If you wanted to know the real reason why the CDF released the latest document, a commentator for CNN says:
Just chalk it up to an old man trying to get a little attention.
My favorite part of this ex-Catholic’s idiotic commentary is:
It doesn’t matter what Pope Benedict XVI has to say, or for that matter, any other religious leader. A Christian believes in Jesus Christ and what He had to say, not what a man of God has to say. This is not an attempt to completely dismiss religious leaders, but is further evidence of what happens when ego is more important than the work of Christ.
And then of course doesn’t see the problem with quoting the Bible in the next paragraph since now we are to listen to what this man of God has to say.
Oh and remember that Catholics are not encouraged to read the scriptures even though scripture reading is indulgenced or that Catholics hear more scripture at Mass then the average Protestant Church.
Jimmy Akin is up in arms and wants to write a response to this.
84 comments
Michelle, Why such angst. I know more about the history of my church then most of my catholic friends. Its only the people on these blogs that reminds me that some catholics care about there faith.
You said that how can I be protestant if I do not even know the history of the RC Church. Are you now saying that one has to know the history of the RC Church in order to be saved? Fascinating, I can see how your logic would also lead you to believe that you cannot confess your sins directly to God. Instead you must confess them to another imperfect human, who can forgive your sins. Tell me, who fogives your priests sins? Who forgives the Pope’s sins. I was merely asking for information and you had to get all defensive. Fascinating.
I don’t see where Michelle was exhibiting “angst” or being “defensive”.
“…I can see how your logic would also lead you to believe that you cannot confess your sins directly to God.”
Huh?
Priests and the Pope make confession too…
I was just going to say, Wes, that priests and the Pope go to confession too.
Nobody knows, really, why Jesus chose to trust fallible human beings with the judgment about sins. It is not at all an easy mystery to understand. But, do you dispute that John 20:22 is an authentic biblical passage?
NOT TO WORRY.YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE A CATHOLIC TO GO TO HEAVEN BUT ONCE YOU GET THERE (WE HOPE)YOU WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE A CATHOLIC YEAH.THAT’S TRUE!!!
.
I don’t dispute the passage in John. But if we keep your logic then take the same logic into the passage in Matthew 6:14,15 “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” Do you see my point. That would mean we all can forgive each others sins, not just the priests. Secondly, what about the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6. Why would Jesus teach us to pray to him “forgive us our sins” if he could not do it directly for us? Lastly look at 1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human.” Jesus’ death gives us direct connection between God and ourselves. That’s why the Protestant Church stresses a close relationship between God and the believer. Again I am no scholar, but just seeking and defending truths that I hold dear.
Eric said:
“If religious people are spiritual and being spiritual “doesn’t do anyone any good”, then why be part of a religion?”
Those are some profound logical acrobatics.
Why do we confess to a priest and not to God directly? The question is wrong. Christ is present in all the sacraments and it is him who does the sacrament and the priest is the instrument. I should also point out that we CAN and do confess sins outside of the sacrament. Anyone who does a tradtional catholic evening examination of conscience does this. Forgiveness is of course available outside the sacrament, but the problem is most of us have tangled minds and are always second-guessing ourselves whether we confessed properly, are truly forgiven, etc. God throughtout the Bible never leaves us in such an abstract, quasi-gnostic world and always works with us in the real world. This is in the form of another living, actual human being authorized to forgive sins in His name. This is one giant piece of good news because it in a manner of speaking it sets up a lower court in which God has promised not to overrule their absolutions. Now my confessions are not just a mind game, but a real thing.
Wes, I do hope that, as you said, you are sincerely asking for information and are not trying to prove Catholics wrong. I’ll take you just once again on your word…
Catholics don’t deny that forgiveness comes from God in Jesus Christ. We just have a communal sense about it. The Lord’s Prayer doesn’t say, “Forgive us our sins DIRECTLY”; it says “Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.” In other words, there is a human factor involved in the process. The same occurs in the passage from Mt 6:14-15: If you forgive me, then God will forgive you. (Not: if you forgive me, God forgives me too–which is how you are reading it.)
–Do you deny that the apostles had special authority in the Gospels?
