The Vatican reports that Benedictus XVI will officially resign at the end of this month. That will be the first time a pope does so voluntarily since 1294.
He states “After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.”
(Petrine stands for Petrus otherwise known as Peter, the first pope and one of the original Apostles).
The tradition is that popes die on the job and their (mental) health has never been an excuse. Benedictus states that He says he is resigning in "full freedom" and says he is "fully aware of the gravity of this gesture"
Interesting statement as besides 1294 there is only other pope who ever resigned from the job. We have to go back to 1415 when Pope Gregory XII left office after huge pressure from his Cardinals. Known as the Western Chism, this period saw two popes competing for recognition and in the end Gregory gave in. Not a voluntary move as his Cardinals threatened to abandon him completely.
After the Vatican scandal where a butler was arrested for stealing and leaking large number of secret Papal letters (the Vatican equivalent of the Wiki leaks) it was rumored that a power struggle over corruption and money laundering was at the heart of the matter.
After the butler was convicted by a Vatican court, the current pope pardoned him for his crime: a move which left onlookers with the strong impression that the butler was not acting on his own and that Benedictus himself tried to fight the corruption in Vatican circles.
The pope so far showed a better physical and mental health than many of his predecessors so it´s remarkable that a relative outsider in the Vatican (Benedict was a bit of surprise choice) chooses to do the unimaginable and freely step aside for new blood.
This sheds some light on the explicit statement that he is resigning in full freedom. In effect it makes you wonder if it´s even true. What´s behind this sudden move?
#Vatileaks #VaticanGate More background and another rumor: https://plus.google.com/112352920206354603958/posts/H1JkERikJed #Politics
Seriously, do you need to share all posts you do directly with me? If so, I have to mute you. Sorry.
Errr…public post?
Yes, this looks like a genuine public post. OK to me.
+Ben Lloyd I know that but he notifies me directly. You can do that if you want. Shall I do that as an example for you so you understand?
You were in the wrong circle +Stefan Svartling I have fixed it now. Can we go on with the real discussion.
I really don't care about popes but I have been waiting for quite some time to see who the next one is … Interesting timing indeed.
+Ben Lloyd +Johann Bauernfeind You see +Max Huijgen comment? Or do I need to explain more for you?
+Max Huijgen thanks
At least the POPE gave two weeks notice. GOOD POPE.
bellissimo post
If the rumors are true Benedictus is fighting the money which is thrown at him. Look at the image in that perspective 🙂 +Bert Lohmann
Here is what I Tweeted: "Retweet if you absolutely don't care whether or not a meaningless Pope resigns. It doesn't matter in the slightest. God = delusion. #atheism" https://twitter.com/2045singularity/status/300927039945457664
Max, no Ti sbagli è un immagine reale della chiesa, Loro sono così Voi non sapete tutto
Bah, he's stepping down after polarizing Islam and Christianism and stigmatizing sexual 'deviants'. Good riddance, lets just hope we get one that is more constructive and that deals with the real issues the Church has.
What about Gregory XII? He resigned in1415. Maybe it was not entirely voluntary, although. What's funny is that he was contemporary with the firxt Benedict XIII 🙂
I mention him in the text +Víktor Bautista i Roca and use him as a possible precedent.
Oops! I was too fast answering. I had just been looking for precedents a few minutes before your post, +Max Huijgen
Keep 'em coming, +Max Huijgen. I have no problem with you notifying me when you submit an important public post.
Perhaps I'm not as cynical or worldly as I pretend to be, but unless there's a reason to suspect anyone's motives I prefer trust but confirm. I think the reason's Benedictus give are perfectly sensible. What could be more "Christlike" than abdicating power?
I agree +Irving Drommond but it won´t be the reason he steps down / is pressured to do so. Unless one of the child abuse cases in Germany is threatening his reputation. He was involved at that time in the sense that he possibly protected child abusers.
