Catholic Church is at Fault

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" JesusÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each discipleÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s teacher and master (you have one teacher ¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
[/quote]
So then, you and I agree on the meaning, we just disagree when it comes to 1)understanding that the RCC does exactly as you just described and 2)He said “call no man father” and I take that as forbidding.
[/quote]
The are not “our father” they are clergy and by definition, servants. It’s huge difference between the clergy and the Pharisees. Perhaps a little history of who and what the pharisees were at the time of Jesus would help you understand the difference. Also perhaps a little understanding of the Holy Orders would help too. [/quote]
I beg your pardon, but the Vatican itself would seem to disagree with you

[/quote]
Man, you’re reaching. That which you posted means nothing of what you imply.[/quote]
So you don’t accept the pope as The Holy Father? Or are you disputing that the Vatican regards him as such?
[/quote]

Huh? What are you on about now. Yes, he is referred to as ‘Holy Father’ it’s a title, as well as is pope.

242

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
This is getting painful. You’re Jehovah aren’t you? Based on what you said, you have to be, nobody else believes this crap. Now it all makes sense. Why’d you hide it?

I’ll tell you this, if you have to change scripture to make it coincide with what you believe, what you believe is errant, not the scripture.
The King James translations are found to have over 800 major translation errors. The the New World Translations are so bad they could hardly be considered scripture. There’s a reason the Watch Tower kept prying eyes from their “scholarly” techniques. They were changing the scripture to fit their beliefs.
And you have the balls to criticize the Papacy? No one organization is oppressive as the watch tower.[/quote]
Dang. Ya got me. I am indeed a witness to the god of desolation (or calamity, or destruction. Whatever specific translation you want to use) [/sarc][/quote]

Nevermind, I figured it out…

Seems a bit cultish to me…[/quote]

Why is it so important for you to label me?

I told you, I am a Christian (not Paulinian), and I don’t feel the need to associate with any organization or accept any rules other than those laid out by Christ.
[/quote]
Neither the Standford nor anybody was given the authority to pick apart scripture and just pay attention to those bits they like. It’s one thing to misinterprate, it’s a whole other to just toss out huge swaths of it. That is errant. You either accept Scripture or you don’t. Pauline Epistles are a part of scripture.

He was given no divine directive to do so. His interpretation is poor and in contradiction with almost any biblical scholar worth his salt. All it is, is selective reading. His ‘facts’ are lacking at best.

[quote]
I also haven’t seen anything on that site that imposes any requirements whatsoever of the people who do believe everything he writes, so I can’t agree with your assessment of it being cultish.[/quote]

I am sure if you don’t agree with his interpretations you cannot play in the club house. I hope you didn’t go to school, because he sternly warns you not to call anyone your teacher unfortunately, schools are full of them.

243

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

The author of that site (who has been called a ‘pseudo-scholar’ even though he is a documented Classical Language Scholar) asserts some good viewpoints and documents his sources, but I don’t agree with everything he writes.

I also haven’t seen anything on that site that imposes any requirements whatsoever of the people who do believe everything he writes, so I can’t agree with your assessment of it being cultish.[/quote]

I think you are misunderstanding what this guy says about himself. Here is the quote to which you are alluding from his website…

First of all, “achieving designation as a Classical Language Scholar” doesn’t mean this guy received a doctorate or even masters degree; it’s a rather deceptive way of saying that, when he was an undergraduate (i.e., when he was working for his bachelor’s degree), he received a scholarship (i.e, money to pay for his tuition). That’s all, and that really isn’t saying much. Receiving a scholarship doesn’t make you an expert. I received a biblical language scholarship when I was an undergrad because I had the highest grade point average in the subject, but I CERTAINLY wasn’t qualified to be called a “biblical scholar” as an undergraduate. Frankly, this dude is very deceptive in the way he describes his credentials, so that should tell you something right away. Like any good lawyer, he knows how to leave himself a way out.

