Pope Benedict's comments on the supremecy of the Catholic church should not come as a surprise to any thinking Protestant.  I'm sure the Pope intends for his recent comments re-asserting the centrality of Catholicism be taken seriously.  I was imagining myself an artist somewhere in Europe during the Middle Ages and rendering two paintings for display on some city street corner.  One painting was of Christ, dressed in humble garb with His piercing yet compassionate eyes inviting fellowship with Him and the heavenly Father.  The other painting was of a leader of an established church decked in his traditional expensive linen whose air of self-importance was appropriately crowned with a diadem carefully placed on top his head.  I asked passersby which painting appealed to them and why.  My survey didn't last a long time, for before the day was through I was whisked away never to be seen again.

Here's a whole package of position changes of the Church, that has underwent a two-directional pendulum swing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Truth doesn't change.  Your church does.  Therefore, your church isn't truth.

Further info:

http://www.cmri.org/02-doct...

 

"It was never a dogma of the faith, only a theological conjecture (so what if Sister Godzilla smacked snotty pupils in the hands with a ruler if they didn't believe in that?)."

Something as important as "limbo" would never have been a conjecture if you had some hotline to God.  It would have been clear from Day 1 and its status -- whatever it is -- would never have been in doubt,

"The Latin Mass? It was and always  has been a valid form of the Mass that was NEVER abrograted. It's not a doctrine either. Just a custom."

So if something is reversed, it's not a doctrine, just a "custom"?  How amazingly convenient.

Pope John Paul 1 to Pope Rats-behind.  The difference is like night and day -- or in this case, day to night.

Truth doesn't swing like a pendulum.  Yours does.

Furthermore, Hardliner, show me a single instance of the Holy Mother Church changing her doctrine. You obviously have jumped to some ridiculous knee-jerk conclusions if you think limbo was a doctrine that was changed. It was never a dogma of the faith, only a theological conjecture (so what if Sister Godzilla smacked snotty pupils in the hands with a ruler if they didn't believe in that?). The Latin Mass? It was and always  has been a valid form of the Mass that was NEVER abrograted. It's not a doctrine either. Just a custom. The recent reassertion of the church's primacy? It's just that: a reassertion of a doctrine that it always believed in. Now I suppose you'll just turn yourself into that blank colored avatar of yours and go "EEEEEEEEEEEE" and pretend you don't hear me in sticking to the juvenilistic argument of yours.

Hardliner, as the saying goes: Looks can be deceiving:

BTW, it looks like Pope Rat's-Ass ticked off the wrong bunch:

http://www.christianworldvi...

Want "holy war?"  You get the Reformation folks on your tail and you might as well have riled up the Mexican Mafia.  Believe me, these "worldview" folks have bigger and badder guns that you guys have.  And they are far better shots.

Well, you lost them, because your church keeps vacillating and oscillating and changing positions.  That's a fact.  Admit it.

1.  Truth doesn't change.

2.  Your church changes, and changes.

3.  Therefore, your church cannot be the truth.

Your credibility is shot, and nothing you can say will repair it.

(I love the ironclad irrefutability, the pinpoint mathematical precision of deductive logic...)

Flash! Some woman regarded as the mother of modern romance novels just perished. It'll be interesting to see if God will be impressed by the fruits of her work before the separating of the wheat from the chaff begins.

But first a moment of prayer, please:

Romans 2:5-8, "But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury."

Sure, RF. That's bound to happen. But did you read what Christ said just before he gave the keys to kingdom of heaven to Peter? For your convenience I have it highlighted for you in Matt. 16-18 here: http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin...

 Read the note a little further down about these "gates of hell."

It must be frustrating for the antichrists to wage a losing cause, eh?

Just as the Jews had the inside track *BEFORE* Christianity, the Moslems took over after Christianity went south (about the time Paul fell off his ass on the way to Damascus.)  Guess the Scientologists think they're poised for the next wave.

Hardliner, may I remind you that the bride of Christ is built upon the rock of Peter? As for your argument, it appears that you have built it upon the sand that Jesus speaks of in Matt. 7: 26-27 -- "And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. "

Furthermore are you calling Christ a liar? To wit, Luke 10:16 -- " He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me."

Now eat these truths, but before you do, have a toilet nearby because the more you eats, the more you ... :

http://home.inreach.com/~bs...

http://home.inreach.com/~bs...

They've still got the keyes to the kingdom of heaven, Hardliner.  Mohammad had the locks changed, however...

Well, you lost them, because your church keeps vacillating and oscillating and changing positions.  That's a fact.  Admit it.

1.  Truth doesn't change.

2.  Your church changes, and changes.

3.  Therefore, your church cannot be the truth.

Your credibility is shot, and nothing you can say will repair it.

(I love the ironclad irrefutability, the pinpoint mathematical precision of deductive logic...)