Maybe he just quickly grew tired of having to use twitter as part of his job. 🙂
Likely he's being shunted out quietly by the Cardinals. Some child abuse cases can no longer be swept under the carpet possibly by the man at times referred to as ' God's Rottweiler '
Maybe he realized being the Pope is not that fun…
I think he realised that he ran out of things to tweet about.
He couldn't keep a straight face anymore when he talked about a mythical creature. His accounts are full, so he's going on vacation. Smart move!
We can only assume till we hear it from the pope himself..
maybe its a combination of 4 : age (look, he really looks fragile) -illness (which we do not know of) corruption ongoing in the vatican bank and some other pressure ( power struggle with the cardinals) one thing is for SURE ..we will never know exactly and can only speculate….what strikes me most is the announcement some minutes ago from the vatican : until Easter, we will have another pope…….this sounds for me as if there is a certain master plan in between….lets go back to business (as usual)…….life is sometimes really tragic, but I really wish Benedikt some more peaceful years…he is a brilliant thinker……
+Max Huijgen i agree with you that this is quite monumental. we will never quite know what led to it. i share your suspicion of the vatican, the church, the cardinals, the pope etc
however, putting all that aside, what i am more interested in is what the vatican could do AS AN INSTITUTION (and, no, abolishing itself is not an institutional solution).
what would an ideal pope look like?
what would he do?
how would he go about justifying the abolition of rules that date for centuries?
etc etc
+Roelf Renkema i know i know, but that is not my question. if you want me to rephrase: how would the dalai lama reform the vatican while still keeping it institutionally intact? impossible?
Stand by to read his memoirs. " What really goes on in the vatican" "Corruption in high places" " Cardinals and nun paries" haha.
An ideal pope would attempt to actively embody the cardinal virtues, focus on the spiritual aspects of Catholicism, and do away with celibacy and reactionary elements in the church.
That would be a good first step.
+Roelf Renkema Keep dreaming. That would be like the KKK having a black leader. :p
(With all due respect…….) People ask yourselfs this who do we have to serve or believe in? The almighty God that never gets tired or old or in man that acts like hes god but suddenly resign? Think about this World, would God suddenly resign or gave up upon us. Do the math.
He gets to resign, and possibly influence the selection of his successor.
Most saw him as a place-holder.
+Evan Lazar I get your point, but don't be fooled: This man has the power to make your life pretty shitty if he wants to.
+Roelf Renkema You're talking about the English Church. They had the notion of divorce already, so they where already light years ahead. But I understand your point, this should be manageable.
+nomad dimitri Yes, the institute, not the person is the interesting part. What could and should the Vatican do (except closing its doors 🙂
+Roelf Renkema ah, sorry, i assume a superficial reply. in this way, you are exactly right & i agree wholeheartedly!
You people are all daydreaming if you think the Vatican will close its doors, sorry to be so up front.
Whatever you do, You do not close down a successful business
Why would they? They pay virtually no tax, get huge amounts of money from foreign countries, wield enormous power over their supporters. You just don't walk away from that.
As in business, what's more likely for them to do is to try and modernize enough to keep the complaints satisfied while profiling themselves as to keep the conservatives happy also, forge alliances with other believes to consolidate their hold and keep others in check.
being a (normal) human is more interesting !
Curiously enough, the Prophecy of Popes by Malachy believes that Benedict is the penultimate pope before the destruction of Rome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes
Not that I believe in it (or God), but the question is whether the people involved in Benedict's decision do.
that Nazi….
nowadays, even the impossible ist possible, we speak about the black swan phenomenon > time is changing so quickly and the power base of vatican is eroding ..slowly……if there is not adequate change within the vatican and I do not see adquate people handling this ( conserative majority) > the Internet is a big power nowadays…..
good get reid of all the fags
“After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.” – In other word; Popin' ain't easy.
I expect we will see a big scandal in the next few years…something they couldn't contain. Then we will know why they Pope left
Your posting off of rumors. Gtfo. Morons
You mean to tell me that all you people still have no idea why the pope is resigning?
