The Shotgun Blog

« Canada joins in the universal condemnation of Iran | Main | President Bush press conference on Iraq »

Thursday, July 12, 2007

"The ecumenism of the trenches"

(Cross-posted from Burkean Canuck).
In a statement issued on June 29th 2007 following an audience with Benedict XVI, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a statement clarifying certain matters of Catholic teaching, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church. The statement is structured as a series of five questions with responses to each. What has gotten the biggest "response" in turn is the answers given to the second and fifth questions. The response to "Question Number Two" affirms that "the 'one' Church subsists in the Catholic Church." The response to "Question Number Five" was that "Christian communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century . . . cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'Churches' in the proper sense."

The evangelical Christian founder of "World Net Daily" cheekily posed his own question and possible responses as a poll for readers -- a cheekiness that seemed almost entirely lost on the usually quick-witted Kathy Shaidle of "Relapsed Catholic." The World Alliance of Reformed Churches responded, here. The Italian branch of the World Evangelical Alliance had held a public meeting in Rome asserting religious liberty, but the WEA to date has not responded -- as far as I could find.

I find it hard to get very worked up about the statement. But then, I've always found it a bit disingenuous to pretend that there's no theological differences between Protestants and Catholics, or among Protestants and among Catholics. That said, I find I have more in common with many Catholics than I do with many Protestants, or -- even though I'm quite comfortable being identified as an evangelical -- that I have some things in common with the magisterial Reformation that I don't share with certain evangelicals.

But while confessional matters are important, I don't find it difficult nor do I experience cognitive dissonance by making common cause in the social, cultural, and political domains with those with whom I differ confessionally. That's true whether the confession is intentionally religious or un-self-consciously so. I've made common cause with crazy Ayn Rand-ers and libertarians, with "charismatic" and Catholic Christians, with Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs and, yes, Muslims, with liberal Protestants, with people of Jewish faith of various kinds, and with remarkably devout agnostics and atheists!

In short, I've made common cause where the cause was held in common. As for the rest, my ethnic WASP reticence generally prevents me from "getting into it" when I disagree, even when pressed. I've seen my Catholic friends, who know me well enough to know that I describe myself -- tongue planted firmly in cheek -- as "the last self-conscious Protestant in Canada," look on with bemusement as one of their co-religionists attempted to convert me to their faith. I've pointed out to gay libertarian friends that it isn't easy for a heterosexual male growing up on a farm in Alberta where you feed and water the cattle and throw bales AND practice piano and perform as a boy soloist for church and weddings.

And that's one of the great features of joining a political party or another organization dedicated to an issue campaign or to social action or cultural engagement: they bring people of sometimes disparate faiths and backgrounds and experiences together for a time. The coming together doesn't dispel the differences. But it does allow people with differences to set aside their differences at least for a time in order to come together on matters of common concern.

This is, as someone coined the term, "the ecumenism of the trenches."

UPDATE: So much for "the ecumenism of the trenches." ;-) Fortunately, though, this is not representative of the reality among activists I've worked with. And I might add that there's a wide spectrum of views among non-religious secularists as well, with views strongly held. :-)

Speller is welcome to get in touch with me directly (I'm "in the book") if he wants to verify my WASP or evangelical credentials -- and the two categories are not necessarily identical. Many Canadian evangelicals, especially in western Canada, are three or four generations removed from the German, Scandinavian, Dutch, or Russian Mennonite immigrants who came to Canada with "free church" or anabaptist roots. The "Missionary" and "Evangelical Free" churches -- now, merged as one in Canada -- are examples of this. American WASPs are quite different from this, as are the "Upper Canadian" variety.

As usual, Kathy Shaidle does not disappoint -- always entertaining, especially when she's on the attack. :-) Kathy's "not wrong" -- there's plenty of unintentionally hilarious, cultural kitsch and what the evangelical, satirical mag, "Wittenburg Door" many years ago called "Jesus junk" (and, yes, I know that "Wittenburg" is misspelled -- that in itself is a story). But, frankly, there's plenty of Catholic kitsch out there, to go 'round, too.