Ahh, Hardliner4freedom, care to chew the cud on Matt. 16:19?

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Thanks for disproving the church's claims to exclusive rights to "truth."

If it were the truth, it wouldn't vacillate back and forth between positions.  It would stick to the truth and stay put.

Truth doesn't have pendulum swings, any more than 2+2 varies between 3 and 5.

RF, I imagine it was Eve who paved the way to the creation of britches upon having her "eyes opened" to the naked truth at the serpent's suggestion as we see from his qoute in Genesis 3:5 -- "For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil."

By the way, I posted the following article that sums up my thoughts about the pope in Allred's blog at http://people.bakersfield.c... but thought I'd duplicate it here as well:

WITH MAJOR MOVES, QUESTION IS WHETHER BENEDICT WILL BECOME A 'ST. MICHAEL POPE'

There was the rumor, the impression, the word from the start of his pontificate that Benedict XVI was not so much interested in a large Church, an expansive Church, a growing Church, as one that was true to its calling -- that was perhaps even what might be called a remnant.

There were those who said the Pope even desired to make it smaller, if that's what it took to bring it back to the early devotion of Christianity.

He'd rather have a smaller Church, if necessary, but one that was ridded of modern claptrap, that was purified.

And there it was last week: His Holiness making it clear that he was all for unity and bringing followers of Lefebvre back into the fold (and growth, if growth came without compromise), but that he was most interested in restoring majesty: the way things were before matters began to go terribly wrong after 1970.

In one fell swoop, the complexion of the Church had been altered, at least temporarily.

It was older again. It was grander. There was now the memory of a priest facing the altar of God, of deep silence, of august reverence. One observer has called it the "Benedictine Reform."

It was to be seen how far this would go.

At the same time -- not a week after Benedict lifted restrictions on the Latin Mass -- the Vatican issued a document through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that declared all non-Catholic Christian churches to be legitimate churches but ones that were "wounded": not real "churches" with a capital "C."

Non-Catholics can find salvation -- can go to Heaven, the Vatican says -- but there is something missing, Rome also has said since 2000.

The document, issued by Benedict's successor in doctrinal matters, Cardinal William Levada, aimed to correct what it called "erroneous or ambiguous" interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which took place from 1962 to 1965.

We are the Mother Church, he was declaring. We are not going to pretend we are not the Mother Church. We prepared the very documents that are known as the Bible. We are the oldest institution on earth. This is the way we begin ecumenical discussion.

And we are not going to wash away. We are not going to compromise, not to the extent we have. The dilutions of past concessions are now going to be thickened with the majesty of true devotion -- rectified in a stronger fort.

That was one way of viewing it: as a move toward strength. Such had not come the last time Benedict was on such a high stage, in the wake of Regensburg. There the Pope was seen as backtracking after making strong proclamations, but now, there was this flurry -- and then off to vacation.

Let the arrows, the canon-law balls, fly, he seemed to be saying -- turning into the Cardinal Ratzinger that everyone knew: If Jews were offended by the fact that the Latin Mass had a prayer for their conversion (on Good Friday) -- if that was not diplomatic, if it was not politically correct -- it was a chip that had to fall into place, he seemed to say.

If there were those who were miffed at his comments on banal modern church music -- his promotion of the Gregorian chant, which started the whole ball rolling -- so be it, he was now implying.

And so a pontificate had emerged. He was defining himself. He had his own track record, if one that remained informed by his predecessor. Was it a "St. Michael the Archangel" pontificate?

This was asked -- phrased in such a way -- because St. Michael was known as the great angel of love (as Benedict surprised everyone with an encyclical on love) at the same time that he is known as the Church Militant.

We have a Pope! And his pontificate was hitting a high point on the feast of St. Benedict! A broad range this: love and at the same time theological warfare.

At the least, there was now the first significant reversal of liturgical abuse since the Second Vatican Council. It was a shot over the bow of modernism.

At a time of sterility, he was going to insert a touch of liturgical mysticism. At a time of hollow English -- of cliches, of jargon -- he was going to head back to where things had been in more devout times.

That was good, but how would the faithful respond?

There was this to recall: Christ admonished the Sadducees and Pharisees not to put legalistic notions of religion above the true spirituality of God -- which is love. Without love, and without true inner spiritual development, religion was naught but an institution. And any way: religions are but disciplines to reach the narrow way of the Lord.

Such was to be kept in mind. Such was to be recalled so that there was no looking down the snoot at those who are not Catholic, or who worship differently, who prefer the novus ordo Mass, a Mass that has tremendous power, when said properly.

But neither are we to compromise, to water down, that Catholicism -- this incredibly rich religion the fruit of which has been 2,000 years of survival.

