Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 600

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 724

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 57

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/cache.php on line 404
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » More Vatican Idiocy

It’s exasperating, we tell you.

Every time we get all worked up about a Pope that actually “gets it” for once, some inane bull like this (via IB Hot Air) comes along to make us want to slam our Imperial Head against the wall. Or the head of the Holy Father. But since ours is the only head we have handy, we’ll just have to make do with that.

*THUNK!*

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Pope Benedict XVI is following events in the Middle East with great concern because “the latest dramatic events” risk “degenerating into a conflict with international repercussions,” said Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Vatican secretary of state.

“Great concern”, “dramatic events”, “risk of escalation”… OK So far, nothing but the blatantly obvious here, the obligatory nonsense with absolutely no substance at all. Next, he’ll tell us that war can be very violent. Nothing to get our Imperial blood pressure worked up over.

But then we descend into unholy madness:

Cardinal Sodano said, “As in the past, the Holy See condemns both terrorist attacks on one side and military reprisals on the other.”

Because, clearly, defending yourself against military and unprovoked aggression is JUST AS BAD as deliberately peppering civilian neighborhoods with Katyushas, or “Stalin organs” as we prefer to call them. Both are completely and equally unacceptable, according to the Vatican.

There must be some mentally deleterious effect from walking around in the hot Italian summer sun with one of those absurdly comical oversized tea cozies on your noggin.

You think that’s bad? Ha! You ain’t seen nothing yet!:

In fact, a state’s right to defend itself does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards safeguarding civilian populations.

Er… Are we witnessing yet another ClueBereft Clusterfuck uttering his opinion on something that he obviously knows nothing about? Yes, we do believe that we are. There are quite a few things that norms and laws and customs of war say about safeguarding civilian populations, among which one of the most important ones are “don’t hide behind civilians dressed up like one or you WILL immediately lose all of your ‘rights’.”

Somebody once came up with this brilliant idea since it occurred to him that making fair game of anybody who increases the risk of civilian casualties by using them as camouflage might serve as a deterrent. Along the lines of “do that, and you’ll be strung up immediately upon capture, no questions asked, no pleas heard or considered.” Not to mention that somebody also realized that making rules against hitting such subhuman slime if they decided to use civilians as human shields would make it literally impossible to fight back. Which, again, would make the targets of terrorists and other scum ignoring the rules nothing but sitting ducks with no recourse to self-defense.

Oh, and which part of “dropping leaflets over target areas in advance of bombardments, urging everybody to get the Hell out of Dodge” don’t the senile old skunks in the Vatican understand? We believe that this falls under “safeguarding civilian populations”, to the point where you’re actually handing the actual enemy a battlefield advantage rather than risk innocent loss of life. And that’s just one example.

More honest version of Cardinal Cluck’s demented droolings: “A state’s right to defend itself does not allow it to, well, defend itself. Unless it can do so with absolute guarantee that nobody anywhere, ever, under any circumstances, might get hurt as a result. The ones dying as a result of Hezbollah’s continued bombardments? They’re just more of those pesky Jooos that we’ve had it in for since G-d knows when. They’ll just have to sit down and take it. And this time do the Joo-extermination right so we don’t, once more, have to pretend that we’re sorry 60 years later. Damn, but that was embarrassing!”

“In particular, the Holy See deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation,” he said,

The Unholy Blind obviously don’t give much of a shit about the terrorist attacks upon the free and sovereign nation of Israel coming out of Lebanon. Then again, they’re only Jooos. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

…adding that the Vatican is close to the Lebanese people, “who already have suffered much to defend their independence.”

Supposing, of course, that one calls being run by proxy from Damascus while foreign terrorists use your territory as a base for mass murder “independence”.

Cardinal Sodano said the current tensions in the Middle East demonstrate that “the only path worthy of our civilization is that of sincere dialogue between the parties concerned.”

Why don’t you go to Lebanon and tell Hezbollah that? Then, once they’ve all agreed to take terrorism off the table, you can go to Iran and tell the same to Ahmadinnerjacket. And then, finally, we can all lean back and have a hearty laugh as you’re stoned by the frothing fundamentalists that you and your fellow morons never miss a chance to kneel before.

“Dialogue” our Imperial ass.

So far, Israel has offered plenty of that, along with territorial concessions and jizya to the terrorist swamps on their borders, and the only “dialogue” they’ve gotten in return is Kassams, Katyushas, Kidnappings and Kamelfuckers blowing themselves up in Kindergartens.

And still all those obnoxious fuckheads in the Vatican have to say is for Israel to sit down and accept more of the same or be faced with the condemnation of the “Holy” Father.

Hey, Benedict: Find your Bible if, much to our surprise, you still have one. Then look up the bits having to do with covenants, the Chosen People and what happens to those who condemn them and side with their enemies.

Then drop down on your arthritic knees and start praying for mercy.

HARD!

89 Responses to “More Vatican Idiocy”
  1. MCaN Comment by MCaN UNITED STATES

    Some days, its hard to be Catholic. Thankfully I can think for myself. I would REALLY like to see the rationale behind such a statement. I’ve heard that the Church is moving towards recognizing that the Jews are our ancestors in faith and such, but maybe I’m too open-minded and optimistic.

  2. MCaN Comment by MCaN UNITED STATES

    oh, and first!

  3. Unregistered Trackback by NIF UNITED STATES

    Self, meet saddle?…

    Today’s (lon overdue) dose of NIF - Hey, look … I found my blog!…

  4. Unregistered Comment by twolaneflash UNITED STATES

    The Pope, from what I’ve been told, is infallible only in matters of Faith. A Catholic friend once asked me how many calculus questions the Pope would have to answer correctly to prove infallibility. I answered: “None. Faith has nothing to do with calculus.” My friend told me I understood more than most Catholics. In the same vein, the Pope should stay out of politics and war. He is entering the realm of celebs holding court on matters beyond their expertise and ability. Pope, please pray; Hollywood, go make a movie, a good one this time.

  5. Puddle Pirate Comment by Puddle Pirate UNITED STATES

    If you think this is bad, you shoulda heard the drivel on NPR today. Makes you want to just beat your head against something solid until unconsciousness, I tell you.
    My primary interest in occasional listening stems from ‘know thine enemy’, but sometimes I just have to turn it off. NPR plus Los Angeles traffic produces a level of blood pressure that is exceedingly unhealthy.
    They ought to just rename themselves National Democratic Party Radio and get it over with. The level of stupidity regularly exhibited is so extreme that I have serious questions on how a lot of these people manage to get dressed in the morning or continue regular breathing patterns without prompting.
    They had people on this afternoon who were not only strongly advocating an immediate cease-fire, they also suggested that Israel should engage in dialogue with Hezbolla and conduct prisoner exchanges. And they were serious.
    Roughly the equivalent of having your next-door neighbor break into your house, shoot your pets, and kidnap some of your children, and then being told that you should UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES allow the police SWAT team to sort things out, and that you should instead simply continue to pay the kidnapper whatever they want.
    Like I said, how someone manages to hold these kinds of opinions and still find ways to obtain food is beyond me.
    But it gets better.
    In addition to this pathetic insanity, the group consensus on a final peace-keeping solution seems to be……
    Have Iran and Syria enforce a safe zone on the Israeli border.
    Folks, you can’t make this shit up.

  6. MCaN Comment by MCaN UNITED STATES

    Oh damn, and I have to listen to that asinine drivel at work tomorrow (I work at a NPR member station as a student board operator….) and twolane, yes, you do understand more than many Catholics, and most non-Catholics, thank you.

  7. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    *puts down gas can*

    I’m not saying anyting.

    Nothing at all.

    Nope, not one word.

    This ain’t a fire that I can put out.

  8. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    In the same vein, the Pope should stay out of politics and war. He is entering the realm of celebs holding court on matters beyond their expertise and ability. Pope, please pray; Hollywood, go make a movie, a good one this time.

    Couldn’t have said that better myself.

    If everybody would just stick to their jobs.

    Still, I DO believe that Benedict might benefit from doing a bit of reading on the subjects I mentioned at the end, because that is something that he is supposed to be an authority on.