Secondly, the guy clearly didn’t continue his work in classics at the graduate level; instead, he went to law school. And an undergraduate education in a subject in the humanities (history, languages, philosophy, etc.) accomplishes nothing more than getting your feet wet - you are exposed to several different aspects of the field without doing any genuine in depth work in that field. An undergraduate degree doesn’t make you an expert or qualified scholar any more than a Crossfit certification makes you a competent coach.

Third, and most importantly, CLASSICAL GREEK AND LATIN are NOT the languages the Bible or the key extra biblical texts used to interpret the Bible were written in. The OT was written in Hebrew, and the NT was written in KOINE Greek, which was very different from Classical Greek. How do I know? Because I’ve studied both Koine AND Classical Greek. Consequently, the guy’s undergraduate major in NO way qualifies him as an expert in biblical interpretation. His major was in a completely unrelated field, and he didn’t even progress far in that field!

244

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" JesusÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each discipleÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s teacher and master (you have one teacher Ã??Ã?¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
[/quote]
So then, you and I agree on the meaning, we just disagree when it comes to 1)understanding that the RCC does exactly as you just described and 2)He said “call no man father” and I take that as forbidding.
[/quote]
The are not “our father” they are clergy and by definition, servants. It’s huge difference between the clergy and the Pharisees. Perhaps a little history of who and what the pharisees were at the time of Jesus would help you understand the difference. Also perhaps a little understanding of the Holy Orders would help too. [/quote]
I beg your pardon, but the Vatican itself would seem to disagree with you

[/quote]
Man, you’re reaching. That which you posted means nothing of what you imply.[/quote]
So you don’t accept the pope as The Holy Father? Or are you disputing that the Vatican regards him as such?
[/quote]

Huh? What are you on about now. Yes, he is referred to as ‘Holy Father’ it’s a title, as well as is pope. [/quote]
He was actually referred to as “Lord God the Pope” in the original Catholic encyclopedia.

EDIT: some versions of it read “Lord the Pope”

245

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" JesusÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each discipleÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s teacher and master (you have one teacher Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
[/quote]
So then, you and I agree on the meaning, we just disagree when it comes to 1)understanding that the RCC does exactly as you just described and 2)He said “call no man father” and I take that as forbidding.
[/quote]
The are not “our father” they are clergy and by definition, servants. It’s huge difference between the clergy and the Pharisees. Perhaps a little history of who and what the pharisees were at the time of Jesus would help you understand the difference. Also perhaps a little understanding of the Holy Orders would help too. [/quote]
I beg your pardon, but the Vatican itself would seem to disagree with you

[/quote]
Man, you’re reaching. That which you posted means nothing of what you imply.[/quote]
So you don’t accept the pope as The Holy Father? Or are you disputing that the Vatican regards him as such?
[/quote]

Huh? What are you on about now. Yes, he is referred to as ‘Holy Father’ it’s a title, as well as is pope. [/quote]
He was actually referred to as “Lord God the Pope” in the original Catholic encyclopedia.

EDIT: some versions of it read “Lord the Pope”[/quote]

Just stop knocking on my goddamn door Witness, you give Christianity a bad name.

246

[quote]Legionary wrote:

Just stop knocking on my goddamn door Witness, you give Christianity a bad name.[/quote]

Okaaaaay… I’ll just be waiting for you at your car.

I asked some of the local JW’s why in the world their church had no windows. They got mad at me. ??? Srs.

247

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ve heard a bit here and there about this, but never really paid attention. I think it was in reference to the “holy sites”

[/quote]

It’s predicated on protection of the holy sites and equal access. The process they advocate is that the United Nations declare Jerusalem an international city. Ergo, a United Nations invasion of Jerusalem followed by occupation by international U.N. ‘peacekeepers’ and administrators.

Further, that pre-Vat II the Vatican’s position had been that Jerusalem was in essence occupied by its inhabitants and that it was sovereign territory of the Vatican.

If you truly believe with conviction that Jerusalem is the territory of the church I could at least understand that position. But to advocate the UN administer it as an international city?

