The Problem with the Papacy

[Syphros]

Very Simple.

How can the Pope or the Vatican be taken seriously, when it's history is full of petty rivalry and it's obvious modification of Sacred Texts (i.e. immaculate conception, removal of books from the bible)?

I have not lost faith in what Jesus represents, but what the Church has changed to influence people for nearly 2000 years.

Regards,

Phil

 

[ranjana]

i dont get it either- how can the pope be infalliable when he is elected by men? and one pope will negate what the last one said/did? doesnt that disprove the whole infalliability of the pope right there?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is no unchanging religion.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

"One pope dies...so we elect another"- it is the office of that Papacy- not the individual charism of the person, that matters. Before the question of infallability is considered (which is not an ordinary perogative of the papacy. Infallible statements are narrow and rarely made), what do you mean by its "obvious modification of sacred texts" ? What books did the Papacy remove?

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception did not involve the modification of any text.

 

[Runlikethewind]

How can the Pope or the Vatican be taken seriously, when it's history is full of petty rivalry.....

You can find that sort of thing in just about every strand of Christianity

...and it's obvious modification of Sacred Texts (i.e. immaculate conception, removal of books from the bible)?

The Immaculate conception is not a modification of sacred texts, its not even in the bible. Of course the question of whether there are doctrines not contained in the bible (tradition vs sola scriptura) is another debate. And the cannon of scripture was decided on by church councils not the pope. In any event the Roman Catholics have more books in our bible than protestants have in theirs so if anyone is guilty of removing books it is them. Of course the Eastern Catholics have more books still.

 

[Syphros]

What do you mean by its "obvious modification of sacred texts" ? What books did the Papacy remove?

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception did not involve the modification of any text.

I apologise, they didn't remove books they modified them.

If you read the New Testament it makes little reference to the Roman Empire. If I was from Palestine, I would detest the Roman occupation. This is the word of Emperor Constantine (who I believe is the true founder of the Roman Catholic Church) who had the Bible edited to pacify the masses in a corrupt Rome. This mimicked a Christian reformation of Rome and the Christian populace supported it. If any of the stories in the bible are true, why is Jesus presented in an impossibly perfect way.

Immaculate Conception is another too-good-to-be-true scenario. Mary was a 13 year old! She probably had Joseph's other children (a single child was not economical). She was not a virgin for her whole life. Get realistic!

 

[Dunemeister]

I apologise, they didn't remove books they modified them.

Instead of offering innuendo, can you offer specific examples of changes?

If you read the New Testament it makes little reference to the Roman Empire.

Ever read the Revelation of Jesus Christ (the last book of the bible)? How about The Epistle of Paul to the Romans? What about Ephesians? Good grief man, critical commentary on Rome and advice for stickhandling around the cult of the Emperor is throughout the New Testament! Most of the time, the language is coded and muted, not because of support for Rome but to protect the writers and listeners, who risked death for saying things against Rome.

If I was from Palestine, I would detest the Roman occupation.

The Roman occupation, although hard, was not the main target of local anger. The locals were more displeased with the local temple authorities and the Sanhedrin than with Rome.

This is the word of Emperor Constantine (who I believe is the true founder of the Roman Catholic Church) who had the Bible edited to pacify the masses in a corrupt Rome. This mimicked a Christian reformation of Rome and the Christian populace supported it. If any of the stories in the bible are true, why is Jesus presented in an impossibly perfect way.

You're simply flat wrong about Constantine being the "founder" of the RCC. And here we go again with the innuendo. If you don't have any specific information or evidence, please desist. (Put more bluntly, put up or shut up.)

Immaculate Conception is another too-good-to-be-true scenario. Mary was a 13 year old! She probably had Joseph's other children (a single child was not economical). She was not a virgin for her whole life. Get realistic!

I don't agree with this doctrine either, but there are much better ways of criticizing it than "Gawd, it's obvious they're wrong!"

 

[logician]

It is interesting how a religion supposedly based upon the teachings of a wandering peasant, could end up being controlled by a stifling very rich heirarchical structure like the papacy.

Go figure.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I think he's confused the Immaculate Conception (which refers to the conception of the Virgin Mary, who we believe to have been conceived free from the stain of Original Sin) with the Virgin birth of Christ and further confused that with the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Syphros]

I think he's confused the Immaculate Conception (which refers to the conception of the Virgin Mary, who we believe to have been conceived free from the stain of Original Sin) with the Virgin birth of Christ and further confused that with the perpetual virginity of Mary.

As a free thinker and Catholic (at least I agree with their morals) I can define each of these.

This post was an indirect way of questioning the faith, rather than bluntly asking at my church considering I got confirmed about 6 months ago.

In response to Dunemeister, this is merely an unlikely chain of events removed from history. However, the grain of truth is that no Council can make modern decisions (IVF) for Jesus. Reconciliation with Judaism and other acts strengthening inter-religion relationships are good things.

Christianity has been used for the last 1400 (you could say 1900) as a moral institute that had degenerated into 'a very rich hierarchical structure' (as logician very well put it) that is simply not necessary.

Christianity (ignoring religious institutions and fundamentalist groups) needs to be restructured in the way some Evangelical movements (love thy neighbour... even if he is muslim or black or poor/ other religion's aren't the spawn of Satan).

To conclude, a tiny hypocritical niggle: How can a group of virgins have any idea about contraception or children???