  9. MCaN Comment by MCaN UNITED STATES

    I concur, Misha, he is supposed to work to bring the kingdom of Heaven to earth, but I think he’s going about it in the wrong fashon. Pacifism hasn’t worked in a long time, and the Bible (along with the Tradition of the Church) has had many completely reasonable examples of self-defense.

  10. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    he is supposed to work to bring the kingdom of Heaven to earth,

    Um…wrong.

    If he actually checked that Book he’s supposed to be The Supreme Earthly Authority on, he’d know he CAN’T bring about Heaven on Earth.

    Jesus does that.

    Of course, since the RCC hasn’t been Christian for about 1600 years, I’d hardly expect him to know that.

    And, no, that’s not an inflammatory comment from me. The RCC has been tried before. There was ANOTHER religion, with almost exactly the same tenets, doctrines and beleifs about 4000 years ago. It came out of Babylon. That’s all I need to know about it. The RCC has been tried before, and it wasn’t Christian then, and it isn’t now.

    I STILL do not hate Catholics. It’s the RCC I can’t stand. It is NOT my fault the RCC is lying to the laiety. There are a lot of Christians who attend Catholic Mass, and then, there a the Catholics. There is a difference between the two.

  11. Beth* A. Comment by Beth* A. UNITED STATES

    some mentally deleterious effect from walking around in the hot Italian summer sun with one of those absurdly comical oversized tea cozies on your noggin.

    Tea cozies! Mental picture! :lol:

    a state’s right to defend itself does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards safeguarding civilian populations.

    So, as the state -
    we CAN, but we MUSTn’t, but if we DID, (and we oughtta!) then NOEFFINGWAYABSOLUTELYNOT!

    My head hurts. No wonder logic is so hard for some to learn, so few examples are actually available on this planet. Instead you get mad-ass-hattery like this.

    Kassams, Katyushas,(and) Kidnappings

    , oh my!

    …and Kamelfuckers … in Kindergartens

    60 years of attempting to be, if not the most sociable neighbor on the block, at least the one who mows regularly, keeps the noise level down most days and stops his dog from doing his business in the next yard over. Got a beef with the property boundaries? “Heck, we’ll even lose some land if you would just shut the Hell up and leave us alone!” Yet all that diplomatic effort has bought Israel was a “give us an inch… hah!, instead we’ll take several miles, your Zionist pig riding lawn mower, and you and you and YOU!” response. And a (very) little time. All summed up in a line that’s nearly impossible to say 5 times real fast.

    Israel has long since earned better for it’s people.

  12. Unregistered Comment by peterobinson UNITED STATES

    speaking of levels of drivel, there’s a laff-riot take-off about just why the NYT & co-conspirator MSM have been so “seemingly” traitorous:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/rove_secretly_runs_the_new_yor.html

  13. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte

    In the same vein, the Pope should stay out of politics and war.

    Everytime the Church sticks its nose into politics, it comes out the worse. You would think that the Church leadership would have figured that out by now.

  14. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/rove_secretly_runs_the_new_yor.html

    Peter, is that satire, or just stupidity?

  15. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Well, it DOES say “SatireNewsService” in the byline, DK ;)

  16. LCBrendan Comment by LCBrendan AUSTRALIA

    *looks at flameproof suit*

    *notes holes and damaged fittings*

    Nope…me neither.

    Devildog, wait up will you?..I wanna coffee and a donut.Theres a cafe down the road we ought to try,…

  17. Xystus Comment by Xystus

    So much, I suppose, for His Rottieness’s interest in possible conversion….

  18. LC_Salgak Comment by LC_Salgak UNITED STATES

    Looks like you’re either with God’s Chosen People, or against them. Shouldn’t be a hard decision, considering Who has their back. . . (evil gron)

  19. I hate liberals Comment by I hate liberals UNITED STATES

    Maybe this pope has a problem with Israel because he was a nazi at one time.

  20. friendlygrizzly Comment by friendlygrizzly UNITED STATES

    Maybe Mr Ratzinger is having flashbacks to his days in the Hitler Youth? Then again, the Mr Infallible they had during the times of the 12 year Reich didn’t lift a finger either, so it is all of a piece with policy I suppose…

  21. cmblake6 Comment by cmblake6 UNITED STATES

    You know that expression ” ” oh never mind. Cute doesn’t help this lunacy. Bloody fucking HELL! How do they GET these idiots in positions of power? Another piece of the world that really needs to be a radioactive smoking ashtray! SHIT!

  22. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    Devildog:

    Being that he is the Universal Head of the Church, one of his duties is to bring about the kingdom of God. As per the Our Father: ‘thy kingdom come’

    I wasn’t meaning its possible to make earth like heaven, but that we are supposed to make the world as safe/holy/etc as possible.

    I hate liberals/friendlygrizzly:

    Not to be an ass, but please think for yourself. What Pope Pius XII did in WWII was commendable: smuggling Jews through the Vatican, condemning the attacks Germany carried out at risk of his own life from Mussolini, and offered 15 kilograms of gold to pay a ransom for Jews in Rome. Just reading the statements made by the Jewish leadership after the war implies that they were exceedingly naive or were truely grateful to the Vatican for help.

  23. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    addendum: said instances are by no means all inclusive, just what I could find good evidence for in a brief google search

  24. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte

    Maybe this pope has a problem with Israel because he was a nazi at one time.

    Maybe Mr Ratzinger is having flashbacks to his days in the Hitler Youth? Then again, the Mr Infallible they had during the times of the 12 year Reich didn’t lift a finger either, so it is all of a piece with policy I suppose…

    Dudes, don’t be morons.

    How do they GET these idiots in positions of power?

    I don’t think they are idiots. They have served the Church for most of thier lives, seen a massive drop in congregations in Europe, and really are just Europeans at heart. I think they are falling back into old habits of when John Paul II was leading.

    How many euroscum governments are denouncing the terrorists?

    Another piece of the world that really needs to be a radioactive smoking ashtray!

    And just where are you referring to?

    I wasn’t meaning its possible to make earth like heaven, but that we are supposed to make the world as safe/holy/etc as possible.

    That’s not the interpretation I got.

  25. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    DK:

    The interpretation of what I said or of the job of the faithful (including the clergy)?

  26. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte

    I don’t think we can make the world safe OR holy. Unless mankind CHOOSES to do so, there is nothing you can do. The camelfuckers will still be raving lunatics until they realize they are on a dead end and start trying to be civilized.

    I think the Popes main job is to keep the Church from wandering even farther from Christ’s ideals.

  27. sig94 Comment by sig94 UNITED STATES

    *checks flameproof suit, it’s at the cleaners*

    Oh well, I needed to get a tan anyway. I was a catholic until I started actually reading the Bible.

    The danger about looking to any man, Pope or not, for leadership and moral example is that men are, well, men. We are excruciatingly fallible. Any religion based on the dictates and whims of supposedly infallible men will ultimately fail.

    And if you think this Pope doesn’t get it, take a gander at some of the RCC’s lesser lights.

    Pope Stephen IV (768 - 772)came to power with the help of an army which conquered the previous Pope (actually antipope Constantine II - an antipope is one who comes into power other than through the canonical election process). There was more than one antipope and they were savaged by the Lombards who overthrow them in 768. Stephen allegedly gave orders for Constantine to be flogged, have his eyes cut out, have his kneecaps broken, and be imprisoned until he died. He then sentenced a second man to die a slow, agonizing death. He had pieces of his body cut off every day until he finally died. These acts, while commonly attributed to Stephen may have come at the hands of the Lombards

    Pope John XII (955 to 964) was a violent man. He supposedly turned the Lateran Palace into a brothel, drank toasts to the devil, invoked the names of pagan gods and goddess when gambling and cheated at cards (sorry - had to add that last one) He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man’s wife. Died in the saddle so to speak.

    Pope Benedict IX (1032 to 1044, 1045, and again from 1047 to 1048) became Pope through bribery. He had sex with men, women and animals. He gave orders for people to be murdered, practiced witchcraft and Satanism. St. Peter Damian described him as “feasting on immorality” and “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest.” The citizens of Rome hated Benedict so much that on two occasions he had to flee. Benedict utimatley sold the papacy to Pope Gregory VI for over a half ton of gold (1,450 lbs). There is some confusion over when he was and wasn’t Pope as he was in and out of office with Silvester III and Clement II joining the party during the interregna.

