaps try a longer fast if they feel the conviction to do so.

A religious fast should also be paired with time devoted to prayer and reflection, so it's kind of pointless to do if you are just going to be irritable and distracted throughout your entire day i.e. fast for a reason and do it privately.

Yeah basically this.

 

[the.acl]

My fasts usually start the day before, after I eat my last meal (Dinner), and end when I eat dinner the day of my fast. So essentially from sundown to sundown (more or less). How long isn't as important.

Edit: I do drink water during my fast

 

[mcz117chief]

so it's kind of pointless to do if you are just going to be irritable and distracted throughout your entire day i.e. fast for a reason and do it privately.

I remember it clear as day when my spirituality teacher told us this

 

[AngularSaxophone]

So what’s up with Pope Johanes or “pope Joan”? A woman really had a seat in the basilica? That’s right up there with the queen making little kids kiss her feet.

 

[Bolivar687]

So what’s up with Pope Johanes or “pope Joan”? A woman really had a seat in the basilica?

Of course not.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

A good reminder that even when someone is tied in with celebrities and seems pious, it may be nothing but a front for despicable behavior.

 

[Wings 嫩翼翻せ]

Disturbing. I had never heard of this man before... a Brazilian, huh? Quite interesting to watch, thanks for sharing.

 

[Shaqazooloo]

Pretty disgusting stuff.
How'd get away with it for so long?

 

[appaws]

I want to repost this here to get some more nuanced discussion of the concept of a married priesthood going. It's never going to happen in that other thread with the fedora clad spaghetti-monster squad.


None of the fellow Cats in this thread have answered my earlier question, perhaps it got lost in all the anti-Catholic bigotry. Now we all have to agree that it is not a dogmatic issue. The practice of priestly celibacy is not mandated by doctrine. It can be changed. We know the Orthodox have married priests. We have convert priests in the church married already. And we have a shockingly severe lack of vocations. So I want you guys to address the arguments, with a mind to the fact that we need priests.
So what do we do if we stick with priestly celibacy?

 

[the.acl]

I want to repost this here to get some more nuanced discussion of the concept of a married priesthood going. It's never going to happen in that other thread with the fedora clad spaghetti-monster squad.


None of the fellow Cats in this thread have answered my earlier question, perhaps it got lost in all the anti-Catholic bigotry. Now we all have to agree that it is not a dogmatic issue. The practice of priestly celibacy is not mandated by doctrine. It can be changed. We know the Orthodox have married priests. We have convert priests in the church married already. And we have a shockingly severe lack of vocations. So I want you guys to address the arguments, with a mind to the fact that we need priests.
So what do we do if we stick with priestly celibacy?

Not Catholic, but idk if I see it happening. Mostly because of tradition. I feel like Priests/Bishops/Cardinals would be opposed to it. Maybe they see celibacy as the price to pay to be 100% devoted and committed to the priesthood?

 

[Antoon]

Thats pretty interesting that this site has a dedicated Christian community. I was baptised when I was a toddler, but my family never took me to Sunday church, so I grew up with very little knowlegde on this religion. Only when I was around 16-17 that's when I became curious, since it all felt somewhat mystical and otherworldy for someone raised in an atheistic country such as Estonia (about 10% of the population is considered Christian).

 

[Shaqazooloo]

I grew up christian, but never really paid attention in church, I know the basics but thats about it. I really wish I had paid closer attention because over the past couple years i've gotten more and more interested and i've been thinking a lot about it. Still trying to get myself in gear and fully read the bible, but I definitely want to commit myself more to it.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I grew up christian, but never really paid attention in church, I know the basics but thats about it. I really wish I had paid closer attention because over the past couple years i've gotten more and more interested and i've been thinking a lot about it. Still trying to get myself in gear and fully read the bible, but I definitely want to commit myself more to it.

Read the Bible and spend time on prayer and reflection. Don't psyche yourself out trying to approach it "the right way".

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.​

 

[Bolivar687]

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[Dice]

Today's liturgical readings included 1 Corinthians 8:8-9:2, wherein Paul explains that while he understood what the idolatry of his time was, and thus also understood his freedom in Christ, he would willfully set it aside in the case of being in the company of a brother who was weaker in understanding of conscience, who may have interpreted his partaking in certain practices (in his case, eating food sacrificed to idols, which to Paul was only normal food since idols are imaginary gods) as affirmation or embrace of the idols of his surrounding society. It set on my mind the question: What of our own freedoms do we indeed have freedom to partake in, yet may incidentally be interpreted by the less discerning as affirmation of the various forms of idolatry in our culture?

