Another reason for me to not like the current Pope

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

The reason the sacrifices aren't done any more is because there's no more Temple. Same goes for our own high priests. We had our own "pope" style set up, back in the day, and that ended when the second Temple was destroyed and the Dome of the Rock built in it's place.

If the Temple still stood, Judaism would be a whole 'nother deal...

If the Temple still stood... would you still be Jewish? I mean, how would you feel about adhering to your religion under those circumstances.

(just curious, this isn't really relevant to the discussion)

Also... how does the lack of the temple nullify sacrifices? Didn't the early prophets built altars wherever? (I'm not challenging you here, I'm actually dead curious as to how Judaism changed from then to now)

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Tref: why would you cease a fascinating line of discussion?

Hmm, OK ...

Well, I will say this -- at the moment, I attend Mass six days a week, though I have not always been so fervent a Catholic. For me it is an experience. A way to gain knowledge that I did not have before. I've spent some years of my life studying different religions, and I could tell some weird stories about things I seen. In the end, though, I went back to my religion of birth. The one I was baptised in -- Catholicism. As it turns out, the church in my neighborhood is one of the more conservative churches in Los Angeles. The pastor of my church is one serious dude. He is the size of Oddjob from the Bond movies, with the shaved head and physique of linebacker. When he speaks, you cannot help but pay attention. And when he gets mad at the congregation, you can hear a pin drop, nobody moves a muscle. This guy will even taunt the room during the sermon by saying something intentionally incorrect. He'll squint his eyes and an evil smile will break on his face. "Right?" He'll ask. "Am I right?"

And the poor old folks in the front row will squeak, "R-i-ight?"

"WRONG!" the pastor will scream. "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!" Then he'll slap his head several times, or beat his giant paws on the podium. "What is wrong with you my Catholic people? How many times must I teach this?"

Nevertheless, for somebody like me, who truly wants to know what each little thing or action means, this kind of priest is perfect. This giant of a man who would loom high over the congregation, even if they were all wearing stilts, does not skip a step, miss a hymn or leave out a vowel. He even introduced Latin to the Mass, a full year before the Pope officially approved it.

However, I also want to know the history. The real story. The dirty laundry. The scoop on the apostles and all their foibles. And for that I went to bookstores. Anyway, I think I have wandered a bit. I am bored. Sorry.

To: Not Afraid. No, it really hasn’t changed. Its true the Bible was never originally meant to be distributed to the masses. Its purpose was to be used within the church as a guide for the Priests. Then came the printing and then the translations ... However, the text itself, despite the many translations, is as it was when it was first written. Jesus’ word has not been altered from the original Greek. It is as it was.

To Innerspaceman: Whether you like it or not, the writers of the Gospels are the only word of Christ we know. What do we know of Jesus that is not in the gospels? The Gospels are all we have -- there is no more. So, when these same men say that Jesus wanted a church built -- one true church, who can argue? Accordingly, Jesus gave the job to the Apostle Peter and he is the Roman Catholic Church’s first Pope, in an apostolic succession that goes on to this day. For people who argue that this is not history but church lore, I say, tell me how those two differ? History, as we understand the word, can not even prove the existence of Jesus. Not a single historian who lived during that age wrote of Jesus, not even in a sidebar. Not one. Nata. Why? I don't know. Many have theorised it was because Jesus never picked up a check and historians were by and large a gossipy clicque, but that is just a theory. So where does that leave Jesus? We know of him only because of these men.

To Goulish Delight: I say this, read the whole news article. There is a noticeable anti-Catholic bias in the media. The prayer that speaks of the conversion of jews has been changed, or, rather was changed 40 years ago. As far as I can tell, that change is permanent.

Either way, the return of the Latin Mass is significant.

To Kevy-baby. That is just not true. No old white men have stripped the Bible of anything. In fact, people will often point to the contradictions of the Gospels as proof of its unauthenticity, when, in fact, the very nature of the Gospels contradictions with each other is proof they were never touched, fixed, or otherwise altered from their original text.

Despites the jokes, the Church is not run by people who want to profit by what they are doing. They are people who have totally devoted themselves body & soul to praising God. They are there because they truly and sincerely believe that every word of the text is sacred. Why would these same people then sit quietly as its meaning was altered?

Anyway, I hope I haven't offended. I have a rule -- never talk religion. And I broke that rule in a big way this afternoon. And while nothing personally offends me at all, I just thought I'd stick up for the Pope. Things weren't looking to good for him in here.