    Pope Innocent III (1198 to 1216) maintained through the Corpus Juris Canonici that every priest and bishop must obey the Pope and that the Pope was the sole arbiter for imperial titles within the HRE. He made himself the Kingmaker for all Christendom. He used papal troops to seize lands from other secular rulers such as the Germans. Pope Innocent wanted to get rid of the Albigensian heretics who lived in France. He forced the King of France to commit genocide by killing hundreds of thousands of Albigensians (French citizens accused of heresy) from 1209 to 1229. This was called the Albigensian Crusade, or the Albigensian Massacre. The Pope gave the Albigensian Crusaders a special indulgence which was supposed to guarantee that if they died in battle then their sins would be remitted and they would go to Heaven. This genocide was the precursor to the bull blown Inquisition that start in 1233. Thank you, thank you Pope Innocent III.

    Pope Alexander VI, probably the most corrupt Pope in the history of the RCC, reigned from 1492 to 1503. His maternal uncle (Calixtus III) was Pope from 1455 to 1458, and it was Calixtus that put Alexander on the papal highway. Alexander was reputed to have committed his first murder when he was twelve. Known for murder, bribery and selling positions of authority in the Church, on one occasion he required 50 prostitutes to dance naked before him and to engage in sexual acts for his entertainment. He actually received a reprimand from Pope Pius II (his uncle’s successor) for his riotous living. He had cardinals killed so that he could confiscate their property and sell their positions to ambitious men. His election as pope was supposedly one of the most expensive “elections” ever with hundreds of thousands of gold gold ducats changing hands. He was so ruthless that even Machiavelli admired his tactics. He may have died by died of poisoning after having dinner with a cardinal. The Venetian ambassador reported that the Alexander VI’s body was “the ugliest, most monstrous and horrible dead body that was ever seen, without any form of likeness of humanity”. Finally the body began to release sulphurous gasses from every orifice. It is recorded By Alexander’s personal seravnt and diarist, Burchard, that he had to jump on the body to jam him into the coffin and covered it with an old carpet, the only surviving furnishing in the dead Pope’s room.

    Hebrews Chapter 12:
    1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
    2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

    It’s like Bill Clinton’s legacy. Some of these guys would be great to party with. But would you want them to lead a nation or a religion?

  28. hOOt Gibson Comment by hOOt Gibson UNITED STATES

    More Poop from the Pope…..signed hOOt ex-Catholic, current Christian. Not that most Cathoclis aren’t Christians, but the church leadership itself is more full of shit than a Howard Dean for President rally.

    hOOt

  29. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte

    It’s like Bill Clinton’s legacy.

    About half the nation wants to return to that legacy, Sig.

    Myself? I would have had them executed.

  30. Unregistered Comment by rightwingprof UNITED STATES

    Sodano is a Vatican II “liberation theology” moonbat, and he’s on his way out. Unlike JP II, Benedict XVI is actively interested in church governance.

  31. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    DK:

    I agree that the world will not be safe nor holy until mankind chooses it to be so. However, that DOES NOT mean its not a good goal. If I die, and the only claim I have is that I made my little corner of the world a safer and holier place, I will be content.

    sig94:

    I know some of the popes have not been models of virtue, I don’t know any knowledgeable Catholic that would deny it. MEN are not perfect. I left my Bible at home (I’m at work now), so I may not get my Scripture citings correct, but I believe it goes like this: ‘You are Rock, and upon this Rock I wil build my Church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.’ In ~2000 years, even with the fallible leadership of men, the doctrinal teachings have not changed. The man in the ‘chair’ is fallible, the TEACHINGS from the chair (ex cathedra) are not. I don’t see how Hebrews 12 that you cited are evidence against the pope. Verse 1 is a very common citation in favor of the Communion of Saints, and verse 2 is just true, but I don’t see the relevence. Jesus IS the author and finisher of faith, I agree, but in the verse I cited demonstrates that he founded a Church. The pope is the leader of the Church on earth, not the author of faith.

  32. Unregistered Comment by Cheryl

    Roughly the equivalent of having your next-door neighbor break into your house, shoot your pets, and kidnap some of your children, and then being told that you should UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES allow the police SWAT team to sort things out, and that you should instead simply continue to pay the kidnapper whatever they want.

    Puddle Pirate, I personally know people with this attitude.

    Maybe Mr Ratzinger is having flashbacks to his days in the Hitler Youth?

    Maybe Mr. Ratzinger was not being, oh, quite honest when he said he was forced into the Hitler Youth.

    I really do wish the US and Israel would use concerted effort to go in and bomb these insects into oblivion and just shut.them.up. once and for all.

  33. Michael Comment by Michael UNITED STATES

    Misha, I think you used a Hyperbole in your post and I barly have enough time to denounce you for it.

  34. Michael Comment by Michael UNITED STATES

    or however this denouncing thingy works. LOL

  35. Unregistered Comment by LC Wes, Imperial Mohel

    I’ll second Deathknyte’s comments about the following two posts:

    Maybe this pope has a problem with Israel because he was a nazi at one time.

    Maybe Mr Ratzinger is having flashbacks to his days in the Hitler Youth? Then again, the Mr Infallible they had during the times of the 12 year Reich didn’t lift a finger either, so it is all of a piece with policy I suppose…

    You guys sound like the Daily Kossacks did when Ratzinger was first elevated to the papacy. It was a bullshit argument then, and it still is. Personal foul, unsportsmanlike conduct, gratuitous violation of Godwin’s Law. Fifteen-yard penalty and loss of down…

    And, oh yeah, we condemn you too.

    He (Pope Innocent III - “Innocent,” and how’s that for a historical irony! - LC Wes) forced the King of France to commit genocide by killing hundreds of thousands of Albigensians (French citizens accused of heresy) from 1209 to 1229. This was called the Albigensian Crusade, or the Albigensian Massacre. The Pope gave the Albigensian Crusaders a special indulgence which was supposed to guarantee that if they died in battle then their sins would be remitted and they would go to Heaven.

    I recall reading somewhere that when the military commander of the Albigensian Crusade asked the question “How are we supposed to tell the heretics from the good Catholics?”, the cardinal detailed by Innocent III to oversee the operation replied “Kill them all; God will recognize His own.”

    The saying survives to the present day as the bumper sticker slogan “Kill them all and let God sort them out.”

    Sodano is a Vatican II “liberation theology” moonbat, and he’s on his way out. Unlike JP II, Benedict XVI is actively interested in church governance.

    That’s good to know, Rightwingprof, but as you doubtless recall, the senior cardinals of the Church ran the show during the latter years of John Paul II’s reign as pope - with his health problems, JPII was little more than a figurehead - and cardinals like Sodano were issuing all sorts of statements like that in JPII’s name. The fact that Cardinal Sodano seems free to do the same thing under Benedict doesn’t bode well for either Benedict or the Church, IMHO. And the Vatican hasn’t moved to revise or correct Sodano’s statement yet, have they?

    Regardless of whether you’re a Catholic or not - I’m not, actually - the Pope is viewed as the leading figure of Christendom. We desperately need a Pope who will take the lead in defending Christians from radical Islam, as John Paul II did in the fight against Communism. I was hoping Benedict would be that pope, as were many others who comment on this blog.

    I still hope that…but on the other hand, doesn’t the Bible say that, in the last days, the churches will fall?

    Even if these aren’t actually “the last days”…the Catholics and Anglicans, to name but two churches, don’t seem inclined to wait.

  36. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    I’m not familiar with said passage, but anyhow, as per my earlier citation, ‘…the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’

    Also, the statements you are citing (the instigator of the original article) is the opinion of the pope, not the opinion of the Church. His opinion is to be taken with some gravity, but it is still the opinion of a man who is fallible.