Paul took this thought very seriously and willingly bore responsibility of the implications of his actions in the conscience of others, even if mistaken, so as to care most fully about what his use of freedom resulted in with regard to the life of his brother. He speaks of this as a way of sinning against our brother unto his destruction. In our individualistic, rationalizing, freedom-over-all society, do we ever think this way? Do we have concern over what sort of things we inadvertently encourage by what we partake in around others who partake in them with a very different understanding?

 

[mcz117chief]

Today's liturgical readings included 1 Corinthians 8:8-9:2, wherein Paul explains that while he understood what the idolatry of his time was, and thus also understood his freedom in Christ, he would willfully set it aside in the case of being in the company of a brother who was weaker in understanding of conscience, who may have interpreted his partaking in certain practices (in his case, eating food sacrificed to idols, which to Paul was only normal food since idols are imaginary gods) as affirmation or embrace of the idols of his surrounding society. It set on my mind the question: What of our own freedoms do we indeed have freedom to partake in, yet may incidentally be interpreted by the less discerning as affirmation of the various forms of idolatry in our culture?

Paul took this thought very seriously and willingly bore responsibility of the implications of his actions in the conscience of others, even if mistaken, so as to care most fully about what his use of freedom resulted in with regard to the life of his brother. He speaks of this as a way of sinning against our brother unto his destruction. In our individualistic, rationalizing, freedom-over-all society, do we ever think this way? Do we have concern over what sort of things we inadvertently encourage by what we partake in around others who partake in them with a very different understanding?

I would think that parents do. If I understand it correctly we try to behave differently around children because of how quickly they pick up on things they do not yet understand themselves. All the world's a stage and we all play our parts, so we put on different masks when we interact with people often to hide our flaws or vices. Then of course you always have people who will interpret your behavior in their own way thinking you support something you actually don't. At that point it really is up to the individual how s/he deals with it. Do you actively seek out these people and try to explain your actions to them? Do you just wait it out hoping that the person will come around on his/her own? Or do you just not care that much about opinions of others? Always listen to your conscience and you will be fine (unless you are morally bankrupt).

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Today's liturgical readings included 1 Corinthians 8:8-9:2, wherein Paul explains that while he understood what the idolatry of his time was, and thus also understood his freedom in Christ, he would willfully set it aside in the case of being in the company of a brother who was weaker in understanding of conscience, who may have interpreted his partaking in certain practices (in his case, eating food sacrificed to idols, which to Paul was only normal food since idols are imaginary gods) as affirmation or embrace of the idols of his surrounding society. It set on my mind the question: What of our own freedoms do we indeed have freedom to partake in, yet may incidentally be interpreted by the less discerning as affirmation of the various forms of idolatry in our culture?

Paul took this thought very seriously and willingly bore responsibility of the implications of his actions in the conscience of others, even if mistaken, so as to care most fully about what his use of freedom resulted in with regard to the life of his brother. He speaks of this as a way of sinning against our brother unto his destruction. In our individualistic, rationalizing, freedom-over-all society, do we ever think this way? Do we have concern over what sort of things we inadvertently encourage by what we partake in around others who partake in them with a very different understanding?

This section ("meat sacrificed to idols") offers a dual lesson for me. One the one hand, we shouldn't use our freedom in a way that causes others to stumble, but we also shouldn't let Pharisaical laws swallow up our daily walk with Christ. Earlier in the chapter we are warned that "knowledge puffs up while love builds up". The rightness of our behavior is framed by how it affects others.

I always felt this was unfair. After all, I knew it was just "meat sacrificed to idols", nothing genuinely wrong.

Yet, my daily goal isn't to merely get by and complete the day. I'm supposed to be a light. It reframes the conversation. The issue isn't so much "is this right or wrong according to the strict rules of the law?". The question is "am I exercising considerate love towards others when I partake in this behavior?"

 

[-Minsc-]

Asking to be saved by Jesus is something I don't feel I'd be sincere in doing. Coming with nothing to offer. Lets see if my brain can process that one.

 

[Thurible]

Happy Ash Wednesday everyone! Has anyone made a lenten resolution yet?

 

[Bolivar687]

Just wanted to share a couple thoughts to update the thread:

1. Pope Benedict Breaks His Silence

Full text of Benedict XVI essay: 'The Church and the scandal of sexual abuse'

A new essay from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI explores the nature of the Church's current sexual abuse crisis. Here is the full text.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

Pope Benedict shared an essay last week offering his experience with the abuse crisis, following the summit in Rome last February. He points to a convergence of three phenomena that coincided in the 1960s: 1) the sexual revolution, especially in Europe; 2) the changes to Vatican II and the lowered standards for the formation of priests; and 3) the abandonment by mainstream Catholic theologians of St. Thomas Aquinas' natural law, in favor of relativism. When the crisis reached its crescendo in the 80s, Pope Benedict was the leader of a group formally known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which is a euphemism for what it really is - the Roman Inquisition. Because the abuse cases became so numerous and were taking so long to resolve, the Vatican began assigning some of the proceedings to the CDF. Benedict says the Church's canon law leaned too heavily in the direction of protecting the accused. This is of course a hallmark of Western law, but he feared (appropriately as the head of the CDF) that it did not sufficiently prioritize protecting the Faith. This is both the salvific Faith of the Church with its mission offering reconciliation to the world, as well as the Faith of individual believers, especially those who were victimized by the crisis.