248

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" Jesus disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each disciples teacher and master (you have one teacher Ã???Ã??Ã?¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
[/quote]
So then, you and I agree on the meaning, we just disagree when it comes to 1)understanding that the RCC does exactly as you just described and 2)He said “call no man father” and I take that as forbidding.
[/quote]
The are not “our father” they are clergy and by definition, servants. It’s huge difference between the clergy and the Pharisees. Perhaps a little history of who and what the pharisees were at the time of Jesus would help you understand the difference. Also perhaps a little understanding of the Holy Orders would help too. [/quote]
I beg your pardon, but the Vatican itself would seem to disagree with you

[/quote]
Man, you’re reaching. That which you posted means nothing of what you imply.[/quote]
So you don’t accept the pope as The Holy Father? Or are you disputing that the Vatican regards him as such?
[/quote]

Huh? What are you on about now. Yes, he is referred to as ‘Holy Father’ it’s a title, as well as is pope. [/quote]
He was actually referred to as “Lord God the Pope” in the original Catholic encyclopedia.

EDIT: some versions of it read “Lord the Pope”[/quote]

LOL!!! Really? I am going stop taking you seriously if you don’t stop with this crap.

Here is the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Go nuts.

That lawyer dude is warping your brain. Does it not bother you that the only source for these ‘facts’ are him alone? If you have to make things up to make your case, you got no case.

249

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ve heard a bit here and there about this, but never really paid attention. I think it was in reference to the “holy sites”

[/quote]

It’s predicated on protection of the holy sites and equal access. The process they advocate is that the United Nations declare Jerusalem an international city. Ergo, a United Nations invasion of Jerusalem followed by occupation by international U.N. ‘peacekeepers’ and administrators.

Further, that pre-Vat II the Vatican’s position had been that Jerusalem was in essence occupied by its inhabitants and that it was sovereign territory of the Vatican.

If you truly believe with conviction that Jerusalem is the territory of the church I could at least understand that position. But to advocate the UN administer it as an international city?

[/quote]

Got any references? I tried looking this stuff up and I couldn’t find a thing on it. Lot’s of anti-Catholic propaganda, but nothing real. Everybody has tried territorial claims on Jerusalem at one point or another. There are sites there that are property of the church, but not the whole damn place. There is an interest in keeping the city open and accessible for all people. After all, it’s the intersection of the 3 biggest religions on Earth.
In short, I have found no credible evidence to this claim. At least not since the Crusades.

250

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

The author of that site (who has been called a ‘pseudo-scholar’ even though he is a documented Classical Language Scholar) asserts some good viewpoints and documents his sources, but I don’t agree with everything he writes.

I also haven’t seen anything on that site that imposes any requirements whatsoever of the people who do believe everything he writes, so I can’t agree with your assessment of it being cultish.[/quote]

I think you are misunderstanding what this guy says about himself. Here is the quote to which you are alluding from his website…

First of all, “achieving designation as a Classical Language Scholar” doesn’t mean this guy received a doctorate or even masters degree; it’s a rather deceptive way of saying that, when he was an undergraduate (i.e., when he was working for his bachelor’s degree), he received a scholarship (i.e, money to pay for his tuition). That’s all, and that really isn’t saying much. Receiving a scholarship doesn’t make you an expert. I received a biblical language scholarship when I was an undergrad because I had the highest grade point average in the subject, but I CERTAINLY wasn’t qualified to be called a “biblical scholar” as an undergraduate. Frankly, this dude is very deceptive in the way he describes his credentials, so that should tell you something right away. Like any good lawyer, he knows how to leave himself a way out.

Secondly, the guy clearly didn’t continue his work in classics at the graduate level; instead, he went to law school. And an undergraduate education in a subject in the humanities (history, languages, philosophy, etc.) accomplishes nothing more than getting your feet wet - you are exposed to several different aspects of the field without doing any genuine in depth work in that field. An undergraduate degree doesn’t make you an expert or qualified scholar any more than a Crossfit certification makes you a competent coach.

