So you choose to cite the Inquisition as the unChristian killing the Christian – the fact is much of European Christian history is that of the Catholic Church – built on its claim to authority and right to declare heresy (Cathars, Waldensians/Lollards/Wycliffe, Hus and Luther and Calvin) and this also included the Inquistion – which was not a unique event (nothing is quite as telling as the slaughter of people of south France to the order kill them all Cathar and Catholic alike, God will save the Catholic). One cannot isolate the people running the Inquistion from the authorisation for it from the Church and its tradition and the accpetance of Christian autocrats to this happening in their countries. And lets note that other groups, Anglicans and the Consistory of Geneva amongst them, were capable of some brutality themselves (the English Civil War was as much about the ruling religion as anything political). This happens whenever religion has theocractic power and asserts either its truth or its primacy.

I take no sides in noting the mixed influence of Christianity in Europe – I neither say the abuser or the victim was the Christian involved, I simply say the abuse was wrong. And the abuse occured because society was not secular and this is why Europe moved to secular society to have peace. When national conflicts continued to cause war, they moved away from fixed national identity to the European Union to have peace.

There is something called a natural state in which the rights to life and liberty occur, because Christian theocracy – monopoly religion and political autocracy, became a problem to life and liberty, they were replaced with a new social contract. Because nationalist conflict became a problem to life and liberty, they moved to a new social contract.

OK, I will say that Christians do sin, and the real ones repent. But I make no apologies for disowning Torquemada, or IRA killers, or their like.

The critics of Christianity invariably give no benefit of their judgement to the Christian Martyrs who were the main VICTIMS of the inquisitions. De-Christianising THOSE people is a FAR more immoral argument than MINE is……..

I have noted you state here and there your opinion that not only the indiividuals but also the society/nation outside of Christianity awaits disaster … this is the pre Christian society religion of 2000 years ago and now the post Christian society religion of today.

“I will state categorically that there is NOTHING you will be able to point to in support of your comment that some of Christianity’s contribution to the history of Europe was “bad” as well as some good, that does not in fact involve some abandonment of the teachings of Christ by those that YOU impute to have been the Christians at the time. For example, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, it was predominantly Christians who were being tortured to death, in the Inquisition, not Christians doing the torturing. Torquemada and his ilk were merely equivalents in their day to the Taleban today. Notice that Muslims are the ones who suffer the most at the hands of the Taleban, and we are constantly told that the Taleban sort of stuff is not the true Islam. Same idea.”

So your arguement is that anything done wrong by Christians was something done wrong by someone who was not a Christian, because Christians do no wrong. Well who can argue with logic like that ….

So all those acting in the name of Christianity and the Church or their divine right authority as an anointed head of state (and or church) who did wrong were not Christians. The lack of declared Christian advocacy of democracy as a more legitimate form of government, the lack of focus on literacy so people could read the people was because Christians were not inspired by their faith to do justice for the powerless or enlighten/empower the people with knowledge of the word of the bible. How many real Christians were there in Europe in all those centuries?

Were Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans of the 30 years war, Anglicans …? And if so many were not real Christians, what real Christian heritage is there in Europe …

Oh were Jews who chose to convert to Christianity to avoid property confiscation real Christians when they continued to observe the sabbath day (the Catholic Church banned sabbath day keeping by Christians at the Council of Laodicea in 365CE).

“Gimme some more of your tired historically revisionist arguments”

I would have thought denying that Christians did bad things because Christians did not do them, would have to be the most revisionist statement about Christians, their history and Christianity itself that I have ever heard … so take a bow …

and we’ll see what we can do with them, but a lot of what has already gone down in this thread is going to be relevant.

Gimme some more of your tired historically revisionist arguments and we’ll see what we can do with them, but a lot of what has already gone down in this thread is going to be relevant.

There is no need to apologise for taking up the opportunity offered to inform us of Catholic Church “apologetics”.