  37. mile66 Comment by mile66 UNITED STATES

    “In particular, the Holy See deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation,” he said,

    Free and sovereign enough to allow terrorists to have military bases, training camps, recruiting centers, financial offices, administrative offices, safehouses and housing throughout it’s territory. Free and sovereign enough to allow those terrorists to launch attacks from heavily populated areas, risking the lives of it’s citizens since they know Israel is going to hit back.
    Free and sovereign enough to allow them to have weapon caches that include Katyusha rockets and launchers (per Hezbollah confession, by thousands), unmanned drones (!!!) and much, much more.
    Let’s not be naive. The decision to let terrorists mingle with the civilian population was made by the Lebanese government. The decision to launch attacks from civilian centers was Hezbollah’s. The decision to allow terrorists to launch attacks from your property is that of the civilians.
    My personal belief is that you’re responsible for all the decisions you make, and the resulting consequences.
    As a Roman Catholic, I feel sad that my spiritual leader doesn’t have the balls to stand strong for what is obviouly correct.

  38. sig94 Comment by sig94 UNITED STATES

    MCaN
    I just knew this would be where I would end up. HDD, I shoulda joined you & LCBrendan in that cafe.

    I also should have made myself clearer, I am NOT against Catholics. Nor am I against all Popes. Certainly there have been good and bad ones. I do have problems with Catholicism. The point I am making is this: anyone who cedes all spiritual authority to a man is in great peril. The Pope will not be judged for your sins, you will stand alone before the Judgement Seat of Christ. So you had better be sure of the judgement of whatever person you are following.

    That is why Scripture must be the moral underpinning, the basis of all Christian belief. Scripture does not change. And that is why Scripture is under such vicious attacks by some non-believers. Over the centuries this has been ocmplicated by papal bulls that have established some incredibly bad doctrine that is heretical in view of Scripture. Who is to nullify this doctrine? Another Pope? And if the next Pope re-establishes the previous error? And the next one again nullifies it?

    This is what happens when you take Matthew 16:13-18 out of context.

    Matthew 16:
    13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
    14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
    15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
    16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
    17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
    18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    The Rock that Christ refers to is not Peter. It is Peter’s confession:

    Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

    Actually a literary point was made that is lost in the Greek to English translation.

    “Rock” in Greek is: petra petra, pet’-ra; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):–rock.

    “Peter” in Greek is: petrov Petros, pet’-ros; a (piece of) rock; as a name, Petrus, an apostle:–Peter, rock. “Peter” is a piece of rock, literally a pebble. And it was Christ (John 1:42) who gave him that name (Cephas is a Chaldee derivative and means a stone, Petros is the Greek).

    The illustration is that Peter’s confession is a rock, a massive rock. Remember Christ’s parable about the man who built his house on rock and the man who built his house on sand (same book, Matt 7:24-27)? Same idea. The foundation of the Church is not Peter, nor could it ever be; it is Christ, The Son of God. The Rock of the Church is the Confession of Faith and it is upon this Rock that the gates of Hell will fail.

    Remember, Christ was not only talking to Peter during that discussion, He was also talking to ALL His disciples at the time (Matt. 16:13). Christ, in His manner, was constantly teaching His disciples and this was another lesson.

    I’ve already gone too far. Back to the cafe for me. I’ll take a mocha latte if you please!

  39. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte

    However, that DOES NOT mean its not a good goal. If I die, and the only claim I have is that I made my little corner of the world a safer and holier place, I will be content.

    It’s a worthy goal, don’t get me wrong. I just don’t think its achieveable in the long run.

    And, oh yeah, we condemn you too.

    I second that.

  40. Unregistered Comment by rightwingprof UNITED STATES

    See here.

  41. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    sig94:

    Catholics do not cede all spiritual authority to the pope, and we are VERY accountable for our sins. I am under no illusions that my thoughts and actions affect my soul, no matter what.

    As for Scripture, it is the moral underpinning of the Church. It is unchanging, yes, and Catholics are strongly encouraged to study and understand it. As far as popes making ‘new’ doctrine ex cathedra, well, not one doctrinal statement has been retracted in the history of the Church. As time has gone on, the Church has clarified its position on issues that were previously up for debate. However, the Church has never contradicted itself.

    I am not accusing you of muddying the issue, but the statement by Christ could be interperated either way. If Christ was not referring to Peter as the ‘Rock,’ then why would he start the statement with ‘Thou art Peter’? It could be interpereted in the fashion that you stated, but there is just as much (if not more) evidence for my interperatation.

    Also, the RCC is founded on Christ and His teachings. I am familier with said parable, and agree that the foundation is Christ. However, Christ left His disciples to continue His Church. In the leadership role he placed Peter, and through Peter established apostolic succession.

    Disclaimer: All statements come from the mind of a 20-year-old engineering student running on too little sleep and too much caffene. Based on my current understanding of the Church, they are accurate and true.

  42. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    DK:

    I agree, its not achievable in mankind’s fallen state. Just because we aren’t perfect doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for it.

  43. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    *hides empty gascan behind him*

    sig94,

    Martin Luther summed up your/our stance best with two words: Sola Scriptura.

    Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Pope is the head of the Universal Catholic Church. Nowhere in the Bible is the Pope, a bishop, a cardinal, a council of bishops, a council of cardinals, or just a common priest allowed to redefine Scripture. Nowhere. And that’s what the RCC has done. The most egregious examples are The Immaculate Conception (where in the Bible does it say that Mary’s mother was a virgin, too?), Salvation through works (Bible specifically contradicts this), meritorious grace (What? God’s grace isn’t sufficient? Funny, He told Paul it was…), and priesly celibacy. And before you even say “But, I think for myself, and I’m a Catholic”, I’ll remind you (okay, this is prolly the first you’ve heard of it) that, according to a Papal Bull (meaning it was ex cathedra, meaning, as a Catholic, you are NOT allowed to disagree with it) issued in 1918, you, as Catholic laiety, have no other responsibility, nor do you have any other rights, in the RCC than to sit in the pews and obey the RCC. No free thinking, no interpretation, no arguing. Shut up and do as you’re told is the OFFICIAL RCC doctrine for you. And that was CONFIRMED by several later popes, including “saint” John Paul II.

    Good grief, it’s getting really bad when I know RCC doctrine better than the Catholics do. As Sig94 said, you can’t remain a Catholic after you’ve read the Bible. That *could* be why I’ve never seen a Bible in a Catholic church pew…and I was raised in a Catholic family…

  44. Unregistered Comment by rightwingprof UNITED STATES

    Sola scriptura is heresy — and impossible, since if you accept the canon of the Bible, you accept the authority of the Church and Church Tradition. Protestantism is nothing but pick and choose Christianity, conservative or liberal protestantism. It’s the same misguided heresy; you merely pick and choose different things, usually the things that make your life easier.

    Prima scriptura.

  45. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    Sola Scriptura leaves out an important factor, however. The Bible was finally decided upon in ~300 AD. It was never intended to be the only dogmatic referance. The Immaculate Conception is, as you say, never mentioned in the Bible. It was something handed down over the years. However, I’m going to pass on that for just a moment.

    Meritorious grace, I’m guessing that you are implying that such grace apparently doesn’t come from God? The grace one receives through prayer, good works, etc brings one closer to God. Grace is not a zero-sum game. Would you not agree that doing good works bring you closer to God? The sanctifying grace bought by Christ’s passion is universal, and that alone is what brings us eternal salvation. Meritorious grace is just that growth in holiness prayer and good works brings us.

    Salvation through works: see James 2 that specifically refute ’sola fide’ especially v. 17-18, 20-26

    Priestly celibacy: merely a Tradition of the Church. This has some (non-explicit) scriptural backing, as Paul comments on celibacy being a good in 1 Cor. 7: 32-35.

    Now, with all that said, I would like to revisit the Immaculate Conception. Given that I was not in the Holy Land in the time of Christ, therefore could not know whether Mary was truely a virgin, and considering that there is no evidance to the contrary (the ‘brother and sisters of Christ’ scriptural passages are just as prone to translational miscommunication as Matthew 16 that sig94 cited), and the Church has considered it teaching since the beginning (despite being declared dogma in 1854), I conclude that the Church will be my accepted authority. I am open to other positions as I believe that the search for the Truth is the way to heaven, and I believe the RCC has said truth.

  46. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    Thank you rightwingprof.