Third, and most importantly, CLASSICAL GREEK AND LATIN are NOT the languages the Bible or the key extra biblical texts used to interpret the Bible were written in. The OT was written in Hebrew, and the NT was written in KOINE Greek, which was very different from Classical Greek. How do I know? Because I’ve studied both Koine AND Classical Greek. Consequently, the guy’s undergraduate major in NO way qualifies him as an expert in biblical interpretation. His major was in a completely unrelated field, and he didn’t even progress far in that field![/quote]

He doesn’t even interpret it right in English. It’s clear he is interpreting with an agenda. Which never is a good thing because you can make it say what you want. People have justified all kinds of horrors with using a selective reading of the bible.
Jesus’s own words give power and credibility to the apostles. If you are going JWO then you have to acknowledge he said that too.
And like I said, you cannot just dismiss huge swaths of scripture just cause you don’t like what it says.

251

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ve heard a bit here and there about this, but never really paid attention. I think it was in reference to the “holy sites”

[/quote]

It’s predicated on protection of the holy sites and equal access. The process they advocate is that the United Nations declare Jerusalem an international city. Ergo, a United Nations invasion of Jerusalem followed by occupation by international U.N. ‘peacekeepers’ and administrators.

Further, that pre-Vat II the Vatican’s position had been that Jerusalem was in essence occupied by its inhabitants and that it was sovereign territory of the Vatican.

If you truly believe with conviction that Jerusalem is the territory of the church I could at least understand that position. But to advocate the UN administer it as an international city?[/quote]I would like to see some hard stuff on this too. I just don;t know. My view of the Vatican is no secret, but I also don’t like to proceed without solid documentation. I know you don’t either which his why you’re asking. I did find this, which is somewhat along these lines: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150757#.UL97V4Yb7a1 If a concrete desire by Rome to see the UN act in this way, sort of on their behalf, even if there’s no chance of it ever happening, would be very telling indeed.

252

[quote]pat wrote:
He doesn’t even interpret it right in English. It’s clear he is interpreting with an agenda. Which never is a good thing because you can make it say what you want. People have justified all kinds of horrors with using a selective reading of the bible.
Jesus’s own words give power and credibility to the apostles. If you are going JWO then you have to acknowledge he said that too.
And like I said, you cannot just dismiss huge swaths of scripture just cause you don’t like what it says. [/quote]

The irony in this post is overwhelming

253

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ve heard a bit here and there about this, but never really paid attention. I think it was in reference to the “holy sites”

[/quote]

It’s predicated on protection of the holy sites and equal access. The process they advocate is that the United Nations declare Jerusalem an international city. Ergo, a United Nations invasion of Jerusalem followed by occupation by international U.N. ‘peacekeepers’ and administrators.

Further, that pre-Vat II the Vatican’s position had been that Jerusalem was in essence occupied by its inhabitants and that it was sovereign territory of the Vatican.

If you truly believe with conviction that Jerusalem is the territory of the church I could at least understand that position. But to advocate the UN administer it as an international city?

[/quote]

Got any references? I tried looking this stuff up and I couldn’t find a thing on it. Lot’s of anti-Catholic propaganda, but nothing real. Everybody has tried territorial claims on Jerusalem at one point or another. There are sites there that are property of the church, but not the whole damn place. There is an interest in keeping the city open and accessible for all people. After all, it’s the intersection of the 3 biggest religions on Earth.
In short, I have found no credible evidence to this claim. At least not since the Crusades. [/quote]

(Reuters) - The Vatican hailed the United Nations’ implicit recognition of a Palestinian state on Thursday and called for an internationally guaranteed special status for Jerusalem…it also said it was a “propitious occasion” to recall a “common position” on Jerusalem expressed by the Vatican and the Palestine Liberation Organisation when the two sides signed a basic agreement on their bilateral relations in 2000.