–What do you think the passage in John 20 means?
–What do you think about Paul’s relationship to the Corinthians, including the man who was immoral?
–Is individualism part of the Biblical teaching? Or is the relationship among the members of the Church seen as important?
–“Remember your leaders who spoke the Word of God to you. Consider how their lives ended and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching.” (I would include under “strange teaching” the radical individualism that is a much different kind of living Christianity than is written in the New Testament.)
–“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord�s death until He comes.”
I am a convert to the Catholic church who studied church history, both Catholic and Protestant, for years and went from church to church to find which one Christ actually started. I knew they could not all be right, since they all told you different things on just about every point of doctrine or behavior. Also, I found every one of the teachings of the Catholic Church in, or implied in, the Bible, contrary to what most Protestants told me.
Everytime one person leaves the Catholic Church another comes in. Thank God for Pope Benedict!
Where else can you find the Real Presence of Christ? John 6 is the only text of the Bible not taken literally (as Jesus intended and reiterated) by our brothers.
I believe God did give the Apostles special powers in the Gospels. I believe the Apostles used this as a way of evangelizing and ministering. But it is a reach of interpretation to apply that to present day Bishops/Priests. It never says in the Bible to confess you must confess your sins to a person of the church. I understand we all must forgive each other which is great. And I believe we must confess to those we sin against. However,what scott is saying about this special sacrement is never mentioned by Christ. It was set up later on in the RC Church.
Again it is one interpretation to say that in verse Matthew 16:18 Jesus was setting up the guidelines for a pope. You could see that anyone outside of the RC church would think that is simply a stretch of interpretation. No where does he say that there is one head of the church who will make all the decisions for the church. To trust in one mans decisions is folly, since he to is human and sins like us. For the most part I agree with the Pope’s teaching. I just believe the main differences between the RC church and the Protestant church are their interpretation of the bible.
“Again it is one interpretation to say that in verse Matthew 16:18 Jesus was setting up the guidelines for a pope.”
It’s not just “one interpretation”. Its the one all of the Apostles decided to run with. What with their God-given responsibilities and all.
That’s the problem with mass interpreting. 20,000 churches is not what the Jesus nor the Apostles had in mind. Especially where we have such things as Councils and hierarchy as depicted even in the Bible. Or would you grant more authority to that guy with a Bible in your living room than Peter, Paul, etc.?
As for the difference between the injunction to forgive and the God-given power to forgive (necessitating confession), one must realize that sin cries out against both man and God. You are called to forgive, hence addressing the harm done to man. And yet man must confess to a priest as a liaison of God, in order to repair the relationship with God. Confessing “directly” to God does not have the manifest advantage of sacramental grace. There is power in the forms of the rituals, such as confession. If not, then what is the point of gathering together in worship services when one can pray in his own house?
“No, but it would seriously reduce them.”
Right. As if an aggravated German dictator would stop his armies from conquering if he suddenly found out there was no God or religion (oh, wait, that’s what he wanted). Stalin would quiver in fear of godlessness and lack of religion and stop his mindless massacre of those who didn’t get with his atheist/materialist program.
You want to know the only major ruler of a burgeoning superpower to put a stop to all activities of conquest by his subjects for the sake of a moral/philosophical question that needed to be thought over and answered? That’s right. Emperor Charles V (or Charles I to Spaniards), ruler of the Holy Roman Empire and Spain. Some Christian king so caught up in his religion that when some pesky bishop demanded that he consider the natives of the colonies as fully rational human beings, he stopped all official acts of colonial expansion just to answer that question and come up with the appropriate policies. (Result: Law of the Indies forbidding enslavement of American natives, as well as conversion by the sword, aka, why my ancestors were never slaves.) And to think Stalin would’ve put such a bishop in a gulag. Long live dialectical materialism, I guess….
Your point’s a whole lot of hooey. And the only point this will prove, Eric, is that you’re all bluster and no wisdom. And that the Church needs better religious instruction in her schools, if the result is…well…you.
It also never says in the Bible that the Bible is the sole rule of Faith.
JonathanR, my point are not only validated, but made stronger when you result to name-calling.