As for Kathy Shaidle's other point about the Protestant cultural contributions, let me point out a few to balance off her counter-examples: Bach (a Lutheran whose music is loved by Benedict XVI), Isaac Newton, the Calvinist Rembrandt, Shakespeare (a Protestant whom Catholics try to claim as their own . . . now), Handel, and, in the present, Ben Heppner, the Canadian (and evangelical) tenor, and the neocalvinist Makoto Fujimura of NYC, to name a couple. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind was published when evangelicals' recovery was already well underway, and a lot of the leading edge stuff in epistemology, political theory, and sociology, for example, is being pursued by evangelical intellectuals.

But let me reiterate my point: evangelicals and Catholics do well to make common cause on social, cultural, and political issues, where their causes are (frequently) held in common. Likewise, I am happy to make common cause with a wide variety of people where we hold a common view on a given issue. In his The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister, John O'Sullivan points out how John Paul II, the Methodist-Anglican Margaret Thatcher, and the American evangelical Ronald Reagan worked in concert to defeat communist totalitarianism.

Posted by Russ Kuykendall on July 12, 2007 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs, Religion | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e00992097f8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "The ecumenism of the trenches":

Comments

I think the insulting tone of the first part of your message taints the second part irreparably.

Please try again.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-12 6:49:14 PM

Hey Really Cold Water: Do you think WASP is too strong? If one uses WASP in an argument, the other derogatory terms become fair game. Or not, depending on your point of view. We must get along or too many of us are going to be unhappy, and living a hellish existence. I used those bad terms to make a point. They exist in our vocabulary and in our thoughts. They should be buried like nuclear waste with big warning signs. The future is too important to waste it on past evils. Get along. Get along.

Posted by: dewp | 2007-07-12 7:24:42 PM

dewp,
You are preaching to the choir. I do try to get along. I also practice care in trying to not offend people intentionally. Be my guest if you wish but don't be surprised if others don't hear you.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-12 7:28:00 PM

h2o I hear you. Thanks.

Posted by: dewp | 2007-07-12 7:46:59 PM

dewp,
Anytime. Peace out.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-12 7:58:02 PM

Ice-water dog:

Would you mind elaborating your first comment for my benefit?

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-07-12 8:31:54 PM

Dear Mr. Haddon, aka "dewp":

Surely you are not suggesting that the acronym "WASP" is equivalent to the odious slurs you employed in the comment I deleted?

Surely.

Posted by: Russ Kuykendall | 2007-07-12 8:42:27 PM

You aren't a Protestant at all Russ.

Confessional matters? What kind of language is that?

I'd quote you some scripture, but it's obviously all Greek to you.

Until you started, recently, professing to be a 'WASP' I took you for a Catholic.

You're either conflicted, delusional, or not a Christian at all.

We all sin, but your doctrine is totally unsound if you think Catholics are Christians.
When were you born again and what were the circumstances?

Have you ever studied prophesy?
The lack of that field of study is why so few Jews recognized Jesus as the Christ.

If a Christian studies the prophesies, the role of the Catholic 'church' is quite clear. It is the role of the harlot that attempts to ursurp not just the position of the Bride, but of the the friends of the Groom, which is Israel, too.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-07-12 10:44:59 PM

Farrah (or whoever) was being "cheeky"? Funny, his "cheeky" answer options were incredibly similar to the dead serious "The Pope wears a dress and can't tell me what to do so there!" comments I read from evangelical Christians at blogs across the sphere.

Oh and Speller: "prophecy" is the Protestant version of astrology. Try reading The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind instead of Chick Comics, eh? At the very least, a book without pictures of Jesus playing football in it...

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2007-07-13 7:08:41 AM

What Kathy?
Does "the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" have the Nil Obstat and the Imprimatur?