[wendybeth]

Great post. Tref. I was raised Catholic, and while I most certainly do not agree with a lot of their tenets, I respect their history and do hold them to be the first Christian church, one that all other Christian churches- whether they like it or not- stem from. I still intend to poke fun at Benedict; blame that on JP, as he had a sense of humor and he kind of spoiled us in that regard.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Tref

To Goulish Delight: I say this, read the whole news article. There is a noticeable anti-Catholic bias in the media. The prayer that speaks of the conversion of jews has been changed, or, rather was changed 40 years ago. As far as I can tell, that change is permanent.

Apparently you and I are reading 2 different articles. Are you referring to this?

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) replaced Latin with local languages in the liturgy, reached out to other religions and struck out texts that Jews found particularly offensive.

That 40 year old change is precisely what Benedict reversed last week.

The decree made no change in the 1962 missal—the main prayer book for the old rite—which includes prayers on Good Friday for the conversion of the Jews and calls them blind to the Christian truth.

Poorly worded, but it's saying that with this decree, the Pope reintroduced the same version of the old Latin mass that was in use when it was removed in 1962, so it does contain the same language calling for conversion.

As a Jew in a world where antisemitism was already on the rise, from a Pope with Benedict's personal history, I do not find this insignificant. People are trying to pass it off. "No one's required to say it," "Most people will still use the new rite." But that's not the point. Religion, and specifically the Papacy, are all about symbolism. Whether it's put into practice or not, the Pope's actions affects attitudes.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

If the Temple still stood... would you still be Jewish? I mean, how would you feel about adhering to your religion under those circumstances.

This is like asking a Protestant - if Martin Luther had never tacked his letter on the door, would you still be a Christian? Impossible to judge, impossible to say. The world itself would be a different place, in both cases.

From my current perspective, I'm no fan of ritual sacrifice, but again, that's in part because ritual sacrifice hasn't been a part of Judaism since the year 70, CE.

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Also... how does the lack of the temple nullify sacrifices? Didn't the early prophets built altars wherever?

Nope, sacrifice was only in the Temple.

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Which one is deemed correct? Are they only deemed correct on the points where they agree? Do Catholics believe there were several simultaneous true yet different events on the points where the Gospels conflict?

In this vein, I think Christianity is smart. Whereas the Torah is, according to Judaism, the word of God dictated to Moses, the Gospels have never claimed as such, and instead, are the very personal points of view of different human beings. The inherent concept is that there is no way that one person could have gotten these events down correctly, and that every person has a different perspective. They're all right and they're all wrong, and the truth is supposed to come through various perspectives placed next to each other. This concept is a pretty heady life lesson in itself.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Tref

However, I also want to know the history. The real story. The dirty laundry. The scoop on the apostles and all their foibles. And for that I went to bookstores.

The thing I believe is that we will never know the absolute true history. Any religion (Catholicism, Judaism, Paganism, etc.) is simply a belief system. The Bible is gospel (fact) if one chooses to believe it true. And I am not knocking that detail (I have my own beliefs), just stating what I believe to be true.

Originally Posted by Tref

To Kevy Baby. That is just not true. No old white men have stripped the Bible of anything. In fact, people will often point to the contradictions of the Gospels as proof of its unauthenticity, when, in fact, the very nature of the Gospels contradictions with each other is proof they were never touched, fixed, or otherwise altered from their original text.

It IS true for me as well as many others. And our truth is no more or less truthful than anyone else's. There is available reputable scholarly research that supports what I stated. Some may not agree with it and I cannot dispute that belief (just as one may not agree with my beliefs). But to me, it is all about belief, not true, irrefutable fact.

Originally Posted by Tref

Despites the jokes, the Church is not run by people who want to profit by what they are doing. They are people who have totally devoted themselves body & soul to praising God.

Unfortunately, the church has been (IMO) severely harmed by scandals involving not only financial scandal, but more recently by sexual scandals. I am sure that most of the people involved with the Church have pure intentions, but unfortunately the church has been oft harmed by the minority.

Originally Posted by Tref

Anyway, I hope I haven't offended. I have a rule -- never talk religion. And I broke that rule in a big way this afternoon. And while nothing personally offends me at all, I just thought I'd stick up for the Pope. Things weren't looking to good for him in here.

And I admire your dedication and conviction. One of the things I LOVE about the LoT is that we can disagree on certain issues, but still remain a close group. Never be afraid to speak your mind around here!

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Tref

He'll squint his eyes and an evil smile will break on his face. "Right?" He'll ask. "Am I right?"

And the poor old folks in the front row will squeak, "R-i-ight?"

"WRONG!" the pastor will scream. "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!" Then he'll slap his head several times, or beat his giant paws on the podium. "What is wrong with you my Catholic people? How many times must I teach this?"

Wow! That sounds thoroughly unpleasant, not to mention borderline cruel. I hope you don't mind me asking, but, do you prefer this style of homily over a gentler kind? Is this more authoritative style reassuring, or would you be happier if he didn't do this? I would be running for the exits.