I will tell you one of the main reasons if not the only one, is because he has a secrete list of little boys names of which he has raped and molested in his lifetime who are now adults and threatening him with telling on him……that's why now let it rest…..you'll see in a few years…..
The Pope is making it rain.
money money money
And once again who will be responsible for those child abuses????
Very brave decision. More people (especially Africans) would cling on to power until they die.
I knew that sucker couldn't hack it lol
John Diaz forgive me he's a religious leader and he's quitting its different from a sissy job in a office building. Thank God im Mormon
thuje doller mehi dhapenge jara hisab se
He was told by his doctor that he could no longer take trans flights any more so he said " see ya I'm out of here"
Babylon the great is falling… What exciting times these are!
Lmao
He need money too?
I don't think Stefan likes this Pope article very much….lol
Hahaha…I don't give a carrot for papa John or Benedict. We are in XXI Century and still we have people living in dark ages? Come on…this is the age of spaceships, trips to the moon, internet innovations and aliens disclosing facts. I like futurist sciences not oscurantism from medieval times. Certainly there are still a bunch of stupid people out there that believe in fairy tales and imaginary spiritus. There are not ghost, no spirit, not soul to save from hell. We are not a bit different from that mosquito that suck out your blood for a living.
Like the real other reason will become public. It is what it is, a resignation. Always a conspiracy, no.
(Inner thought) I make it Rain on my people.
pope made it rain!!!
Good luck to the pope for standing up to corruption. You give money to the church when they come collecting where is it recorded ( corruption). Unforturnately the pope's face doesn't fit the corrupt way of the church.
+John Smith so he resigns because he wants to spend more time with the kids ;(
Darth Sidious?
Correction. Pope Gregory XII resigned in 1415.
Everybody expected Peter to take over. It was only a matter of time.
+Max Huijgen: "Interesting statement as besides 1294 there is only other pope who ever resigned from the job. We have to go back to 1415 when Pope Gregory XII left office after huge pressure from his Cardinals."
– I think you have this fact wrong. I've seen the news and in their list there were some other popes who also had resigned.
We could gamble who will be the next one. I bet for Raymond Leo Burke:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Leo_Burke
Here you are the list of likely candidates:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_cardinals
+Zephyr López Cervilla who resigned after 1415?
Leo Burke is the bookies favorite. That it will be an African pope is quite likely anyway.
He must be in really bad health or wrapped up in a bad controversy ! Or BOTH!
+Max Huijgen: "who resigned after 1415?"
– Nobody, but before 1294 there were some others:
<<The Catholic Encyclopedia notes the historically obscure resignations of Pope Pontian (230-235) and Pope Marcellinus (296-308), the historically postulated resignation of Pope Liberius (352-366), and that one (unspecified) catalogue of popes lists Pope John XVIII as resigning office in 1009 and ending his life as a monk.
The first historically unquestionable Papal resignation is that of Pope Benedict IX in 1045. In order to rid the Church of the scandalous Benedict, Pope Gregory VI gave Benedict "valuable possessions" to resign the papacy in his favour. Gregory himself resigned in 1046 because the arrangement he had entered into with Benedict was considered simony.>>
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_resignation#History
+Max Huijgen: "besides 1294 there is only other pope who ever resigned from the job."
"Let's make it rain up in here"- pope benedict
Let's see if the next pope will be 30
+Steve Anglin
Yes, it speaks volumes about the poster and people who like it.
+Joseph Capani did you read the post? I suggest Benedictus is the one fighting the financial corruption.
It's a whole lot bigger than this
+Max Huijgen
Perhaps, but that's not what the picture implies, and that is the point of my comment.
hi kaisha ho
He joined my business and decided to retire! Want more info? Check out, http://www.getrippedwithme.com
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah money
why is his money in dollars, should be euros!!
The guy steps down for health reasons and you see a money trail? Three words, vow of poverity. Pope's
Don't go to the beach. He spends his remaining year's reading and praying.