Thursday’s statement called for “an internationally guaranteed special statute” for Jerusalem…

Agreement of Principles Between the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Holy See calls for “a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute to be achieved through negotiation and agreement to establish the national, legitimate, and inalienable rights and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to ensure peace and security for all peoples of the region on the basis of international law and UN resolutions, including the relevant Security Council resolutions, on the basis of justice and equality.”

It also states “that an equitable solution for the issue of Jerusalem, based on international resolutions, is fundamental for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, and that any unilateral decisions and actions altering the special character and legal status of Jerusalem are morally and legally unacceptable.” This historic agreement “calls for a special status for Jerusalem, internationally guaranteed.”

254

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" Jesus disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each disciples teacher and master (you have one teacher Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
[/quote]
So then, you and I agree on the meaning, we just disagree when it comes to 1)understanding that the RCC does exactly as you just described and 2)He said “call no man father” and I take that as forbidding.
[/quote]
The are not “our father” they are clergy and by definition, servants. It’s huge difference between the clergy and the Pharisees. Perhaps a little history of who and what the pharisees were at the time of Jesus would help you understand the difference. Also perhaps a little understanding of the Holy Orders would help too. [/quote]
I beg your pardon, but the Vatican itself would seem to disagree with you

[/quote]
Man, you’re reaching. That which you posted means nothing of what you imply.[/quote]
So you don’t accept the pope as The Holy Father? Or are you disputing that the Vatican regards him as such?
[/quote]

Huh? What are you on about now. Yes, he is referred to as ‘Holy Father’ it’s a title, as well as is pope. [/quote]
He was actually referred to as “Lord God the Pope” in the original Catholic encyclopedia.

EDIT: some versions of it read “Lord the Pope”[/quote]

LOL!!! Really? I am going stop taking you seriously if you don’t stop with this crap.

Here is the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Go nuts.

That lawyer dude is warping your brain. Does it not bother you that the only source for these ‘facts’ are him alone? If you have to make things up to make your case, you got no case.[/quote]
I said the original. The source for these “facts” are the very same documents released by the RCC itself.

left column, toward the bottom: “Credere autem dominum deum nostrum papam conditorum dictae decretalis et istius, sic non potuisse statuere prout statuit, haereticum censeretur.”

“But to believe that our Lord God the Pope, establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical.”

255

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ve heard a bit here and there about this, but never really paid attention. I think it was in reference to the “holy sites”

[/quote]

It’s predicated on protection of the holy sites and equal access. The process they advocate is that the United Nations declare Jerusalem an international city. Ergo, a United Nations invasion of Jerusalem followed by occupation by international U.N. ‘peacekeepers’ and administrators.

Further, that pre-Vat II the Vatican’s position had been that Jerusalem was in essence occupied by its inhabitants and that it was sovereign territory of the Vatican.

If you truly believe with conviction that Jerusalem is the territory of the church I could at least understand that position. But to advocate the UN administer it as an international city?

[/quote]

Got any references? I tried looking this stuff up and I couldn’t find a thing on it. Lot’s of anti-Catholic propaganda, but nothing real. Everybody has tried territorial claims on Jerusalem at one point or another. There are sites there that are property of the church, but not the whole damn place. There is an interest in keeping the city open and accessible for all people. After all, it’s the intersection of the 3 biggest religions on Earth.
In short, I have found no credible evidence to this claim. At least not since the Crusades. [/quote]

(Reuters) - The Vatican hailed the United Nations’ implicit recognition of a Palestinian state on Thursday and called for an internationally guaranteed special status for Jerusalem…it also said it was a “propitious occasion” to recall a “common position” on Jerusalem expressed by the Vatican and the Palestine Liberation Organisation when the two sides signed a basic agreement on their bilateral relations in 2000.

Thursday’s statement called for “an internationally guaranteed special statute” for Jerusalem…

Agreement of Principles Between the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Holy See calls for “a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute to be achieved through negotiation and agreement to establish the national, legitimate, and inalienable rights and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to ensure peace and security for all peoples of the region on the basis of international law and UN resolutions, including the relevant Security Council resolutions, on the basis of justice and equality.”