But there is nothing in the only writings attributed to Simon Peter of any such claims made by himself. Even Jesus only called himself Son of Man (a title from the book of Ezekiel, given for the human visited by an angel, which if used for others also so visited would make it less than unique – and it would also include some women called “Daughter of Woman” – more rare cases when this occurs within families).

The interesting thing about the gospel storyline is that the location, Ceasarea Philippi, is a cult centre to the emperor as a god. The point being to pose a cultural division in religious matters between those with a faith in the one Creator God and Rome and the rest of the world. This points to a struggle of authority in the religous sphere (not with swords). In any struggle of authority, there is the issue of superior claim to primacy. One has to see the gospel writing in this light.

At this point I suppose, the different perspective, between those who believe the bible is the word of God to man, rather than the word of men about the Godfaith they were building, becomes obvious.

Christianity: On Catholic tradition and others within the Christian word of God faith, the divisions occur over Simon Peter ever being at Rome (issue of evidence) “and” leading the church from there. And then of course the issues of HASP and continuance via other streams etc, as well as the resort to a “Christ led church of the bible word authority” of other groups formed (who usually identify some truth revealed to them to legitimise either their election or their special righteousness in the faith).

BTW.

1. If one is searching for what is called justification or legitimacy behind the “claims” made in the gospel, they exist in the understanding within tradition. Psalm 2 refers to a son of God’faith throne concept for the throne of David. Elsewhere Israel is called a kingdom of priests (of God). Is the Messiah to take up a son of God’faith throne in a kingdom of priests. This speaks to the idea that the royal King has some authority over mercy (a lower worldly form of God’s grace) for the lawbreaker, being able to ransom them to the service of slaves (building for the King) by his word (such as he who worthy to judge another let them cast the first stone …).

2. In Jewish thought, they imagined their Messiah, once restoring Zion, being a leading figure in the world. The problem of course was the growing awareness in that age that no man could fulfill the mandate (fight and defeat empires and establish their small nation as one with greater ruling power, yet be a Rabbi of the word of God bringing peace and justice to the world). Of course what was possible, was to de-emphasise the national throne restoration and focus on the oneness of all creation before God. This would require the idea of a son of God throne kingdom being one for all peoples and nations and his followers/Church in the world presenting this gospel.

“Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the powers of hell will not prevail against it…to you I give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17-19);

It’s interesting that the word key is associated with a message to the angel of the church in Philadelphia in the book of prophecy – where it is called the key of David (Psalm 2) and uses the same metaphors as well. Others include reference to the Temple and a new Jerusalem which comes down from heavan (which speaks IMO to the issue of a national throne city becoming a son of Godfaith throne city for all peoples and nations (again see Psalm 2).

Like Rome, Philadelphia/Amman Jordan, has 7 hills. A group went there in 67CE to escape the fighting in Jerusalem, where Jews were killing other Jews even in the Temple (this civil war and purge during the fighting with Rome).

I suppose the Catholic Church will have to have to explain how a church coming out of Judea could be a “new Jerusalem” arriving at Rome from out of “heavan”.

Do you think defending “Christian” tradition, by trying to claim that secular society and sustainable economy through conservation and environment protection is some post communist and fascist threat to “human” life, is going to work? You might believe it, but …

I don’t mind making the extreme prediction that like the godless movements of the 20th Century, they are going to be disastrous in the extreme for humanity. But not that the responsible “establishment” will ever have to admit it. Think Naziism or Communism having won, and entrenched, and the untold millions of deaths and the suffering, being forced on our opinions as a good thing………

“are you christians having fun..?

(i don’t know if you noticed..but everyone else seems to have slipped away..

..but don’t let that stop you..

eh..?”