How would the motu proprio, the lifting of restrictions on Latin, play out? Would it cause a sea change, or just a small little faction to keep hankering for Latin Masses, as there are little factions that struggle in parishes for Adoration? Would it lead to yet more division between modernists and conservatives -- between priests and congregants, between the faithful and their dioceses, if Latin was denied, if it was said (as well it may be) that there were not enough priests conversant in the tongue -- that there were not enough priests available, period?

That was one potential source of new conflict and the other arena was that of schismatic Traditionalists who had followed Archbishop Lefebvre in breaking with Rome over the novus ordo Mass and who now had no more excuse for separation -- not really anything legitimate.

"With this 'motu proprio' (a phrase that signifies a Pope is acting on his own initiative) the door has been opened for a return to full communion by the [Traditionalist] Society of St. Pius X," said Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, the Vatican official who has led the dialogue effort with the Lefebvrites, in an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Giornale. "If this return does not happen after this act, I truly wouldn't understand it."

Would they show the love of the Pope and return to the Mother Church? Or would both liberals and schismatic conservatives harden yet further, causing another rent in the fabric (and de-legitimatizing themselves)?

Would the Church get larger -- or smaller?

"With traditionalists emboldened and progressives feeling under siege, the Church hierarchy and local bishops may wind up caught in the crossfire," said Time. "Still, on a more substantive level, Benedict's real long-term objective may be a sort of 'counter-reform' of the alternative practices of the new Mass rather than a widespread return to the old one. He says the Vatican II reform 'was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear.' This document is certainly a clear warning to those progressives who have their own ideas about reforming the Mass."

Benedict did not seem obsessed with that. Come what may, he was looking for the august way, the way of truth, the way of majesty, the way of love -- liturgical love.

He chose the name Benedict and Benedict is in the pantheon of warriors against the devil, all led, of course, by the Archangel Michael, which leads us to our last question:

Now that Latin is allowed back, how about the prayer to the Archangel Michael?

Most of us do, Pax.  Only a few stay in the same confinement they had as a kid.  Makes it hard for them to walk, though.

"I used to be an Irish Catholic.  Now I'm an American.  You know...you grow..."  --George Carlin.

I can only say: it looks like ol' George outgrew his britches.

Well, as Moe once said on The Simpsons: "Once a snake handler, always a snake handler."

Maybe we can start slaughterin' animals at the altar again. Mmmmmmm. Lamb Chops!

Hi Pax! How the heckarya?

Pax~neither are mine.If you think the Holy Spirit can inspire anyone into the truths, then how to explain the 30,000-plus Christian denominations  That also may explain the bible.Your own words not mine.You are welcome to your feelings ,as am I

"I used to be an Irish Catholic.  Now I'm an American.  You know...you grow..."  --George Carlin.

Ahh, Carlin, a product of the Catholic Deformation.

I agree it's pretty schizophrenic.  I disagree that any one of the schizophrenic "voices in the head" is the *ONE TRUE VOICE.*

.

Hardliner, your reading of "Gloria" gives a whole new meaning to "O Come All Ye Faithful," doesn't it?  (Hat tip to George Carlin, himself a recovering Catholic.)

Sure, Sagefever, but just remember that my beliefs are not my subjective "feelings." Christ was very precise, like a laser, about what he taught and imparted on his followers. Nothing has changed an iota since then. Only the church he founded has the authority to interpret the Bible that she herself wrote. If you think the Holy Spirit can inspire anyone into the truths, then how to explain the 30,000-plus Christian denominations? That's pretty schizophrenic, if you ask me.

By the way, has anyone noticed the crushing irony over the shrill histrionics coming from those advocating for greater outreach and pastoral care from the pope to those on the fringes? Sadly, the pope is doing just that in reaching out to the schismatic SSPX (Society of St. Pius X) in liberalizing the Tridentine Mass. But it's crystal clear that the left is turning out to be more narrow-minded than the pope is purported to be.

Pax~if you believe any human gets thru this life on a wide and easy path my friend you are sadly mistaken.And I believe if God exists she/he/it that which can have no name is a huge jokester..so yeah.Words can enlighten anyone,but sometimes in the strict interpretation one can get into trouble.I realize that you are sincere in your belief's, so am I.

Sagefever, if your idea of a "heavenly picnic" becomes a reality, then we can give our Lord a good ribbing about the nonsense he spoke of in Matt. 10: 34-35. Or needle him about whether he really meant for the church he founded on the rock of Peter to have the authority to bind and loosen sins. Or scoff at his notion about the path to him being hard and narrow, not the path that is wide and easy which many take but leads to their destruction.

Yes, Hardliner4freedom, something evil indeed is in the air when all think the truth is enslaved to them or to no one when the fact of the matter is that Christ, who called himself "the way, truth and life," passed along the authority over heaven and Earth to his followers, who certainly didn't live and die for a lie as evidenced by the numerous early Christian martyrs. They sure didn't feel the love back then.