  47. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte

    That *could* be why I’ve never seen a Bible in a Catholic church pew…and I was raised in a Catholic family…

    You didnt go to my church then.

    HDD, we already hashed this out last year and I am losing interest in the debate.

    So… Y’all can belive what you want, ’cause it don’t bother me.

    If you all want to whine about the Pope not doing as we would like, go ahead. But, keep in mind, what else is he supposed to do? Declare a new Crusade to end islams persecution of the Jews? Admittedly, it would be interesting, but it would be like taking HDD’s gas can and filling it up with avaition fuel and trying to put out a fire.

    Personally, and I have stated something similar before, I would prefer the Church stay out of politics.

  48. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Sola scriptura is heresy — and impossible, since if you accept the canon of the Bible, you accept the authority of the Church and Church Tradition.

    *snort*

    Please, point out to me the passage of the Bible where it says Scripture and its interpretations are to be modified to conform to the dictates of the day, or to the dictates of a man?

    I’ll bury you in Scripture that says the opposite.

    The heresy is the idea that “church tradition” carries ‘equal’ weight with Scripture, since almost all of the RCC’s traditions are pagan. Check out the OT sometime…there are PAGES of Scripture condemning ANY mixing of paganism with Scripture…and yet, that’s exactly what the RCC has done.

    What is most amusing is the charge of “pick and choose Christianity”, since the RCC picks and chooses Scipture to defend itself, and there aren’t a whole lot of people here who are LESS likely to adopt a “pick and choose” ideal than me. Please, look up the passages that say salvation is through works. I’ll wait.

    Done? Good. According to the RCC, that passage is “For salvation without works is dead”. But, the Protestants counter that with “For salvation is by faith alone, not through works, lest men boast.”

    Hm. How to resolve this conundrum….lets actually look at what each passage says. The RCC quote makes no claims on whether or not works generates salvation, only that salvation and works must coexist. The Protestant quote makes a claim that salvation is gererated only through faith, not through works.

    Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. The RCC is using Scripture that makes no claims on how salvation is acheived to dispute Scripture that specifically states how salvation is achieved.

    Would you like to rethink your idiotic assertion?

  49. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    HDD:

    Did you even read James 2: 20-26? I think that pretty much sums up this debate. I’ll make it easy: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/james/james2.htm

    I shall wait.

  50. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    Addendum: Faith is necessary for salvation. However, since the “point” of faith is salvation, and faith without works is dead, faith without works is pointless.

  51. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    MCaN,

    Um…I don’t dispute the Virginity of Mary. That is not open to debate.

    The Immaculate Conception is MARY’S virgin birth! According to RCC doctrine (which was NOT handed down by the Early Church) Mary’s mother was a virgin as well.

    Not one Scripture verse saying Mary’s mother was a virgin. Not one Scripture verse elevating Mary to “Queen of Heaven”. Not one Scripture verse attesting to Mary’s own Sinless Life. Not one. And yet, it’s RCC doctrine. Where did it come from? Not from Scripture, or from the Early Church. It came about ONLY after the RCC was paganised by Constantine. (Wasn’t intentional. Just happened, since a lot of pagan priests were informed they were now Christian…with no training. So, they just kept preaching the same things, but, with different icons on the walls. Look it up)

  52. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    MCaN,

    Once again, James makes no claims on how Salvation is acheived, only on what the results are.

    Paul quite clearly states how Salvation is acheived.

    The Roman Catholic Church’s official doctrine is that Salvations is achieved by faith AND good works. In direct contradiction to Scripture.

    Works are the symptom of faith, not the cause. The passages you cite are proving that for me.

  53. Unregistered Comment by Onus UNITED STATES

    Wow…so much in-fighting. Let’s not lose sight of the larger picture.

    Catholic or not, those who profess to follow Christian values have a single Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    Another thing I would like to point out is that the central theme of Christianity is passivism - turning the other cheek - which stands in stark contrast to the teachings of Islam.

    As I see it, the Pope is urging Israel to turn the other cheek which is consistent with Christianity. Personally I don’t agree with him in this situation, but I’m not a “good” Christian either.

    If we want to discuss a dangerous and violent religion we should be focusing on Islam, not Protestants and Catholics.

  54. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    Mary’s mother was not a virgin. Its not a teaching of the Church. I’m sorry, went on the wrong dogma.

    The Immaculate Conception is the dogma that Mary was CONCEIVED without sin. She had no original sin.

  55. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    Onus, I think we agree on that, but being the folk we are, we are debating the smaller differances.

    HDD: Salvation is obtained through faith. That is what you need. BUT faith without works is dead. See my addendum.

  56. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    The Immaculate Conception is the dogma that Mary was CONCEIVED without sin. She had no original sin.

    Again, RCC tradition, not Scriptural. If Mary had no Original Sin, then her mother couldnt’ have had it, either. HER mother couldnt’ have had it, as well, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum. Which means the Bible is wrong, since ONLY Adam, Eve, and Jesus were born without Original Sin.

    There still isn’t one single Bible verse that claims Mary was born without Original Sin. Not one.

  57. Unregistered Comment by Onus UNITED STATES

    The Roman Catholic Church’s official doctrine is that Salvations is achieved by faith AND good works. In direct contradiction to Scripture.

    Is that a bad thing?

    Why quibble about the rules when the results are the same?

  58. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    HDD: Salvation is obtained through faith. That is what you need. BUT faith without works is dead. See my addendum.

    I’m not disputing YOU. I’m disputing RCC doctrine, which holds that Salvation is through faith AND good works.

    The problems I have with the RCC are basically rooted in its brainwashing of its laiety. I quote Scripture that contradicts the RCC, and the laiety quote RCC doctrine back, as if they hold equal weight. They don’t. Not even in the RCC do they hold equal weight. In Christianity, Scripture holds the tiebreaking vote. In the RCC, the Pope does. So, in Protestantism (and, trust me, if you’ve ever heard me rant on Protestanism, you’d know I can be just as nasty towards them as the RCC), Scripture is supreme, while in the RCC, the Pope is.

    Otherwise, RCC doctrine wouldn’t have drifted so far away from Scripture.

  59. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Is that a bad thing?

    Why quibble about the rules when the results are the same?

    Yes, it is a bad thing.

    God judges our intentions as well as our actions. If we’re only doing good works to get into Heaven, we’re only doing them because we gain something from it. So, no reward in Heaven.

    If we’re doing good works because they are simply the right thing to do, then, we gain no reward here for them, but, we are rewarded in Heaven.

    Quite simply put, doing good works for nothing is how you get rewarded. Doing them for the reward is a gaurantee you won’t get rewarded. Look it up.

  60. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    No, you have a logical fallacy there. Her mother need not be free of Original Sin. When one is Baptized into Christ, original sin is removed (concupicense remains, however, thats another thing). Mary was saved from original sin from the beginning. Somewhat like being baptized at conception.

    As you said, there is no scripture explicitly claiming Mary was born without sin. Silence, however, does not imply denial. Just as ’sola scriptura’ has no Biblical basis. The Church, continuous from the apostles, has taught the Immaculate Conception.

  61. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    HDD:

    You still have not commented on James 2: 26. If faith without works is dead, then what merit is faith? Faith is what you need to get to heaven. If you have faith, it will be shown by your works (cf James 2: 18).

  62. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    The Church, continuous from the apostles, has taught the Immaculate Conception.

    uh…nope. Was added about 400 years later. Look it up.

  63. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    MCaN,

    Since you missed it, I’ll repost it. Easy to do with all the clutter.

    Once again, James makes no claims on how Salvation is acheived, only on what the results are.

    Paul quite clearly states how Salvation is acheived.

    The Roman Catholic Church’s official doctrine is that Salvations is achieved by faith AND good works. In direct contradiction to Scripture.

    Works are the symptom of faith, not the cause. The passages you cite are proving that for me.

    Once again, I will state CLEARLY that I have no beef with Catholics, in general or in specific. I only have a problem with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, since they are CLEARLY based on paganism, and bear a striking resemblance to a religion that may be the pattern of The Whore of Babylon. It is not my fault the RCC is lying to the laiety. I’m trying to get the laiety to open their eyes. As useless rituals go, Catholic Mass is a good way to spend a Sunday morning. I’m just not going to stake my salvation on it, since my Lord and Savior strongly asserts otherwise.

