21 replies »

1. He also wants to return to the latin mass. IIRC, there’s some pretty anti-Semitic stuff in the latin mass. All of a sudden it feels like the Catholic Church has regressed at least 40 years….

2. I think the witch burning has been pretty clear for a few hundred years now. See The Witch Hammer (Malleus Maleficarum). Now, as for converting Jews…well…I’m sure the same methods probably apply.

3. Brian: …and surprising no one in the process.

   I had a Franciscan brother for a colleague at SBU and I remember his horror when it became clear who the new pope was going to be. Guess he was right….

4. I guess we can all hope that God “calls home” Benedict sooner rather than later. Because, for all of the Catholic Church’s problems and regression, it’s still a damn sight more progressive than many other Christian churches out there (the Westboro Baptist Church comes immediately to mind).

5. The first three words of the catechism (both Anglican and Catholic) state: “God is love.” It’s the first, most basic lesson the church teaches….

   Why can’t this moron accept his own church’s teaching? Oh, that’s right – this isn’t about the church – it’s about dragging the world back into a feudal system….

6. Oh, I don’t know. Some Priests on the east coast know ALL about lovin’ thy neighbor. 🙂

7. Bizarre really, the thing that allowed the Christian Church to absorb so many people in so many countries and cultures was its capacity for adaptation. After the 16th century ructions of the Reformation all the different churches managed to accept that each stood for more-or-less the same thing.

   It is this capacity that is most limiting to Islam. A fatwa was only released about two years ago which declared that different streams of Islam are not apostate and are all Muslims together. It still isn’t widely accepted and so the wars between the sects continue.

   Now the Pope wants to go back to this? I always thought he was a twat and would render the Catholic church entirely irrelevant. Good on him, he’s consistent.

8. Pingback: Yeah! I’m Still A Heretic!!! « Virtual Bourgeois

9. Benny really knows how to make friends, doesn’t he? The newspaper I work for asked leaders of several denominations for a comment but apparently they all declined. Perhaps they felt to do so would only give his decision more dignity than it deserves.

10. What the Pope said is the truth. Why should there be offense? All of the protestant religions broke off from what Christ had started, because they had disagreements with the Church that God had started. They went against God. What is the problem with saying this? He did not say they were going to hell. You said that. He just said they were not the true church that God gave us. Every religion believes the same thing that the Pope has stated, that theirs is the true belief. What is the big deal? Would you expect a man who as devoted his life to his faith to say that every belief is true. No. Of course not. Every belief cannot be true.

11. 1: It’s a god thing god has the Pope to sort things out for him.

    2: No, every religion does NOT believe that. Far from it. Some religions have the negation of “we’re the one true belief” as fundamental principles.

12. But if the “fundamental principals” are fundamentally incongruent then we aren’t of one true belief. It would be a lie to say so. If I have a friend who believes that they won’t die if they jump off a cliff, should I say, “that is great that you believe that!!!” Or should I correct that belief to save their life?

    God instituted the Pope as the leader of His church on earth so I’m thinking he works for Him.

    I regards to whether religions believe “we are of one true belief” They may say publicly that they are but privately why would you choose to be a certain faith if you did not believe it to be the TRUTH?

13. But if the

14. And at this point you

15. So let me make sure I get this right. You believe that your religion is the One True Religion and the Pope speaks with The Voice of God.

    I believe that my religion, at best, has only a partial glimpse into the spiritual truths of the universe and that it would be arrogant of me to make any claim to greater knowledge than that.

    This makes ME dogmatic and illustrates YOUR point.

    Am I close?

16. * So let me make sure I get this right. You believe that your religion is the One True Religion and the Pope speaks with The Voice of God.*

    Yes I do believe that my religion is the one true religion and the Pope faithfully does the will of God. Of course we all have free will and the ability to sin and lead people astray.

    My point is that when you get right down to it, you feel that you are right about your beliefs and that others who don’t share them are wrong. True?