+Max Huijgen is just another insolent insect publisher that contribute for mankind with voidness and disrespect…
Why don't they just admit that they're all full of shit? He'll step down for a more "modern" Pope to take his place. When their ideologies become outdated, they simply shift positions toward society's agreed upon standards. Their positions are always changing to accommodate the new moral standard dictated by society. So much for absolute morality. LOL!
Religion…who needs it?
Why is the pope throwing away U.S. Dollars…in the post picture… Isn't euro worth more? 🙂
Good question;there is a symbol on the dollar that represents evil
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
—–Original Message-
—From: "Kevin Prada (Google+)" <****@**>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:17:06
To: <****@**>
Church is a dying institution this is a time of transition the next pope needs to morph the currently dying church into something different to try and save as much as possible from it !
+chris currence So if you claim that the church changes as you say can you tell me one time the church has changed it's stance to society's agreed standard.
Thanks WikiLeaks….
get a life +Max Huijgen
Who cares, he's no idol of mine, the Catholic church kept people in the dark until the Bible was first printed.. My only idol is God not these people who give themselves false titles and offices such as priests, cardinals etc etc There is but ONE God in my life.
+Jon Sniffy Elvis?
Whatever
+Jon Sniffy your a fucking retard.I'm not catholic but i know thats not how they think of their religius
+Michael J Flynn Here's an easy one…slavery. Do you disagree?
Slightly spooky that we saw the snow gates on the BBC Scotland news tonight a few hours ago. No skiing for us in a long weekend at Kincraig. The kids had fun at the Hayfield though.
+Jon Sniffy Without the Catholic church you would not even know about the bible because there would be none.
Without the Catholic church Europe would have been overrun by Muslims and you would be praying to Allah. Watch what you say.
+chris currence If it's so easy then you should be able to produce an encyclical or some documentry proof.
+David Robertson You deluded if you think Muslims didn't want all of Europe under Islam.
Catholics kept the Bible for control for fear of vary interpretation away for historical accounts.
How many protestants fractions now exists because of different interpretations of the bible?.
Something Spooky goin on. ?????????
+Luis Rivas "Nazi past" ? What evidence do you have of this man's Nazi ties.
+Michael J Flynn He was drafted in the NAZI youth like every other youth in Germany then.
+Michael J Flynn I'm not sure where you're going with this. The Bible is documented proof that slavery was condoned by Christianity. We don't condone it now. Let me be more specific. Human slavery, the owning of a human being by another human being. Have you read your bible? Isn't slavery condoned in the bible? Aren't the specific laws regulating the slave trade spelled out in the bible? Wasn't slavery (in recent history) defended with biblical passages? I said this one was easy because I can't see how anyone can deny the words and laws in the bible that clearly spell out a system of slavery. We don't adhere to any of those rules now. If there's a single sect or denomination that DOES defend slavery as it's spelled out in the bible, I'd love to hear which one. Is slavery reprehensible or is it okay by today's standards?
People are swimming in conspiracy and superstition here 🙂
Anyone think the Catholic church and the papacy is a dysfunctional organization that needs to be revamped? I vote for the human solution, with sanity and tolerance.
Also, Prophecy of the Popes is awesome. I vote for that second. With fire and brimstone.
+chris currence That is from the old testament. Not the new. Offcourse no christian faith support slavery.
+Luis Rivas It's okay. They'll eliminate all of these irregularities as they always do…they'll simply say God told them to do it this way. He'll say it was God's will and nobody will question it. That's what they do when they want you to believe something without question. Claiming it's God's will and then claim God is mysterious and incomprehensible to our puny logic. How can you argue against that? It seems if you attach "God's will" to something it automatically becomes not only morally right but without criticism as well. What a load of crap!