I've got plenty of books directly from Catholic book stores that do, Catholic bookstores, you know the ones that sell idols and books with those hallmarks of orthdoxy.

Anyway, these books, with the Nil Ostat and Imprimatur, are FULL of grossly pagan ideas and doctrine completely at odds with the scripture.

JEREMIAH
Chapter 7

18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?
20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/sunburst.htm

http://www.geocities.com/reginamundi77/

http://www.spiralgoddess.com/Mary.html

http://www.queenofheaven.org/

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/lucius-assa.html

http://olqhs.org/

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030402.htm

Here's a beaut>
http://www.truecatholic.org/rosary.htm

http://www.rc.net/seattle/olqh/

http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c13.shtml

I hope that those who are interested in the truth about Roman Catholicism clicked the links above. A number of them are from RC sites.

Here are some CHICK tracts that simply put it all together.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0040/0040_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp

What? Your papal masters don't see fit to spoon feed prophesy to you along with all that spiritual poison?

Kathy, putting down eschatology just highlights the general Catholic ignorance of scripture.

Roman Catholicism created the Dark Ages.
The Reformation brought Europe out of the Dark Ages and lead to the Enlightenment.

Time to come into the light, Kathy.

Mother Teresa is burning.
http://www.voxpopuli.org/letter_from_mother_teresa.php

http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html

http://www.mariansolidarity.com/ladyofallnations/dopp01c.html

http://users.stargate.net/~ejt/Jimmy2.htm

http://www.barr-family.com/godsword/virgin.htm

Posted by: Speller | 2007-07-13 8:35:19 AM

Speaking of religions and the "Dark Ages", what religion is practicing their religion literally, stuck in the Dark Ages and out to conquer the world through terrorism?

Enough about the Catholic religion, or any religion in Christendom, they're the very least of our concerns. Wait until they start serving their own on a platter, then we can talk.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-07-13 9:05:04 AM

LizJ ~

At last some common sense! THANK YOU!!!

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-13 9:28:12 AM

I was only kidding but: SPELLER ACTUALLY DOES READ CHICK COMICS!!!! And admits to same in a public forum!

Bwaaaahaaa haaaaa

Crazy prots like him are so stupid they can only read comic books! We brought the world Michelangelo, Dante and Bernini, they've got Jack Chick and Thomas Kincade. Pretty much all you need to know.

Statues of Jesus and Mary aren't "idols", boy. Don't you keep a photo of your mom in your wallet? Same difference. Pull that baseball bat outta yer butt and lighten up.

You're a typical fundie retard and a living stereotype. The only thing you've got on your mind is a hat. A trucker hat with a fish on it, no doubt.

For those interested in the truth about all those long-debunked, anti-Catholic urban legends dude is trafficking, check out:

http://www.catholic.com/library/anti_catholicism.asp

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2007-07-13 9:35:42 AM

Speller,

I suppose you are rejoicing in the fact that the Pope has decreed the Latin Mass not under his control, and now under permit of the lower ranks?

I will remind you, once more, that the prophesies that you have referred to, that you say you know everything about, in reference to the Bible, are the Jewish narrative. When you speak disrespectfully about Jews, you undermine the basis on which you claim you base your religion.

There is a fundamental untruth in what you have said.

To you, it seems as if you believe that the Jewish people stopped being legitimate when Christianity was born. Fact remains, the Jewish religion, and Torah, has been the core of the Jewish people, throughout time. Judaism has continued to grow, and the narrative and prophesies are still Jewish.

I find the "the ecumenism of the trenches" to be very honest. What makes political movement so real, is that it is not due to the differences, but in fact due to the commonalities.

I see the line that has been drawn in the sand as a violation of one of the Ten Commandments--that specifically of coveting that which truly belongs to someone else.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-07-13 9:43:30 AM

Kathy,

You mentioned Chick so I thought I'd look it up.
Maybe you could show me where Chick or any of the sites I linked to were wrong?

