Another reason for me to not like the current Pope

[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.

[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.

[Not Afraid]

Precisely!

[blueerica]

While I think that many Catholics today practice so out of a true desire to devote themselves to God, from the Pope on down; however, from what research I have done (a.k.a. not a lifetime's work, but enough to suffice for a few projects), I cannot believe that it was always done without a profit/power motive.

Much of this, of course, has caused my agnosticism. I do not claim I am right, because I cannot know. Besides research, I have other reasons and personal faith explorations that have led me to this point.

On the other hand, faith is something that can hardly be argued. For if one truly believes, existence and meaning of a God or gods is known only in oneself, or so I've figured all these years. I hardly mean to quarrel about religion because how do I argue against it (outside of empirical evidence I feel points to a lack of a "god," but hey, that's me and I still don't know and refuse atheism because... well, because I can't know). It's a conclusion we all come to by circumstance.

Or so my opinion goes...

And Tref, I am truly fascinated with your line of discussion, and am not offended in the slightest. If I were, I'd feel like I was going against myself... somehow.

[innerSpaceman]

I won't pretend to know all that much about the Catholic Church ... but if the alarming differences in the various Gospels proves they were not tampered with, does it also not infer that most of them ... if not all of them are wrong?

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?


And Tref, it's ok to break your rule about talking religion here on the LoT. Don't take my sanctimoneous tone as an attack. It's a truly interesting topic which many of us are enjoying discussion of.

But I am an anti-religionist skeptic, no doubt about it. Yet neither do I hold anyone with religious leanings in any disregard.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm fine with that. But don't expect any rational person to believe that any particular account in any particular "Gospel" got Jesus' quotes right or knew what was in his head. Jesus said this or Jesus said that is simply someone's memory .... the memory of someone who probably couldn't pick out Judas in a line-up.

(Eyewitness testimony was likely no less error-prone than as it is today, so excuse me for doubting anyone's 30-year-old memory on what Jesus purportedly said or did.)


We're not asked to accept the Gospels as quaint varying accounts ... but rather as "Gospel." The fact the word "gospel" is supposed to be synonymous with "true" is your clue for how literal they're supposed to be taken.

To which I say, 'feh.'

[Prudence]

Wait - there's a possibility that someone on this board would be able to discuss with me the difference between the Humiliati and Waldensians and the reasons for the inclusion/exclusion of various reformer sects into the Church? Just the very thought has my neurons all a-tingle.

[Snowflake]

Tref, and all, please continue.
I'm finding this to be a fascinating discussion. I don't know Jack about Popes and less about the present one. I confess (at least I'm in the correct thread for confession) that I do find at least the persona of the present pope less appealing than John Paul II (at least his public face and persona was great). When he (JP, II) came to SF in 1987 (I think it was) I was among the crowds getting a peek at the pope.