+Nomeneta Saili So! The ten commandments are in the Old Testament! Was God wrong in the Old Testament? These Old Testament vs New Testament arguments make absolutely no sense. Jesus never said he was here to change any of the old laws. He actually said the opposite. He violated the old laws a few times but never openly refuted them or said they should be changed. Look at it this way, was the old testament (a large chunk of the bible) from God? Is it not meant to be taken just as seriously as the New testament? The prophecy that is used to make the claim that Jesus is the son of God is in the Old Testament. Without it, he would have likely not been seen as the son of any God. Do you simply ignore the Old Testament? Is it not accurate? If not, what is its purpose?
+chris currence Since you brought up the Catholic church and slavery we will confine our discussion to the topic if "Slavery and the Catholic Church"
For instance, doesn't St. Paul send the escaped slave back to his master and asks him to receive him as his brother?
+Nomeneta Saili My friend's father was also in the Hitler Youth and I had an aunt who was in the equivalent for girls. Neither one of them are Nazis.
And for the record, Benedict's father was a policeman who resigned from the force rather than be an instrument of Nazi tyrany.
+chris currence Like many Catholics i do not believe in sola scriptura. It is one of the key point difference between Catholics and protestants.
The Bible is a very complex book written by many different people over a long period of time in different eras and backdrops.
The new testament takes precedence over the old. Basically Jesus trumps the old. It is why we are called Christians. We follow Christ by example and not just words. If anything contradicts Jesus teachings and examples then we don't head them even if it's from the old testament.
For example Jesus said to love thy neighbor as thy self. It can't be any more clear than that. Is slavery loving thy neighbor?. Is abortions loving thy neighbor?. Is casting stones at homosexuals loving thy neighbor?
Many Christians over complicate things when they are so simple. Many try to read too much into the Bible when the truth is right in front of their face in plain and simple term. Jesus.
Words are just words. Actions speaks louder.
Don't get into an argument with a well schooled Catholic. They will crush you with reason and spiritual truth.
+Michael J Flynn Yes. His downsyndrome brother was alos executed. He deserted his post as well.
+Tormod Renberg Lerøy Uh oh.
+Tormod Renberg Lerøy Come on man that's harsh. Most Catholics don't go out looking for trouble unless they are provoked unfairly.
I am a Catholic and i respect every other religion and Christian denominations and i expect to be afforded the same. That's all i ask.
+Nomeneta Saili Well I think between the two of us we've pretty much answered this on falsehood. I'm still waiting for +chris currence to answer me about those documents concerning slavery.
Speaking of which do you ever wonder where in the bible is the dictate concerning sola scriptura exists? It doesn't. Next arguement please.
Sudden retirement of Pope + Catholic Church = sex scandal. And we all know what that means…
+Kris Brady Stupid idiot + Has no clue = Kris Brady.
Thanks for playng Johnny has some nice parting gifts for you and the rest of studio audience!
+Zephyr López Cervilla You´re correct. Should have said ´last occurrence´
+Roelf Renkema I´m an intellectual indeed, but so was Ratzinger before he became a pope. He was head of the modern day equivalent of the Inquisition. Not necessarily the place where the Vatican money flow is controlled.
I've never believed in tolerant intolerance, but then we have the Vatican which craps from a huge height over that ideal. My vote goes with Tormod.
+Michael J Flynn I'm not aware of that one but let me just accept it as truth for the sake of argument. Did he follow the laws regarding slavery as written in the Bible? What he did or did not do doesn't change what the (very specific) laws regarding slavery are in the Bible. The problem with the written word is its ignored by even devout followers. It is then re-interpreted to allow for the new standards. Jesus violated many of the laws as well. Does that mean they were wrong? If so, was god wrong and saw the error of his ways? Or does that mean Jesus was wrong in violating the laws? The laws are clear. Stoning is prescribed for a great many offenses but almost nobody (not even the most devout Christian) condones it today. Killing is prescribed for a number of mostly arbitrary (by today's standards) offenses. Working on the sabbath is punishable by death. How irrational is that!
+Max Huijgen Find an alternate source of information regarding the inquisition that is not from western protestant point of view to get a balanced view of the inquisition.