One thing I’ve noticed is that the longer the thread, the longer it takes to load, and this is probably a factor in people dropping out. The question that comes to MY mind is, how does a bludger like “philu” afford the necessary bandwidth to still hang in there? Not to mention the hours he spends online…..or perhaps he just has more time to waste waiting for a lengthy thread to load……

Christianity made a “contribution”, good and bad, while in authority in Europe. There is a continuing cultural legacy. But it should not be overstated. Christianty’s pride in Europe and a related possessiveness, is not a good look for the religion.

et al,

The “PC” environmentalism and related social gospel in the modern view of the issues of sin, is of course speaking to the modern democratic or national community (rather than the individual), which did not exist till recent times.

It is not unbiblical, Adam was told to have dominion and responsibility for the world environment (conservation of species, sustaining the habitat – there is no evidence the flood even happened), and the end time prophecy book (which is really about human mortality and the coming of the Kingdom of God, still asks us to oppose the causes of human distress – war, famine and disease, so that we still die of old age, rather than in societal destruction by anti-human forces).

Even a Green, without religion, understands that of the message.

“The whole discourse about the influence of “Christianity” on Europe is tenuous.”

Oh, come ONNNNNNNNNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“At the time of Christ the Jews were a loose confederation of tribes much like the Iraqis and Arabs of today. Whatever it was that Christ did he certainly changed the view of “an eye for an eye” to something quite different that set in train the Christian world of science, progress, exploration and world dominance. His testament was of “love the people outside of your family and tribe”.. and that was good enough to set in motion an international movement of co-operation that moved the West to pre-eminence.. eventually.

The nuclear explosion of Christ’s thought is with us still, and drives us to greater discoveries that are not limited to family or tribe.. and thats the difference we have over the traditional tribal societies. However, the moot point is whether His message is sufficient to overcome the new Mega-tribes of the Suiciders (those who won’t breed), the Greens (those who hate the breeders) and the “Me” generation who have no intention of allowing rugrats to influence their good life.”

WELL SAID !

The main underlying thrust against this stigma has been not so much the idea of “compassion for the unfortunate”, as plain, straight-out feminism and the “empowerment of women”. We actually have a marriage PENALTY in the fiscal and welfare structure as it stands, and it is politically correct to leave it this way because our politically correct establishment positively despises the IDEA of traditional husband-and-wife child raising, full stop. What we are refusing to confront is that the growth both of an “underclass” and of crime, is driven to such an extent by the phenomenon of children being raised without a father, and quite possibly even economically-viable upper-class solo motherhood plays a role in this too.

I agree completely that we must not be unfair in focusing on the mothers of the children concerned. The DPB has enabled irresponsible and predatory attitudes among males just as much as it has “empowered” women. There is something VERY WRONG with a system that does not bother to penalise irresponsible, predatory males while married, family-supporting fathers are slugged to the extent of thousands of dollars per annum. People’s basic desires are powerful enough without the State and the institutions of society adding leverage to activity and lifestyle that is socially destructive in the long term.

It is not a case of needing to revert to theocracy. We didn’t have that in the first place. We just had individual responsibility. Nor am I advocating regulations about numbers of people per dwelling or the like. I strongly oppose the current PC eco-totalitarian line that tells people how to live and where to live, based on premises that do not stand up to scrutiny. It is good to see that you understand my argument about this. Do you not think it hypocritical of Malthusian activists living in inner city apartments to rail against suburban family living, when THEIR ecological footprints are actually the greater?

Basically what I am saying is quite compatible with an agenda of freedom and small government. Government tinkering with society does, and has had, unintended consequences that has made society worse off, whether in increased crime or in increased resource consumption. The freedom and small government that leftist activists despise, would actually have given better outcomes.

“Philbest, what exactly are you asking? Are you saying that half of the preists in the CC are atheists, wiccans, Marxists, and the like who are out to kill off Christianity? Or are you saying that its fishy that the CC sets a mandatory training scheme for its priests?

Please clarify if possible. I’m no theologian though. ”

What I am saying is not aimed specifically at the Catholic Church, but at all churches who appoint pastors, and fail to remove them, when those pastors are driven by objectives other than the Christian gospel, and might from the outset have only become a pastor to advance some other agenda. I am not making any claims about percentages of pastors, “half of priests” or anything like that.