It also states “that an equitable solution for the issue of Jerusalem, based on international resolutions, is fundamental for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, and that any unilateral decisions and actions altering the special character and legal status of Jerusalem are morally and legally unacceptable.” This historic agreement “calls for a special status for Jerusalem, internationally guaranteed.”[/quote]

I don’t interpret that as a land grab of any kind. The church does own land and churches that sit on them and they have an active interest in keeping those places open for pilgrims, but not as a tacit grab of ownership. Quite the contrary in that the church realizes Jerusalem’s value for all 3 major religions and wants access to Jerusalem open and accessible for all who want to come. I sure hope to be able to go one day. To walk the streets that Jesus and the prophets of old walked would be completely fascinating experience. I would like it a little more peaceful.

256

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" Jesus disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each disciples teacher and master (you have one teacher Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
[/quote]
So then, you and I agree on the meaning, we just disagree when it comes to 1)understanding that the RCC does exactly as you just described and 2)He said “call no man father” and I take that as forbidding.
[/quote]
The are not “our father” they are clergy and by definition, servants. It’s huge difference between the clergy and the Pharisees. Perhaps a little history of who and what the pharisees were at the time of Jesus would help you understand the difference. Also perhaps a little understanding of the Holy Orders would help too. [/quote]
I beg your pardon, but the Vatican itself would seem to disagree with you

[/quote]
Man, you’re reaching. That which you posted means nothing of what you imply.[/quote]
So you don’t accept the pope as The Holy Father? Or are you disputing that the Vatican regards him as such?
[/quote]

Huh? What are you on about now. Yes, he is referred to as ‘Holy Father’ it’s a title, as well as is pope. [/quote]
He was actually referred to as “Lord God the Pope” in the original Catholic encyclopedia.

EDIT: some versions of it read “Lord the Pope”[/quote]

LOL!!! Really? I am going stop taking you seriously if you don’t stop with this crap.

Here is the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Go nuts.

That lawyer dude is warping your brain. Does it not bother you that the only source for these ‘facts’ are him alone? If you have to make things up to make your case, you got no case.[/quote]
I said the original. The source for these “facts” are the very same documents released by the RCC itself.

left column, toward the bottom: “Credere autem dominum deum nostrum papam conditorum dictae decretalis et istius, sic non potuisse statuere prout statuit, haereticum censeretur.”

“But to believe that our Lord God the Pope, establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical.”[/quote]

And here’s what is really says:
Believing the Lord our God, the pope said the decrees, as founders of this, so far as he could not decide, would be considered a heretic. "

Removing the coma sure makes a difference. What a hack job.
This is ridiculous Jay, you’re trying to make something true that simply is not. Your translation doesn’t even make any sense.

257

I posted my sources. Please post yours. That is not what it says. “dominum deum nostrum papam” means “our lord god the pope” or “lord god our pope”.

YOU added that first comma in your translation. It is not in the original manuscript I posted. Even if you put the words in the same order as you did, it still reads “lord our god the pope”.

An e-mail was sent to the Vatican library’s reference service, and they say it was a “huge mistake”; that the word ‘deum’ was not supposed to be in there (and that it was only found in one manuscript, even though there are different copies from different areas with dates ranging from 1511-1605).

Huge mistake indeed, equating the pope with God and ‘missing it’ for almost a hundred years. One would expect better from the ‘infallible’.

258

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I posted my sources. Please post yours. That is not what it says. “dominum deum nostrum papam” means “our lord god the pope” or “lord god our pope”.

YOU added that first comma in your translation. It is not in the original manuscript I posted. Even if you put the words in the same order as you did, it still reads “lord our god the pope”.
[/quote]
I took your exact quote, unaltered as you had it written, and put it in the latin translator in google. Then I copied the results and pasted them unaltered.