  64. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/maryc3a.htm

    Just because it was not explicitly stated doesn’t mean it isn’t believed. You have not explicitly stated a belief in God, but you implicitly stated it through your belief in the Bible.

  65. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    MCaN,

    Uh…no. I’ve specifically stated my belief in God. Many times.

    As I was commanded to do by the Christ.

    By using impication, a whole slew of teachings can be “implied” into the Bible, such as polygamy, and abrogation. Neither of which are Biblical.

    In addition, there are MANY people who are described as “holy” in the Bible. Doesn’t make them sin-free. Mary has no exclusive right to being sin-free.

    Once again, the only three people in the Bible who were born without Original Sin are Adam, Eve, and Jesus. Otherwise, God is wrong when He says “For there are none who are righteous, no, not one” and “for our righteousness is as unwashed rags before Him”.

    It is possible to be holy without being sin-free. It is difficult, but, nowhere in the Bible does it say God promised us it would be easy. Just worth it.

  66. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    Paul does clearly state how Salvation is achieved. I agree. Faith is the cause of Salvation. True deathbed conversions, however rare, are evidence of this. Such a man does not have the opprotunity to do good works, yet can still be saved. However, if you will look at Galatians 5: 22-25, Paul states the fruits of the Spirit: works. And in v. 25, he states that if we are to live in the Spirit then we must also follow the Spirit. Faith PRODUCES works, as you state. The RCC teaches as such. But it also takes the Bible in its entirety, including the passages about how faith without works is dead. If you have faith, the works will follow. If I had a Catechism with me I would referance you to the teaching.

  67. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    First, the implication was not to the Bible, it was to the early Church Fathers Irenaeus (~100s AD), Ephraem (~300s AD), and Ambrose (~300s AD).

    Also, no other person in the Bible is referred to as “full of Grace.” To be full of Grace means that one must not suffer from any sin. Otherwise one would just be “holy” as many others were, as you said.

  68. sig94 Comment by sig94 UNITED STATES

    As far as faith and works are concerned, it is faith that drives the works. As you saif MCaN, faith woithout works is dead.

    But salvation is not, nor can it ever, be dependent solely upon works.. “lest any man should boast.” Salvation is God’s free gift and to infer that faith and works are required for salvation is just plain heresy. Remember how Paul railed aginst Peter (Gal. 2:11-21) because Peter did not condemn those who insisted that converts to Christianity be circumcised?

    And just because a doctrine has been around for many centuries does not make it the Doctrine of Christ. The Apostle Peter also warned about false teachers who spread heresy(2 Pet. 2:1-3) and this was during the reign of Nero.

    More problems arose when Constantine made Christianity the Official State Religion and the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire.

    Access to the Roman Emperor was gained through his administrators, the court eunuchs. These “men” were an extraordinarily venal lot and bribery was the preferred entry vehicle to lucrative contracts for positions and lands dealt out so generously by the Ceasar of the day. And as the Roman Emporer was also a god, the state religion dictated that he be worshipped as one. In effect, the eunuchs, controlling access to an official god, were priests.

    That’s how the celibate priesthood entered the RCC. Many if not most of the early Church Fathers were married and had children. The Apostle Peter was married (his mother-in-law is mentioned in Mark 1:29-39).

  69. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    I fully agree that works ARE NOT necessary for Salvation. (cf post 66) However, faith begets works, and so if you have no works, it shows a lack of faith. Combining Romans 5 with James 2 shows that faith is what brings Salvation, but said faith must also be accompianied with works.

    I agree, priestly celibacy is not gleaned explicitly from the Bible. However, as I said in comment 45:

    Priestly celibacy: merely a Tradition of the Church. This has some (non-explicit) scriptural backing, as Paul comments on celibacy being a good in 1 Cor. 7: 32-35.

    This gives good reason for priestly celibacy. Also, the priest is in persona Christe during the Sacraments, and tries to live his life like Christ. Christ never married, and, as Paul said, celibacy is a higher calling. To fully serve the Lord, and only the Lord, celibacy is the way. This is not to knock marriage, it is blessed as well, and necessary.

  70. Unregistered Comment by Azygos UNITED STATES

    Waiter, make that a table for four please.
    *checks flame-proof suit

    I fully agree that works ARE NOT necessary for Salvation. (cf post 66) However, faith begets works, and so if you have no works, it shows a lack of faith. Combining Romans 5 with James 2 shows that faith is what brings Salvation, but said faith must also be accompianied with works.

    Old Testament example.

    And Noah found Grace in the eyes of the Lord.

    Noah was saved by the Grace of God. He may have also had faith in God but it was Gods Grace that saved him.

    New Testament example

    It is by Grace ye are saved through faith, that not of yourselves it is the gift of God.

    Simply put the RCC dogma is that one is saved through works not faith or grace. The seven sacraments yada yada yada… To put it bluntly the RCC is a cult hiding behind a Christian façade and has not been a Christian church for centuries. But we have more pressing issues to address like the cult of death known as islam. For us to defeat this cult of death all peoples calling themselves Christians are going to have to band together, even if it means holding our noses while we do.

  71. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    The RCC DOES NOT teach that one is saved through works! Show me a RCC Catechism citation. Clearly, in Mk 10: 17-20 when the man came up to Jesus and asked: “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

    Read the response, it may surprise you. Believe it or not, Jesus doesn’t say: “Just beleive in Me.”

    I will band with all Christians against the threat of Islam. I harbor no animosity toward any Christians (well, except maybe Phred Phelps).

  72. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    The RCC DOES NOT teach that one is saved through works!

    *snort*

    Where do you think “Sola Gracia” came from? It was Martin Luther’s answer to the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings of “Salvation through faith and good works”…which has since been confirmed by multiple popes.

    Every one of Martin Luther’s “Solas” was in response to an “and” in RCC doctrine. Every. Single. One.

    I’ve been trying to find links for it, but, RC Sproul has an EXCELLENT series of lectures on the “Solas”. IIRC, it runs about 12 hours or so, and I could sit and listen to it again, straight through, and then, sit through it a third time.

    And, no, he’s not a fringe teacher. He’s a Reformed Presbyterian pastor, and one of the leading apologists, theologians, and Christian philosophers of our time. It’s his JOB to know the doctrines and philosophies of the various religions of the world. He actually cites Papal Bulls in his teachings…and prolly knows them better than the vast majority of Catholics.

  73. sig94 Comment by sig94 UNITED STATES

    Also, no other person in the Bible is referred to as “full of Grace.” To be full of Grace means that one must not suffer from any sin. Otherwise one would just be “holy” as many others were, as you said.

    Grace is undeserved merit. ALL believers are under grace, all believers are under grace. It has nothing to do with sinlessness and everything to do with God’s favor. And original sin is not removed, it is covered, the price is paid.

    Righteousness is “imputed” to the believer because Christ paid the penalty for sin - death. For “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin” - Heb 9.22.

    Hebrews 10:19-20 “Therefore, my friends, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain…” therefore eliminating the need for a priest.

    The High Priest entered the Holy of Holies once a year on the Great Day of Atonement to offer sacrifice. There was a huge four inch thick curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple. Upon Christ’s death, God Hmself ripped it in two, signifying the end of the priesthood and the end of the OT manner of sacrifice. No where in the Epistles is the need of a priest ever mentioned. There are only three offices in a NT church: deacon, pastor and supervisor (bishop or overseer). The whole structure of the RCC is an add on with no NT scriptural support whatsoever.

  74. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    MCaN,

    Shamelessly lifted from here….

    According to the Council of Trent, which was convened to counter the Reformation:

    If anyone shall say that the ungodly man is justified by faith only so as to understand that nothing else is required that may cooperate to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is in no wise necessary for him to be prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will … let him be accursed (Canon 9).

    If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified … let him be accursed (Canon 12).

    Seems to me that the RCC disagrees with your assertion that works aren’t neccessary for Salvation. Of course, I already knew that.

  75. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Also, no other person in the Bible is referred to as “full of Grace.”