I’m not sure why you have such a facination with Hitler and Stalin, however; the atrocities perpetrated on the natives of North America (as Eathan posted earlier), and in those perpetrated in the crusades, and those perpetrated in the wave of terrorism currently sweeping the planet were/are fueled by religion.
Andy, you should read the whole post before you comment. Those were not my words, but the words of your brethern.
Actually, the thing that has caused the most bloodshed, death, and suffering over the ages has been property and resources. Therefore, let us abolish all property and turn it over to the Government.
Except that, without a doubt, government has caused the most war in all of history – not to mention all the disputes over who was in charge of the government.
Just a reality-check here. 😉
//however; the atrocities perpetrated on the natives of North America (as Eathan posted earlier), and in those perpetrated in the crusades, and those perpetrated in the wave of terrorism currently sweeping the planet were/are fueled by religion.//
There’s one of the problems with lumping anything that can be called “religion” in one basket – if they’re all the same, they’re all responsible for each others actions – thus resulting in absurdities like the genocidal actions of the Protestant (for it was more strongly Protestant in principle at the time) United States and violence commited by Muslim extremists being turned into a stick to use against Catholics.
Oh, I missed the previous comment, R. Fact is, most of the atrocities committed against Native Americans was over land and gold, not about religion at all. In fact, the viceroys weren’t dispatched until AFTER a monk (de las Casas) and other religious fanatics sent dispatches to the Spanish court about the atrocities of the conquistadores. De las Casas’ main claims were these 1) the native people were God’s children and thus deserved protection under the law and 2) because the King ruled the colonies, the native people had the same rights to education as did other citizens.
Of course, if you really knew about pre-Colombian people, you’d know that many tribes (or nations) had been warring with each other for years. The native people of Michigan still tell stories of the extinction (in other words, complete decimation) of a people who lived on Mackinaw Island. This was prior to white men arriving. When Fr. Marquette arrived, he was instrumental in gathering the scattered people of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and making peace between them and their mortal enemies in Wisconsin.
Really, what annoys me about the “Christians killed the Native Americans” narrative is that 1) it lumps all the First Nations and their histories into one group without recognizing the distinctions between them that are as profound as the differences between France and England, and 2) it refuses to acknowledge that the Europeans were interested in RESOURCES and thus the Native Americans were misused because of materialism, not religious fervor. (And I’m not even getting into the differences between the approach of Catholic, Anglican, etc. missionaries. Here’s a hint: Look at which ones conducted marriage ceremonies between Europeans and Native Americans, and which didn’t.)
“JonathanR, my point are not only validated, but made stronger when you result to name-calling.
I’m not sure why you have such a facination with Hitler and Stalin, however; the atrocities perpetrated on the natives of North America (as Eathan posted earlier), and in those perpetrated in the crusades, and those perpetrated in the wave of terrorism currently sweeping the planet were/are fueled by religion.”
Err…no. No point of yours is validated once the stupidity of your entire point is exposed, no matter the indignation your little ego feels. It may validate the point that says there ought to be a law against name-calling (hah!), but not a point that says ALL RELIGION SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!!!1111 Apparently, Catholic schools need to step up teaching logic too, if you’re any indication.
As for the atrocities of the European colonists, most of their casualties came as a result of disease unwittingly introduced by the European populace, rather than any systematic abuse. And where there was systematic abuse, it was perpetrated by the State, not the Church. In fact, the treatment of native Americans has been the cause of much head-butting between Church and State. (See for example, Archbishop Bartolome de las Casas and Father Francisco de Vitoria compelling the Spanish Crown to cease its awful treatment of colonized peoples.) And even then, all that is dwarfed by the millions systematically destroyed by such atheist niceties as dialectical materialism. So, if you’re looking for a scourge of the earth, religion is pretty weak sauce.
“Actually, the thing that has caused the most bloodshed, death, and suffering over the ages has been property and resources. Therefore, let us abolish all property and turn it over to the Government.”
ROFLOL!!!
Yeah, I got your proletariat revolution right here.
Oh, and the casualties to innocents during the entirety of the Crusades is but a year’s work to Uncle Joe and his pet revolution.