For example, there was a time when all the establishment churches stood for care of the poor and needy at the level of the family, the neighbourhood, and the parish. Now we have the absurd situation where they have been supplanted in that role by State coercion, yet many pastors are little more than political activists on the behalf of more of the same. The role of envy and the moral hazard implicit in welfarism and entitlement seems to have escaped them.

One is deeply suspicious at the nexus between the rise of Marxist activism, in its workers revolutionary form, its income-redistributive form, and its modern-day cultural form; and the positions of many pastors of establishment churches. If you take the time to look into “Cultural Marxism”, “Political Correctness”, and “The Long March Through the Institutions”, you will see that the neo-Marxist theory driving these things explicitly states that “churches” are to be used along with the media and educational institions and bureaucracy. And some churches do not appoint their pastors carefully enough to escape this infiltration.

Others, while not being specifically driven by a “cultural Marxism” agenda, may merely wish to impose THEIR notions of what Christianity should be, rather than uphold what it IS.

I do think that issuing a new list of seven new modern-day sins falls into the category of political activism, and that many church figures have lost sight of their responsibility to preach and work against the original seven.

But at least the Catholics do not, I think, have any of the absurd Geering / Veitch / Spong type of white ants infesting its clergy.

The Roman Catholic church is the only legitimate inheritor, by an unbroken episcopal succession descending from Saint Peter to the present time, of the commission and powers conferred by Jesus Christ. Until the break with the Eastern Church in 1054 and the break with the Protestant churches in the 1500s, it is impossible to separate the history of the Roman Catholic church from the history of Christianity.

I don’t in any way disagree with Mr Dennis, and I challenge any man to say they have any authority otherwise. Can you cite anyone who actually does? Slighting anyone with a different opinion as having another gospel speaks to an arrogant presumption that another truth is held and it’s authority is somehow absolute.

SPC, the CC solemnly believes in absolute Truth and absolute authority. Therefore, to deny the CC Magisterium is to deny Truth, the Truth who’s very purpose is to . So why would you deny yourself the way to Heaven?

On the questions of infallibility and authority:

Infallibility is the protection given by the Holy Spirit to the pope so that he will never teach error in matters of faith and morals. The First Vatican Council, which defined papal infallibility in 1870, was acting in response to a challenge to the doctrine which has always been true and was accepted and practiced from the earliest times. The evidence for papal infallibility comes from three sources: Scripture, history and logic.

Evidence of the Church’s authority appear in Scripture, such as: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the powers of hell will not prevail against it…to you I give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17-19); “Do you love me, Peter… Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17); and “I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren.” (Luke 22:31-32)

Grace of God is traditionally from God alone, even within Christianity, so why do you believe otherwise and where does the Catholic Church claim it’s mandate comes from.

Let’s look at the CC as a megaphone, an instrument that God holds up with His own hand and in which His voice passes through to his people. Just as a megaphone does not have the ability to speak for itself, the CC is not an authority unto itself. It does not have the authority to decide what sin is, but it can relate to its members and the world on what God thinks of sin or what it interprets God thinks of sin. Do you disagree with the Church on sin? Do you not think that pride, anger and lust are terrible things? They are, and it is important for such an influential body such as the CC to reaffirm that not all actions by men are good ones – and that we can commit acts which will limit our access to Heaven. Its mandate comes from scripture.

Where does Simon Peter say he had any authority to decide what was sin (on behalf of God)? Where does Simon Peter claim that believing that Jesus was a “son of God” make him infallible on anything afterwards? Jesus taught men, none being perfect (thus leaving it to God to decide) not to judge and certainly describing “mortal sins” is an act of judgement.

By reaffirming to Christ that he believed he was the Son of God, Jesus made Peter the first Pope of the CC. And the CC is certainly not infallible on everything – but it is on Faith and Morals as stated in the Catholic Catechism. I strongly suggest you read it.