    And that would include Mary, as well.

    Just checked the original Greek.

    Doesn’t say “full of Grace”.

    Says “one who has received Grace”.

    Just like all of us other sinners.

  76. sig94 Comment by sig94 UNITED STATES

    All believers are under grace and full of grace.
    PIMF

    God does grant special status to a very few: Enoch walked with God and did not die (Gen 5:24), but he walked by faith (Heb 11:5).
    Elijah likewise was taken (II Kings 2:11) and did not suffer death.

    Moses talked with God and afterwards his face shone (Exodus 34: 29 - 35) so brightly that it terrified the Israelis and he had to wear a cloth covering his face. When Moses died God Himself buried the body (Deut. 34:4-6).

    David was a special friend of God.

    And so was Mary.

    But they all had something in common, they were all sinners saved by grace through faith. Mary had need of a Savior just like every one else.

  77. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Sadly Pope Benedict didn’t bother reading and learning from one of the greatest Catholic thinkers of all time, C.S. Lewis: “We are not living in a world where all roads are radii of a circle and where all, if followed long enough, will therefore draw gradually nearer and finally meet at the centre; Rather in a world where every road, after a few miles, forks into two, and each of those into two again, and at each fork you must make a decision.
    I do not think that all who chose wrong roads perish; but their rescue consists in being put back on the right road.”

    The Pope reacted instead of making a thoughtful decision… Now he and the rest of the rest of the Euro-Weasel Scum that make up the Holy See need to be put on the right road…

  78. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    a) Did you read Mark 10:17-20?
    b) Have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

    See paragraphs: 1023, 1741-1742, and 1992, just to name a few.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

    I would like for you to PROVE to me that the RCC teaches that salvations is only possible with good works. I maintain what I said in posts 66 and 69. If your RC Sproul is correct on RCC dogma (which, honestly, I doubt, but nonetheless) then he will have to cite where in the definitive collection of RCC teachings (ie, the CCC) he pulls his information from.

    The RCC teaching is that you CANNOT earn your way into heaven. The Grace of God alone gets you into heaven. BUT true faith BEGETS good works. Thats the teaching.

    Anyhow, thank you for a most civil and enjoyable debate. I must leave, but I shall be back tommorrow morning.

  79. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    a) Did you read Mark 10:17-20?

    Yup. Also read the verses right after those. Doesn’t help your case much.

    Sentence 1023 doesn’t help you case, either. That sentence CLEARLY states that God’s Grace is INSUFFICIENT to get one into Heaven, since many need to be purified AFTER accepting God’s Grace. That would be covered under Luther’s “Sola Fide”, and “Sola Gracia”…

    Sentences 1741-1742 have no relevance on the subject, because they deal with freedom with regards to predestination, not Salvation.

    Sentence 1992 also has limited relevance to the subject, because it doesn’t address the RCC doctrine of “How to restore Grace”…which operates under the assumption that we, as mere humans, can somehow override God, and remove His Grace from ourselves.

    The Bible (not RCC doctrine) is quite explicit that we are NOT greater than God, and CANNOT undo ANYTHING that He does not allow us to undo. That includes our Salvation. The Bible is ALSO quite clear that Salvation, once attained, CANNOT BE LOST! Once again, in DIRECT contradiction to RCC doctrine.

    I would like for you to PROVE to me that the RCC teaches that salvations is only possible with good works.

    Already did. Those quotes I took were from the Council of Trent, which was an RCC Council ONLY. It’s not part of the Protestant tradition. There were 125 anathemas to the RCC, of which, those were two of them. They are VERY clear that Salvation CANNOT be attained solely through faith…which, stop me if you’ve heard this before…DIRECTLY contradicts the Bible.

    If your RC Sproul is correct on RCC dogma (which, honestly, I doubt, but nonetheless) then he will have to cite where in the definitive collection of RCC teachings (ie, the CCC) he pulls his information from.

    For one thing, he’s not MY RC Sproul. He’s *only* one of the most popular theologians today. I mean, he’s only written about 40 or so books on theology and apologetics, and only has a radio show on in all 50 states. Think of Francis Shaeffer, only without the dymanic speaking presence. Sproul is a boring speaker, but, dynamic writer…even if all his books are mere rehashings of his lectures.

    Secondly, he is SCRUPULOUS about citing his sources. IT’S HIS JOB!

    For instance, when he claims that the RCC OFFICIAL position on the laiety is that they have no rights or responsibilities within the church other than to obey and listen, he cites the Papal Bull (from 1918, IIRC) where that doctrine is formalized. He also cites the various councils where other doctrines were established. He does this at a breakneck pace, so, if you aren’t taking notes (and I can’t, since I’m ALWAYS driving when I listen to him), you’ll miss a lot of stuff.

    He’s a lot more delicate about taking on Rome than I am. Doesn’t mean he isn’t hardhitting, though.

    The RCC teaching is that you CANNOT earn your way into heaven.

    Incorrect. The official RCC doctrine is “Earn-A-Grace”. If you can’t get into Heaven on your own works, other people have to either pray you in, or, you have to borrow merit from a saint.

    Jeez. If you really believe what you’ve been trying to tell me, you really need to just admit that you aren’t a Catholic, you’re a Christian who attends Mass. Nothing wrong with that. It just really bothers me when people are Saved in spite of their church, and not because of it.

    That state exists within the RCC. Not my fault.

  80. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    You might want to back up a second. Every one of you is arguing about “getting to heaven”… but point to me the scripture where it says the reward of the saved is to go to heaven!

    ….

    ….

    ….

    Why are we arguing over the pope’s ability (or lack thereof, as I believe) before we even have the right reward?

    RH

  81. LC Beth ISW Comment by LC Beth ISW UNITED STATES

    According to wikipedia, B16 asked Sodano to step down in June, but he’s still in office until Sept. The Cardinal doesn’t share many of B16 views (ie. B16 thinks Iraq is a just war). So, maybe this statement is more the opinions of a bitter old man who finds himself booted out of a job and out of the power he has come to enjoy.

    And… uh… I’m not going near the theology debate. I spent 12 years in Catholic schools, and I’ve hit most of the major denominations in my adulthood. I know just enough to be a danger to myself and others.

  82. Unregistered Comment by annoyinglittletwerp UNITED STATES

    Um Juandos…C.S. Lewis wasn’t a great catholic thinker-though his good friend J.R.R. Tolkein was a catholic. C.S. was a Christian-as was his Jewish born wife-Joy Davidman.

    Speaking as another Jewish born Christian-saved in 1996 at the age of 26, now a Nazarene-I think RC’s ARE Christian.
    While I don’t like their lack of freedom of thought in worship, or the marian thing ,or the lack of “marrieds” or women in the “priesthood(I support both)-RC’s believe that Jesus died for their sins-just like I do.
    That issue is really the ONLY issue.
    Which makes them a branch of Christianity.

    My denomination believes in “creationism”-Adam, Eve, the whole nine yards. I’m into intelligent design.
    God created the world-but the order is unimportant.
    The “Naz” still welcomed me into the fold-because we agree on the BIG issues.

    My late father used to comment that so many battles had been fought in the name of “the Prince of Peace”.
    Catholic, Protestant, Messianic Jewish-we’re all
    Christians. We need to agree to disagree and get back to fighting our REAL enemy-
    it’s name is ISLAM!

    AM ISRAEL CHAI!!!

    -Barb in St. Louis

  83. Agent Orange Comment by Agent Orange

    Going back on topic, I picked this up from a comment on Jihad Watch:

    Cardinal Soldano’s statement was in diplomatese (an attempt to appear “balanced”) which we all know is meaningless claptrap.

    On the other hand, Vatican Radio broadcast an interview with Father David-M. A. Jaeger, OFM, who is a Vatican expert in the region. Father Jaeger clearly lays the blame where it belongs, on Hezbullah, Iran, and the Lebanese government.

    He said correctly that it is necessary to “understand the depth and force of Israeli anger. Israel’s Prime Minister emphasized that Israel view it as an attack, an act of war, by the Lebanese state because Lebanon has so far declined to carry out UN Security Council Resolution 1559 which called upon it to disarm all armed organizations or militias, or in some cases, actually terrorist organizations operating on Lebanese soil including Hezbullah.”