+Nomeneta Saili And if they disregarded the Old Testament back then, Jesus wouldn't be called Christ today. Christianity wouldn't exist without the Old Testament. It's the foundation of Christianity. It sounds like you simply want to cherrypick what YOU deem right and wrong based on YOUR own moral compass…just like we all do regardless of religion or lack thereof by the way. It's either ALL the word of God and perfectly correct and moral…or its not. If it's not, YOU determine what's right and wrong based on your own good moral sense. Ask yourself this, how do you know what Jesus taught was morally correct?
+Nomeneta Saili I meant it respectfully. Catholicism, just like Islam, is disparaged, and the wealth of knowledge and skill at applying this knowledge within the community is ignored.
The scandals and the corruption is, in my opinion, a very real problem, but the faith of each individual Catholic is not at stake here. Only the fate of a pope and a church-state who is far too old, and perhaps wicked, for these times.
Catholics can change the Catholic church if they want to.
One caveat. If the individuals in the flock were more concerned with airing out the rot within, perhaps spiritual movements would not be such easy targets for people with far lesser understandings of matters of the heart and mind.
+Michael J Flynn And by the way, I never specifically mentioned the Catholic Church. I may have mentioned the Pope once but this began about the Pope. Any Christian that claims to follow the Bible as the word of God would be subject to my criticism. I'm not trying to pick on one particular sect or denomination. Is the bible (in its entirety) the word of God or not according to Christians? And how is anything in the Old Testament to be ignored? Were some things wrong in the Old Testament? What's your opinion?
Whats behind it is opportunism. Boost company image. Nothing more, nothing less.
+Tormod Renberg Lerøy Agree completely and i am sorry if i sounded harsh. I didn't want to get into a fight with anyone.
Yes, there are a lot of flawed people in the catholic church. The problem i have is when people equate flaw people = flaw faith which is highly unfair.
The reason why the catholic faith is slow to adapt is because of the foundation it was built on. If they have changed a lot of their teachings to fit every era then the question will be asked. If they have changed a lot in a short time. What's to say these are the same teachings as they were from back in Jesus's days?.
To me as a catholic it is a great comfort to know that the faith handed to me is more or less the same as what Jesus handed to Peter.
Catholics were there right from the start. It is why i trust their interpretation of the bible as they understood most of the context of the words through those different times.
I fully support airing out the dirty laundry as they must be clean. However people should make a distinction between attacking the people and attacking the faith.
Interestingly enough did a few tens of people decide to unfollow me based on this post. (as in this normally doesn´t happen on that scale and it´s the only post of today which could have such an effect)
+chris currence Again lookup sola scriptura. Not all Christians are the same.
The problem i see with these debates between atheist and Christians fundamentalist mostly is that they think too much academically. We tend to rely too much on our own understanding when in fact we don't know much. Even with our supposedly great knowledge we still don't understand why people dream or scientifically how the first life came about.
The Bible is full of conflicting quotes that can be used to argue one point or another. Quotes as i said are just words and can be easily taken out of context. Actions speak louder and Jesus examples is what any Christian should follow as we are followers of Christ.
Jesus never said to discard the old testament but as i said before. Whatever he said and do in the new that is conflict with the old gets precedence over the old. Jesus is the new covenant after all.
+Michael J Flynn If those "parting gifts" consist of puppies, a bag of sweeties or the back of a van, I'll just leave empty handed.
+Nomeneta Saili What we don't know has no bearing on what we DO know. Because we don't understand something now doesn't mean we won't one day. The rules in the bible are just that…RULES! Many of them are very specific. There's little if any wiggle-room in the interpretation of the words as they're written. Some are downright black and white. The ten commandments are black and white but many folks don't seem to want to talk about the Old Testament because it directly conflicts with what Jesus stood for in many cases. Nobody has answered my question yet. Is the Old Testament all correct or is it NOT all correct? Is it the word of God or not? Can you answer? Also, why does anything Jesus did get precedence over the Old Testament? Are you saying he needed to change what was taught and believed to be God's word in the Old Testament? Wouldn't that mean that there were mistakes in the Old Testament? If it was the word of God, then God needed to send Jesus to correct it? Is that what you believe because that's just ridiculous. That would imply that God makes mistakes. No matter what angle you look at it, God had to fix something he did previously by sending Jesus to clean up the mess. Isn't that the basic idea? If not, please explain. If so, God seems fallible and not to be trusted absolutely.