Yeah, this acting for God line does not convince me, Simon Peter was leader of those preaching a gospel of a coming Kingdom which would have authority, not a group claiming that they themselves had authority over others (when the church claimed to be the kingdom of heaven … they crossed the line into the realm of the power that corrupts those less than God).

I know of no reference where the CC has ever claimed to be the Kingdom of Heaven and cannot see how you can claim that they have been corrupted by power. If you believe in God, then you must also believe in His power. It is a testament to the CC and its authority that survives with the blessing of God. I cannot believe that God would allow such a ‘presumptuous’ church to act on His behalf if He did not wish it to be so. I trust in God and that if the CC goes beyond itself and becomes a power unto itself than God will step in.

So you need to be virtuous as a Catholic Pope describes virtuous … as if Catholic standards were also heavan’s standards

Yes, the CC’s standards are the standards of Heaven. This is not to say that if you are not in the CC, then you are not going to heaven. I believe that good, honest, virtuous people by decree of God will make it into Heaven, but that is not to say that everyone will. BUT if you follow the CC faithfully, then you are in good stead of getting there. Its not the only way of getting to heaven, but by far it’s the best way.

You are the most presumptious of the year so far. Declaration of the surpemacism and arrogance of your Church is not an endearing trait by the way. It’s just a form of primitive tribalism.

I understand that the CC’s stance on absolute truth is hard to sallow. I would too, especially if it came from anywhere else. But if you see it from the CC’s point of view, it has the authority and the office of St Peter to back itself up. No decision from Rome is made lightly. It takes years and years to verify and confirm its beliefs, but what is a testament to the truth of the CC is that it has lasted so long. Its dogma has withstood the test of time and through centuries of heresies and attacks from outsiders.

As the beautiful St Augustine of Hippo once said:

In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.

No “New Deadly Sins” – Media Perpetrating Massive Distortion

By Hilary White

March 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Some of the most prominent English language newspapers in the world – the Times and the Daily Telegraph in London; the Globe and Mail in Canada; the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia; as well as Reuters news agency and ABC News and NPR in the US – have run this week with the story that the “Vatican” has “re-written” the traditional seven deadly sins and offered a “replacement” list. But Catholic journalists and media watch groups have said it is a blatant case of media distortion and the creation of a massive teapot tempest.

Within hours of an interview with a Vatican official appearing in L’Osservatore Romano, the news wires were flooded with hundreds of reports. “Vatican updates seven deadly sins”, ABC News offered; from Reuters we have “Vatican lists ‘new sins’, including pollution”; the Sydney Morning Herald wrote, “Vatican updates seven deadly sins”.

Out (say the news outlets) are lust, greed, gluttony and sloth; in are environmental degradation, “social injustice” and being too wealthy.

But according to Catholic media experts, the headlines have distorted beyond recognition the original L’Osservatore Romano interview with Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, an official of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican office that oversees the delicate and difficult matters of confession of sins.

Catholic author and journalist Phil Lawler said the “media need a reality check”.

“When a second-tier Vatican official gives a newspaper interview, he is not proclaiming new Church doctrines” Lawler said.

Presenting the comments in the context of a speech by Pope Benedict calling for Catholics to return to the sacrament of confession, Girotti was portrayed as offering a “new list” of sins that would “replace” the traditional theological formulation.

In reality, Archbishop Girotti was giving some private comments on the application of Catholic teaching to modern conditions. The archbishop gave examples of what he called “new forms of social sin,” including genetic manipulation of human embryos and drug trafficking.

Girotti also listed “social inequality” and “social injustice” as a “corollary of the unstoppable process of globalization”.

Girotti, erroneously identified in the media as the “head” of the tribunal, told the interviewer, “If yesterday sin had a rather individualistic dimension, today it has a value, a resonance beyond the individual, above all social, because of the great phenomenon of globalization. In effect, the attention to sin presents itself more urgently today than yesterday, because its consequences are wider and more destructive.”