[quote]
An e-mail was sent to the Vatican library’s reference service, and they say it was a “huge mistake”; that the word ‘deum’ was not supposed to be in there (and that it was only found in one manuscript, even though there are different copies from different areas with dates ranging from 1511-1605).

Huge mistake indeed, equating the pope with God and ‘missing it’ for almost a hundred years. One would expect better from the ‘infallible’.[/quote]

That’s not what happened and it’s been outed. Your reducing to transparent tactics to try and make a point you don’t have because their is no real basis in fact for them. Anybody can alter facts to make things appear differently than the way they are.
Quite frankly, you are not being honest here and are wasting my time. Unless you can be honest, use your own words and reason why should I continue to discuss this? All you do is level some bizarre accusation and that has to be chased down and proven false, and is, time after time after time.

The bottom line and fact of the matter is, you are presenting false information that has not been researched with any kind of honest intent to know the truth, but is clearly based on a blind hatred and bigotry that no amount of reason or discussion will quell.

Go look up what ‘Papal Infallibility’ actually is if you want to discuss it’s validity. You have a 1rst grade understanding of Catholicism, that has been purely been based on false propaganda. Give me a reason I should continue wasting my time with that?

If you have a real argument against the church, present the tenet accurately, then present why you disagree.

I don’t feel like arguing with that ass-clown lawyer who fancies himself a scholar, and you as his puppet. At least argue real facts, for crying out loud, is it to hard to ask for to argue things that are at least true?

259

I quoted and linked the original text and an accepted translation from a trusted source (the book containing that translation is in the Harvard Library and the Library of Congress).

Here is a link to a Catholic rebuttal, which gives the e-mail from Mr. Marno Retief of the Vatican Library Reference Service: http://klaravonassisi.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/the-truth-about-the-anti-catholic-charge-of-lord-god-the-pope/

He does not deny the accuracy of the translation.

This entire argument stems from your constant insistence that everyone else should take a long hard look in the mirror, combined with your absolute refusal to follow your own advice. You absolutely cannot bear to admit that the RCC could be wrong about anything, even though you so strongly assert that no church is perfect. I know the reason for it, too, though I will leave that alone.

I was wrong about almost everything for a great many years. It was very difficult to admit that and actually start listening for once. I don’t know or understand all of the little details, but at least now I know where the Truth is.

I have taken my long hard look in the mirror.

260

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I quoted and linked the original text and an accepted translation from a trusted source (the book containing that translation is in the Harvard Library and the Library of Congress).

Here is a link to a Catholic rebuttal, which gives the e-mail from Mr. Marno Retief of the Vatican Library Reference Service: http://klaravonassisi.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/the-truth-about-the-anti-catholic-charge-of-lord-god-the-pope/

He does not deny the accuracy of the translation.
[/quote]

No he denies the existence of the statement altogether:

“What we find here is that the words â??Lord God the Pope â?? do not appear in the original housed in the Vatican Library.”

If you are going to criticize the church, at least criticize it for things it actually has done or said. If you have to make things up, or contort the facts to an unrecognizable state, you don’t have an argument. You just have blind bigotry and hatred for Catholics.

No, you’re just throwing stones. Unfortunately for you, none of your facts are actually correct. I know well the black-eye’s man has attempted to give the church. And the church has had no bigger enemies than some of it’s own people. But your just flat leveling false accusations…None of them have been correct. It would be different if you would bring up real things, but your on a path to 100% failure rate.

[quote]
I was wrong about almost everything for a great many years. It was very difficult to admit that and actually start listening for once. I don’t know or understand all of the little details, but at least now I know where the Truth is.

I have taken my long hard look in the mirror.[/quote]

I don’t know about your personal life and affect. But I know your facts are wrong, and it’s just a matter of historical fact that they are wrong.
Maybe you’ve straitened your life out, but I can only imagine the point of leveling false accusations is the product of unmitigated, blind hatred. Further, you’ve been fed and believed without checking, a lot of BS.

If you want to know what the church really says and stands for go to the source:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

The Catechism is the official rule book and stance of the church.