The Ten Commandments are Rules and Rules are meant to be broken
+chris currence Look up sola scriptura. I don't want to waste time explaining.
+Nomeneta Saili I did. I didn't spend alot of time with it but it seems that a big part is "Do as I do not as I say" morality. They look at the deeds as much as the words. But when the deeds conflict with the word, do they follow the deeds and ignore the word? Again, I didn't spend alot of time with it but if the deeds and the word are clearly in opposition, how can that be? How can the word be incorrect? We're back to my original question, is the word as it's written all correct (taken literally) or is it not? There's only 2 options. There can't be a 3rd. It's either perfectly correct or not. To lend more credence to the deeds is to diminish the written word as if it doesn't matter all that much. Is it god's word or not or is it a compilation of stories written by man from man's perspective? That's what it seems to me. Any other explanation is simply conjecture. Your explanation is irrational (and I'm being polite). Not just yours but every theist argument for the existence of God I've ever heard. Just wanted to point that out so you don't think I'm singling you (or Christianity for that matter) out.
+chris currence Bible alone. 2/3 of Christians don't believe in Bible alone. I am in this 2/3 majority. As i said before. The Bible was written by many different people with different backgrounds in different times. Catholics understood this clearly right from the start. Protestant clearly do not. How does one legitimized ones authority?. Simple. By changing the authority. I'll let you figure it out.
+Luis Rivas I again have to take the time out of my life to correct you. You said that the pope's job was for life. It isn't .
Other popes have resigned before Bendict. That pretty much puts everything else you said as wrong.
+chris currence Still waiting on that slave thing.
He was to old his 1st day
They all should be punished for the child abuse!!!
+Michael J Flynn Read Deuteronomy, Ephesians, and Collosians for the rules dictating slavery. It's not only the Old Testament that condones it either. Know your bible before defending it in its entirety.
+chris currence No one is talking about the bible. You claimed that the church changes it's stance to societies agreed standard. Since you gave slavery as an answer I had to ask for documentation of the official Catholic policy concerning slavery.
So where is the documentation?
+Michael J Flynn I don't know that they've "officially" denounced the acceptance of slavery that's in the bible. They clearly don't condone it anymore. They don't condone killing your neighbor for working on the sabbath either. The list goes on and on. They simply ignore those irrationalities in the bible. They've obviously decided to leave out the immoral bits and focus on the moral bits because telling folks that those things are acceptable would turn them away from the church (rightfully so). When is the last time you heard of the church condoning slavery or stoning in a sermon? Probably never! They know it's wrong but can't very well change the bible now can they? They re-interpret as much as they can get by with and completely ignore the rest. The most common tactic is to say the Old Testament isn't valid since Jesus came. I'm not singling out Catholics here. I'm not even sure if that's a claim Catholics make but many Christians definitely try to make that claim. It's nonsense. If a God wanted us to know right from wrong, there should be no room for interpretation. The fact there is room for extreme interpretations toward both ends of the spectrum seems to point out a failure somewhere. Where does the failure lie? I'll ask you, is slavery moral? And if not, why does the bible condone it?
+chris currence Mathew 16 :19 "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whateveryou loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Here is the verse to remember when you ask how the old and new testaments parradox.
Remember also that the conference in Jerusalem that the conflict of the salvation of Gentiles arose and was debated.
On one side was Paul saying that all that was needed was Baptism. Whereas a faction led by James the apostle said that they must convert to Judaism before they became Christian. (and get circumcised too! Ouch!)