    He also points out that Hezbullah must “justify its continued existence” by continually launching attacks on Israel “which it must also justify to its sponsors, it is financed and armed by Iran…”

    You can listen to a short audio-clip from Father Jaeger’s interview at the Vatican Radio site:

    http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=87082

    Just click on the little speaker symbol.

    Anyone who knows the inner workings of the Holy See will realize that Soldano’s “official” claptrap is just a political nicety while Jaeger is expressing the Pope’s real views.

  84. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    Rob: I (and it appears HDD agrees) that eternal life in the presence of God is the ‘reward’ - the result, if you will - of a rightous life.

    Barb: C.S. Lewis, as you say, was not a great Catholic thinker. However, just as twolaneflash
    exemplified at the beginning of the comments, one need not be Catholic to have insight into the Church.

    Now for HDD:

    Last night I did some research into the sources you cited (Council of Trent and the Encyclical from Benedict XV). Both documents are available in their entirity online. Here is a rundown of the main points of each, along with a link to the full document.

    Council of Trent (Session VI, pertaining to Justification)

    -Chapters 1 & 2 are very basic, I think we agree on those easily (Man fell, needed a Savior, etc)

    -Chapter 3
    —If you are “not born again in Christ, you can never be justified”
    —Through Christ we have redeption

    -Chapter 4
    —”Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”
    —So without accepting God, we cannot spend eternity in his presence, makes sense

    -Chapter 5
    —I’m going to quote this on in its entirity, a summery would be as long as the actual paragraph

    CHAPTER V
    THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS

    It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.

    Hence, when it is said in the sacred writings:
    Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,[19] we are reminded of our liberty; and when we reply:
    Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,[20] we confess that we need the grace of God.

    —Basically, we must freely assent to grace

    -Chapter 6
    —Receiving grace turns one against sin, as one strives to love and please the Father, the source of grace

    -Chapter 7
    —again, one must openly accept the Lord
    —accompianing the acceptance of grace is remission of sins and an infusion of faith, hope, and charity
    —an almost verbatium citation from James 2
    —circumcised or uncircumcised is irrelevent, faith that works through charity is what matters
    —one must keep the commandments
    —strive to bring soul spotless from Baptism to entry into eternal life

    -Chapter 8
    —”We are therefore said to be justified by faith.”
    —”…we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God[45] and to come to the fellowship of His sons…”

    -Chapter 9
    —Our sins are forgiven through Christ’s divine mercy
    —no absolution of sin except through true belief in the promises of God

    -Chapter 10
    —increase justification through faith cooperating with good work
    —Rev 22:11 “He that is just, let him be justified still.”
    —Again, James 2:24

    Chapter 11
    —no one is exepmt from the commandments
    —mortal vs venial sin distintion (spiritual-wise)
    —”For God does not forsake those who have been once justified by his grace, unless He be first forsaken by them.”
    —Suffering with Christ part of faith journey
    —”For doing these [good works], you shall not sin at any time” 2 Peter 1:10

    -Chapter 12
    —impossible to KNOW going to heaven (sin of presumption)

    -Chapter 13
    —perservere until the end, with the help of Christ
    —”…for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die, but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live.[81]”

    -Chapter 14
    —those that have fallen have forsaken God can return to Him through the sacrament of Penance
    —John 20:22f (who’s sins you forgive are forgiven, who’s sins you retain are retained)
    —honest declaration to avoid future sin, sacramental Confession
    —do penance to atone

    -Chapter 15
    —kingdom of God excludes unrepented unbelievers, fornicators, adulterers, liars, theives, covetous, drukards, etc (1 Cor 6:9f, 1 Tim 1:9f)

    -Chapter 16
    —The fruits of justification are good works (Gal 5:22-23, 25)
    —Good works are rewarded in eternity (Matt 10:42, Mark 9:40, Matthew 25:35-45)
    —We must rely on the mercy of God, and, in turn, show mercy to others, as per the Lord’s Prayer

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

    The only Papal Encyclical (Bull) published in 1918 was one commending the end of WWI, Quod Iam Diu. However, in 1917 Humani Generis Redemptionem was published, and seems to be the one to which you and Mr. Sproul refer. Also, Encyclicals are not intrinsically ex cathedra, and I’m not sure if this one is. Nonetheless, I operated under the assumption that it was.

    HUMANI GENERIS REDEMPTIONEM
    “On Preaching the Word of God”
    -Was written to combat heretical teachings in the Church

    -Part 1: Merely an introduction

    -Part 2: The Church has many people preaching, yet still many are falling away toward paganism

    -Part 3: Main cause is the lack of training given to priests and other ministers.

    -Part 4: Iterates importance in changing this pattern

    -Part 5: The duty of preaching is the paramount duty of Bishops, ie, it is their most important duty. This is not to say exclusively theirs. The Bishops’ forerunners were the Apostles, exhorted to preach the Gospel. This does not mean the laity are to blindly follow. This is addressing that if one is to preach, one must preach the true Gospel.

    -Part 6: Those that abuse the pulpit must immidiately be removed. “No one may feed the sheep at his fancy.” Also, a Bishop is to select those that are “fit” to man the pulpit.

    -Part 7: Defines that preiests are to be trained explicitly in the Gospel, so as to maintain continuity in Church dogma.

    -Part 8: Bishpos are to examine the fitness to preach of those priests to be ordained under their care.

    -Part 9: Priests are to keep in mind that they are entrusted with the Truth

    -Part 10: Priests are not to preach what is popular or what will put them in high esteem, but they are to preach to save the souls of their congregation.

    -Part 11: One should not preach for money

    -Part 12: If a priest is abusing the office, he should be removed

    -Part 13: Abuses must be punished

    -Part 14: A priest must have knowledge of God and theology

    -Parts 15-17: A priest mnust be a) committed to God’s will, b) must be able to endure hardship/not live in luxury at the risk of scandal, and c) a priest must have a spirit of prayer. All of these come straight from the teachings of Paul.

    -Part 18: a Summary of 15-17

    -Part 19: Do not water down the truth, rather, strive to please Christ over man.

    -Part 20: Bishops should train worthy priests

    -Part 21: Prayer of intercession

    -Part 22: Impartation of Papal blessing

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben15/b15human.htm

    Not only is this document not addressing the laity in the least, the words “lay”, “laity”, “extraordinary minister” do not appear. This is an Encyclical addressing issues with the clergy, and extolling those who, as Beth claims, “know just enough to be a danger to myself and others” from engaging in teaching. That is one way false teachings spread. As Archbishop Fulton Sheen said: “There’s probably not 100 people in the US who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be.” In my life I’ve found that statement ot be surprisingly accurate.

    –Andrew

  85. MCaN Comment by MCaN

    Agent Orange: Thank you for that, I have more faith in my Church leadership now, I just wish they wouldn’t worry so much about diplomatese.

  86. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    annoyinglittletwerp (#82) says: “C.S. Lewis wasn’t a great catholic thinker-though his good friend J.R.R. Tolkein was a catholic. C.S. was a Christian-as was his Jewish born wife-Joy Davidman“…

    Hmmm, I’m not doubting you but I’m reading C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church right now and even though I’m not very far through it yet I had the impression from what he wrote that Lewis was indeed a Catholic… Maybe I’ve misread what I’ve covered so far…

  87. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    juandos,

    In “Mere Christianity”, Lewis claims to be an Anglican.

    Frankly, the Anglican/Episcopalian Church and the Roman Catholic Church are darn near the same thing. The major substantative difference between the two is what happens to the Eucharist after the blessing.

    They’re both still run by the bishops and cardinals. (That’s acually what “episcopal” means…”bishop” or “overseer”)

  88. Unregistered Comment by andyman UNITED STATES

    It is not the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law that counts. This is why my faith finds Western theology (Catholic and Protestant) to be so funny. We do not have these arguments in Orthodoxy.

  89. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX UNITED STATES

    Guess he forgot to take off the brownshirt before putting on the vestments.

    “It’s hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” - Calvin

    Oh well, guess one conspirator in Jew-murder is the same as another.