My two cents:another huge societal change is upon us,we sense something is afoot,hence the rise in fear, to most change is scary..I smell hope myself and positive change.

uh oh.. spam code:DOOMT I kid ya' not...sets hands on hips,still smells hope dang it!

Ah, maybe that explains why it seems as if every fricken religion in the world is turning bigoted, judgmental and intolerant all of a sudden -- the whole world is in trouble and people are handing over their power in droves.

It isn't just fundamentalist Christianity -- every major world religion seems to be embracing the gospel of hate all of a sudden.  I just don't get it.

Something evil in the air?

Buchanan as the supporter? strange bedfellows indeed~and another sign of the right falling apart,soon the in fighting will begin.The urge to hand over your power to another is strong,especially in times of trouble,makes it easier to be told what to do ,think,say.When we have that heavenly re-union picnic Pax,no need to say your sorry~Love one another ya' know?

An argument over the Bible may have been the reason someone fired a gun into a home with two children, according to a police report.

No one was hurt in the shooting in the 5400 block of Northwest 5th Street on Sunday night.

Wilkenson Pandol, 23, said he was sure the shooting was a retaliation for an argument he had with some men about the Bible on Friday.

"It got out of hand," Pandol said. "A couple of them wanted to fight me."

http://tinyurl.com/2edh84

When I was a teenager, I thought "Gloria in excelsis Deo" referred to a chick named Gloria having one whale of an orgasm.

Oh, yes, Robb, you know me too well. I was actually going to post that article but saw that Steve beat me to the punch. Struck a real nerve, all, eh? I was going to serve up a 2-for-1 deal by adding this excellent analysis on the Latin Mass revival by Patrick Buchanan.

Gloria, in Excelsius Deo -- for inspiring the Holy Father not to allow the one, true, catholic and apostolic church to be enslaved by the "dictatorship of relativism"! Pity the folks who are enslaved to it on Judgment Day.

bakersfield said "...Catholics tend to be more interested in the traditions and ceremony than actually following the word of God."

woofer says, ok, but they're also about putting the *FEAR* in you too.

from "While You Were Sleeping" - "I like mass much better when it's in Latin, it's so much nicer when you don't know what they're saying" and from "She's the One" - "But dad, you don't even belive in God" "That doesn't keep me from being a good Catholic".

I say whatever denomination floats your boat, just don't try to tell me your is better than mine, and I won't tell you mine is better than yours. If I believed yours to be better, I'd probably belong to your church. From what I've seen, Catholics tend to be more interested in the traditions and ceremony than actually following the word of God. No thanks, I like to go to church and feel inspired and learn something. I like the fact that my pastor doesn't just say shut up and listen, we follow along with our Bibles and have discussions. I couldn't stand just being preached to, I'd probably just fall asleep.

Where's Pax? Bet he's all puffed-up and pleased da Pope is asserting THE church's supremecy. 

Take it cum grano salis from this former Catholic (and fourth-year Latin student.) :)

interesting random.  if true, that adds to the "reasons to be glad I'm not Catholic" list.

Hey, Ceecee, you don't expect to understand your doctor's prescriptions and your lawyer's legal briefs too, do you?  The essence of using Latin instead of the vernacular is to say "don't ask questions, just trust us."

I'm not Catholic, have no idea what "mass" entails, but this is the way I see it, why would you want to go to church when you don't even know what they're saying?  Doesn't that defeat the purpose of any belief?  If you don't know what is being said, or taught how can you agree?  I don't get it.

Maybe they can substitute Spanish for Latin, people really seem to hate that language. It would be the end of Catholism as we know it!!
At least in America.

http://www.intriguing.com/m...

Yeah, if the apostles couldn't stay awake for Jesus, how do they expect parishoners to make it through a dead languaged Mass.

That they all ignore the Sermon on the Mount equally?

I thought it was the job of Christian leaders to highlight the differences and forget the one common bond.

Besides, everyone knows that Jesus spoke Latin, not Aramaic.

Sigh....just another highjacked religion tweeked to combine that religion with local customs.

Ah, a Peter Lorre fan, those were the days.

I'm surprised all religions don't conduct their services in dead languages. As Joel Cairo said in The Maltese Falcon, "I certainly wish you would have invented a more reasonable story. I felt distinctly like an idiot repeating it."

The Jews don't need our sympathy; we give them 6 to 10 billion reasons to like us every year. As for the Pope if our own governor once saluted and clicked his heels, why should the Pope have less rights?

Besides, what difference is it if these religious leaders cheered for Hitler or Mussolini? They could have wound up on our shores like many other did, wait these are good aliens from the right planets, forgive me for I know not what I do.

Catholic Supremacy, the Marine Corp of religion, now drop down and give me 10 hail marys....