    * I believe that my religion, at best, has only a partial glimpse into the spiritual truths of the universe and that it would be arrogant of me to make any claim to greater knowledge than that.*

    If that is what you believe, that is not what you said in the first statement. You said that you “know better” than to claim a monopoly on the truth.

    *This makes ME dogmatic and illustrates YOUR point.*

    I did not say that you were being dogmatic, I said that just because you think I am being dogmatic doesn’t mean I am.

    Yes of course whatever understanding we have of God is very simple probably in comparison to what He is, but what is the point in professing faith, if all truths are equal? And how good is a leader of faith, if he expresses this thought to his people?

17. *and that it would be arrogant of me to make any claim to greater knowledge than that.*

    *I

18. My point is that when you get right down to it, you feel that you are right about your beliefs and that others who don

19. You are doing your share of misunderstanding and misrepresenting.
    I am not treating anything as hard science. There are other ways to validate something beyond an ability to prove it.

    Faith. That is what it is called. If you could prove it maybe they would call it proof.

    I have a relationship with my son. Funny. Nobody has every asked me to prove it.

    I have a relationship with God too, just in the same way that I have a relationship with my son. I interact with Him daily in the same sort of way that I interact with my son. This is the source of my belief. Not dogma. What is written informs my faith and my relationship with God. This is where you misunderstand me about being dogmatic.

    As to where “all truths being equal comes from,” it is my belief that only with the underlying assumption that most faiths are valid would someone get upset with someone saying “we are the true church.” In other words, it is the anti-PC thing to say. I didn’t necessarily attribute that belief to you and now I think I understand you to say that because no one knows (For a fact that can be proven) what is true, they are arrogant to say they do. Correct?

    Again, and I feel the opposite way. What is the point of holding a belief if you don

20. I am not treating anything as hard science. There are other ways to validate something beyond an ability to prove it.

    If someone accepts your dogma, yes. But that’s not validating something in a rational fashion, it’s merely choosing to agree on assumptions. Hardly the same thing, and we’re not going to pretend that they are. As you say, you don’t need faith for things that can be proven. On that I agree with you completely.

    I have a relationship with my son. Funny. Nobody has every asked me to prove it.

    No, but then again, you can prove you have a son.

    I have a relationship with God too, just in the same way that I have a relationship with my son. I interact with Him daily in the same sort of way that I interact with my son. This is the source of my belief. Not dogma. What is written informs my faith and my relationship with God. This is where you misunderstand me about being dogmatic.

    I have no doubt that there is something you interact with just as you say you do, and if you want to call it god that’s cool with me. As I said before, I have no real say in your personal beliefs. If whatever it is helps you live a better life and be a better person, then I’m all for it, in fact – whether it’s worshipping the Christian god or a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    As to where “all truths being equal comes from,” it is my belief that only with the underlying assumption that most faiths are valid would someone get upset with someone saying “we are the true church.” In other words, it is the anti-PC thing to say.

    That may be your assumption, but it’s wrong. If I thought there were many gods and they were all equal, your statement would upset me. If I thought there was one god and it was mine, not yours, I’d be upset. If I thought there were many gods but they WEREN’T all equal, your statement would upset me. If I thought there were NO gods, your statement might get on my nerves a little, too.

    I didn’t necessarily attribute that belief to you and now I think I understand you to say that because no one knows (For a fact that can be proven) what is true, they are arrogant to say they do. Correct?

    Yes on the last part. Of course, the way the statement was presented and contextualized it most certainly did implicate me, and when you look at all the battles I have fought AGAINST that kind of ludicrous, corrosive hyper-relative dogma (yeah, I accused the postmodern relativists of being dogmatic, too – spend as much time in academic as I have and you’ll see what I mean) you’ll understand why it bothers me.

    Again, and I feel the opposite way. What is the point of holding a belief if you don

21. I only believe in one thing: the power of a good nap.