The essay ends with a call to create habitats of faith, safe havens where we can allow Jesus to enter into our lives.

2. Pete Buttigieg's last gasp of American Protestantism

Pete Buttigieg’s Abortion Extremism Hurts His Religious Appeal | National Review

He has zero appeal to religious conservatives because he holds to the Democratic party line on the right to kill viable, living unborn babies.

www.nationalreview.com

A lot of publications have been talking about the South Bend mayor in the recent news media cycle. What's striking is that they are talking about him within the context of religion. I honestly believe this is to counterbalance how alienating the current trajectory of Democrat policy has become. Earlier this year, a poll found more Americans were beginning to shift their views on abortion, in light of the radical late-term abortion legislation popping up around the country. It seems the media see Buttigieg as a means of alleviating hesitancy by blue collar, working class districts, or at least the idea of a Buttigieg to provide a veneer to party.

His statements embody a diluted Christianity tethered to the idea of a merciful Jesus, but ultimately leaves the final say on morality up to the individual, not Christ. This is not biblical. From the beginning of Genesis, God promulgates rules to bring us into a closer relationship with him, which human beings reject because they cannot fully appreciate or understand, or at least find difficult to live up to. I suspect a lot of Americans sympathize with his perspective - it's the hallmark of mainline American protestantism. And it isn't sustainable - mainline protestantism is the most rapidly deteriorating subgroup in American life. Meanwhile, Catholics are seeing a rise in traditional Latin Mass parishes, in which parishioners, almost down to the last one, fully embrace the orthodox teachings of the Church. It'll be interesting to see if his rhetoric finds purchase as we head into debates and early primaries.

3. "What is Truth?"

I've been reading Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth, Volume 2: Holy Week for Lent. In the first volume, he hints that he will ultimately propose a troubling thesis, that modern man is no longer capable of understanding the significance of the Crucifixion. He finally delivers this idea in Chapter Seven, the Trial of Jesus, in part 3, Jesus before PIlate, when Christ tells Pilate he came to testify to truth, and everyone on the side of truth listens to him. Pilate enigmatically asks, "What is Truth?" Benedict responds:

It is the question that is also asked by modern political theory: Can politics accept truth as a structural category? Or must truth, as something unattainable, be relegated to the subjective sphere, its place taken by an attempt to build peace and justice using whatever instruments are available to power? By relying on truth, does not politics, in view of the impossibility of attaining consensus on truth, make itself a tool of particular traditions that in reality are merely forms of holding on to power?​

​

Pilate, as representative of the state, is not capable of understanding genuine, objective Truth. In politics, we proceed under the assumption that neither side can agree to the truth. Politicking is the means by which we mediate from a dispute on truth towards a consensus/concession that both sides can ultimately live with.

Of course, the danger comes when we embrace ideology, when we convince ourselves of the lie that our side is the exclusive custodian of the truth, across all issues. I like to think that when I was zealously Democrat, I must have understood, even on a subconscious level, that this was a lie. I don't have a party anymore, and I try not to pretend that I have it all figured out. I try to listen to anyone who has good evidence and logical conclusions, to help better shape my own opinions.

We recently had a thread in Politics where Arkage proposed an exclusively human understanding of Jesus. Arkage is what I call one of "the usual suspects" - dogmatically Democrat across the board, up and down on every issue. It's no surprise that he falls into Benedict's stereotype. He's not capable of listening to Jesus' words outside of their political implications. And it takes him to a place that is far removed from the message of the Gospel.

4. Holy Week

This is the end of Lent. I've struggled, suffered, and I've failed, but I hope I somehow come out of it having grown. I hope everyone has an incredible Easter, and that we each progress on our faith journey through the rest of the year.

 

[Bolivar687]

Interesting graphic I found:

 

[mcz117chief]

Very interesting. What could be the reason for this? Is the father figure a more potent anchor for children when it comes to faith? What do you think could be the reason?

 

[mcz117chief]

Hey, guys. Some ladies came to me and told me that they found Jesus' tomb empty so we went to check it out and it really is empty!

He has risen!
Hallelujah, hallelujah!

 

[Kamina]

Happy Easter!

 

[Bolivar687]

He is risen!

 

[Ailynn]

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Happy Easter everyone. He is risen, indeed.