Fortunately for religion, its attempts at large scale violence have been checked by lack of means, small numbers of members or targets, or outsider intervention.
Look at Yugoslavia during WWII, the reason the Pius blessed and tolerated Ustashi movement failed to massacre its Serbian populace was not some religious morality, but the intervention of the Partisans, Italian Army, and even the Nazis who were appalled at the misbehavior of their loyal Catholic allies.
If the Crusades repeated today, with the advantages of modern government and weaponry, among the world’s ballooned populations, the body count would be horrific.
I think some people need to get an education on the actual document at hand: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
It’s ok jonathanr, let go of all the anger and hostility. You’ll feel much better once you let it all out. You are so angry that you are insulting other people that are actually agreeing with you. So, if there are anymore names you would like to call me, go ahead, I’ll be your sounding board. That way the healing can begin and we can get back to discussing the points that you have been avoiding by calling me names.
Jeff,
Thanks for your commentary. I have a feeling CNN’s going to have a problem in the next few days with Martin’s commentary, you know, from these followers of the “old man.”
Why not go read the Bible and see what it tells you and not what somebody else tells you. If you’re really searching for something, it’ll be there.
Why not go read the Bible and see what it tells you and not what somebody else tells you?
What constitutes the Bible and how do you know? Whether you use the Catholic or Protestant canon, your concept of what the Bible is is determined by reference to authority.
Eric, stop being condescending. Jonathan has been addressing your points.
How about the gospels?
I’m amazed that it took so long for someone to mention the modern-day slaughter of the innocents as an example of the atrocities committed, not in the name of religion, but in the name of humanism, of compassion, and (to play the Margaret Sanger card) in the name of improving the breed. Of course, to abortion we can also attach euthanasia. If it’s just a numbers game people want to play vis a vis the destructive power of religion, take a look at the number of people murdered each year in the womb, against which atrocity the Church has firmly and will continue firmly to respond. And, in a gesture of ecumenism, I include not only the Catholic pro-lifers, but all those who believe that life is precious and should be defended (yes, and there are Atheists for Life, and Feminists for Life, and Jews for Life, et. al.). Let’s stop dredging up the Crusades and the Inquisition for a minute, and look at a real, contemporary case of violence perpetrated not in the name of God or of religion, but in the name if “choice.”
AJF,
Good points! I would add in the name of Health, Social Responsibility, and of all things, according to many politicians, “Family Life”! Yes, in the name of Health we must “eliminate” unwanted (ugh!) children, for the good of the world community we must be thrifty regarding reproduction or sacrifice i altogether, and in the name of Family Life we must kill the youngest family members.
How about the gospels?
What do you mean by that?
First of all, I would like to say that I was raised as a Catholic but found it too narrow minded and eventually abandoned the idea of religion altogether. Like all human things religions, like goverments and many other things have had their bad and good sides the main problem comes with people believing so blindly in what the authority figures (religion, govertment, etc) say that they forget to ask themselves whether what they are being asked to do is good or not.
I think the idea of outlawing religion is extreme and uncalled for. However, I must say that I would suggest that the desicion should ultimately be let up to the individual and religions should stop forcing their beliefs on other people. Nothing wrong with exposing people to your ideas as long as you let them exercise their free will to choose.
Furthermore, a lot of the points based here are talking about the legitimacy of the bible. I believe many of the things written there have great validity and should be a guideline on how to live our lifes, but I do not believe it should be taken as the sole indicator. Also, the bible is not the only book that claims to be stem from God, the Koran and many other books have similar claims. I, again, think they all should be taken as guidelines, but as everything that is touched by human hands and time different, versions and interpretations; either caused by people trying to distort the writings to their purposes, in the process of translating them or many other things; have changed over time.
As to the question of atrocities, mankind has never had a lack of excuses to kill one another, religion, goverment and greed are but few of them. Tolerance is the key to stop this, nothing more, nothing less.
Well, these are my thoughts in the matter, God (or any higher power, if you believe in anything) bless you all.
AGC, how did you develop your ethical system? Is it “good?” If so, what do mean by “good?”
AGC: Do you believe that Jesus is God Incarnate? If you don’t, how do you logically explain him?