It was Peter, the first popoe after careful and prayerful discernment that he sided with the Pauline faction. Even after he himself was in favor of the plan championed by James.
It was the Holy Spirit speaking through him that the policy was set.
Slavery was of course another subject and was viewed differently as we had it in this country. You could be enslaved and ransomed or kept if you were captured in battle. You can also indenture yourself into slavery in exchange for payment of a debt. That's how many poor people came to this country. They sold themselves into indentured slavery to gain passage to the new world. Once here they worked for a preset period of time (usually 7 years). After which they were free to go.
Though this is the most common form of slavery there arose a diifferent form. "Chattle" slavery like what we had in this country was a different thing entirely and was vigorously opposed by the church because it turned people into property .
Pope Eugene IV issued a papal bull comdemning the of enslaving the native people in the Canary Islands. That was in 1435, that's sixty years before the landing of Columbus.
In 1537 the papacy (Paul III) again issued a bull against slavery in the West Indies and areas west.
The also issued Pastorale Officium condemning the slave trade in west Africa as the work of the devil and threatened excommunication to any person who defied this dictate. You could only have the excommunication lifted by the Pope.
The church also played a major role in the elimination of slavery in Brazil.
So I think this pretty much proves two things. 1) The so called changes the church undergoes are fully functional with both books of the bible. 2) That the church was ahead of the society on the moral issue of slavery and that even today it is the champion of human dignity and grace
+Michael J Flynn "It was the Holy Spirit speaking through him that the policy was set". That's an assumption. After careful discernment would have sufficed. To assume anything guiding his decision beyond his personal choice on the matter is pure conjecture. Even if he claimed it to be so, we should just take his word for it? And it's a good thing that the church openly condemned slavery. I'll take your word on that. That does make MY point though. If the laws are clearly spelled out in the bible, and the church needed to later come out against the practice, they strayed from the original laws. They chose to denounce them. Where once it was written that it was acceptable, now they say it's not. How does this not make my earlier point that they CHOSE to side with what's right on this issue despite clear writings in the bible that contradict it. And I'm sure they no longer condone stoning or many of the other obviously immoral bits either. That was my point. They follow what's written, until it's no longer acceptable to a compassionate and reasonable society.
i love my Pope very very very much ..He is a very honest man
God will reward him very much ..HATS OFF TO YOU ..MY lORD
+chris currence You almost have it right. The church (pope) in the instance of "chattel" slavery was far and away BEFORE the rest of society. Remember I pointed out that the first Papal bull was issued 60 years before Columbus?
And how later (1537) the threat of excommunication hung over the heads of anyone who defied this instruction?
No one told the Dutch or English and even if they did, "so what?" they were Protestant. They weren't going to listen to the Pope.
The church condemned the practice. It took how long for the rest of the western world to catch up.?
You mention the story of people being stoned. Here's a good story.
There was a little monk named Telemachus who lived in the east. One day he pulled himself together with an unexplained compulsion to go to Rome. After arrival he felt it necessary to go to the colliseum. Once there he was horrified at the violence and brutal killings that occured. He felt that he had to do something to stop the fighting. The next thing Telemachus was in the ring with the gladiators. He implored them to stop, "Stop in the name of Jesus Christ." he yelled three times.
Well the crowd, blood thirsty as they were, began stoning the little monk. And he was stoned to death.
The next day the gladiator games were outlawed.
All because of a brave little monk who followed faithfully what he was told.
You might say, "nice story" . But what's really nice is that this occurance has been recorded not just by the church but the Roman authorities as well.
+Roelf Renkema In the Christian bible ( John 8 : 3 – 11) Jesus freed us from the Mosaic laws. Forgiveness and mercy were granted to her; an indulgence. So if you're trying to pick a debate over whether stoning existed, I'm afraid you'll have to go elsewhere.
I like the way the Tibetans chose the Dalai Lama. I say the Catholics give that method a try.
#PagePhotoViewCounter Views of this post: 86416