Writing for Catholic World News, Lawler said the media’s frenzied reaction has not only distorted what the archbishop said, but the concept of sin as it is understood by Catholics.

“An ordinary reader, basing his opinion only on the inane Telegraph coverage, might conclude that a ‘sin,’ in the Catholic understanding, is nothing more than a violation of rules set down by a group of men in Rome. If these rules are entirely arbitrary, then Vatican officials can change them at will; some sins will cease to exist and other ‘new sins’ will replace them. But that notion of sin is ludicrous.”

Lawler continued, “A sin is not a sin because simply an archbishop proclaims it so…The precepts of ‘reason, truth, and right conscience’ do not shift in response to political trends, nor do they change at the whim of Vatican officials.”

Also known as the capital vices or cardinal sins, the “seven deadlies” are a theological classification of vices first formulated by St. Gregory the Great in the 6th Century AD. In the original Latin they are Luxuria (extravagance, later lust), Gula (gluttony), Avaritia (greed), Acedia (sloth), Ira (wrath), Invidia (envy), and Superbia (pride). They are countered by their opposite virtues: chastity, abstinence, temperance, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility.

Many Catholic thinkers and writers have strongly criticised the concept of “social sin” popularized by the leftist “progressive” wing of the Church since the beginning of the social revolution of the 1960′s. Trendy among dissenting Marxist-inspired “liberation” theologians, the notion of social or “corporate” sin such as “social injustice” or “systemic inequality” has been largely discredited.

The Church continues to hold that sin is an act by an individual contrary to the will of God, that can be absolved after the sinner makes a valid confession. Critics have said that the idea of “social sin” such as “environmental degradation” is one for which no one individual can be held to account and that therefore becomes largely meaningless for the greater majority.

LOL.

I hate to break it to you pal, but people have been saying the exact same thing for two thousand years, and guess what – the Catholic Church outlasted all of them.

I don’t mean to rain on your parade, but the Catholic Church will still be around long after you have died, and your gravestone is nothing more than a moss ridden piece of rock that has been tagged by Tariana Turia’s great great grandchildren.

Viva il Papa!

The whole discourse about the influence of “Christianity” on Europe is tenuous.

The bible is said to be the word of God to Christian Europeans – most of whom could not read till late 19thC or the 20thC. This showed a lack of respect for the people having direct access to the so called word of God to man. Whereas the literacy of Jews gave them an educative advantage (greater knowledge of their own religion and also the world and its learning). Most learning was confined to universities for literate Christians (a minority) only or the monastery.

What had a profound impact on Europe was contact by some groups like the KT and the ME, social contact between Jews with links to the ME and Europeans and then the transfer of the pre Christian European learning of Greek culture around the time of the end of Byzantine civilisation. The same Greek learning which had influenced Hellenised Jews (Philo Judaeus) and thus so threatened the Jewish religious culture. While the influence was of course limited to the universities and those who could access and read or have read to them the written works, it had a growing impact.

Democracy and the replacement of autocracy by republican citizenship was pre Christianity by centuries – so was scientific method and the constructs of wise thought – philosophy. Whereas Christendom was synonomous with autocracy and claims of divine right agency.

As for empire building and the coming of civilisation with the arrival of an occupying power – that was Roman, Greek, Persian … long before Europeans sailed the world and much of early modern science was a re-discovery of pre Christian knowledge.

The imperial arrogance revival of Europeans was pre Christian – the idea of doing good was liberal Christian reformers/social gospel justice (but some of the later glory of Europe was just of an advance in science – from printing to disperse learning to industrialisation of the factory age …

(i don’t know if you noticed..but everyone else seems to have slipped away..

..but don’t let that stop you..

eh..?

and how about that phil-the-inferior–?..

and his ‘conversions’..?

whoar..!..eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)