Didn't think so. Typical Catholic.
Ad hominems instead of dealing in issues of doctrine and proving them up with scripture.
But how can Catholics, scriptural illiterates and pagans as they are, actually debate such matters.

Little girl, those statues certainly are idols.
Do you bow down before and pray to your mommy?

Where in the scripture does it say to pray to dead saints?

I could show you where Paul specifically forbade people to bow and pray to him while he was alive.

I could show you the commandment in Exodus which clearly forbids even making such idols let alone bowing before them.

I could show you where Christ forbids calling any man on the earth 'father' in a spiritual way,
maybe you could ask your
'priest' to show you that one.
Here's how you'd do that, say "Father does Jesus forbid calling any man father in a spiritual way?"

Or I could show you that Jesus is the :
One and Only Priest

One and Only Advocate

One and Only sinless person

Well, little girl, you get the drift.
TTFN, Kathy.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-07-13 10:15:03 AM

Kathy! I see you're spewing your venom of insulting other people's views and intelligence over here now, bad enough at SDA.

"Crazy prots like him are so stupid they can only read comic books!"

Well you can count me in as one of those who read Chick tracts (or comic book in your infinite wisdom) and started asking questions and got born again and set free as a result of it.

Statues aren't idols? Uh, yes.

Having a picture of Mommy in the wallet vs kneeling down or praying to a statue, I have to inform you my dear, is a big difference.

But as the saying goes, you can't see the forest for the trees eh.

I think Russ was being polite with the statement of "the usually quick-witted Kathy Shaidle" because statements like crazy prots, ball bats up an arse and the venomious "You're a typical fundie retard" isn't wit, it is vulgar.

You sound like a wounded person Kathy, obviously hurt by a past event. Care to discuss it?

Not all Prot's are crazy, hell bent, or out to get you, blast away all you want, but remember I'm slow on the uptake eh.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-07-13 10:15:06 AM

...one verse set me free:

Gospel of John 3:3
"Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'"

Because Jesus said it, there is no debate needed from my side.

I did it.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-07-13 10:19:36 AM

I am beginning to understand why we call Canadian values, Judaeo-Christian.

You put two or three Christians in a room, from various denominations, and you don't just have twenty positions, (6-7 each) you have something close to WWIII.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-07-13 10:21:03 AM

Lady,

Is it disrespectful to say that the Jews killed ALL of the prophets?

Why do you suppose God hasn't sent you any for 2400 years?

Do you think that you're better than the people who killed all those prophets and kept falling into idolatry?

Tell me, Lady, who is this prophesy talking about?

ISAIAH
Chapter 53

1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was WOUNDED for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-07-13 10:26:37 AM

Wow, the morons are really coming out of the woodwork. Nothing like a mouthy female ("little girl"?!) to get under the skin of yer average male headship born aginer.

Speller, presuming you can read anything that isn't accompanied by crude, two-colour illustrations, I've already provided a link that rebutes all your creaky old anti-Catholic bigotry and misinformation about "not calling any man Father" and "'praying' to statues".

Next you'll be telling me that priests and nuns have babies and sacrifice their spawn to Satan. Yawn.

PS: where in the Bible does it use the word... "bible"?

Got ya!

I suppose you two would have approved of the destruction of great art, not to mention Catholic hospitals etc during the Reformation. If so, whatever you are, "conservative" isn't a good descriptor. You'd be much more comfortable in a communist chat room.

You guys are both really doing your parts to entrench the stereotype of the illiterate, knuckledragging fundie. Just keep talking. I actually enjoy being judged by the enemies I attract and you two just prove my point with each post. Do carry on.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2007-07-13 10:28:19 AM

...ironically Catholics believe they are born again at infant baptism

http://www.catholic.com/library/Are_Catholics_Born_Again.asp

When a Catholic says that he has been "born again," he refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in him during baptism. Evangelical Protestants typically mean something quite different when they talk about being "born again."

-------------

Well...Jesus could have simply said, "You need to be baptized" - if that is all that is needed to be born again. But it wasn't.

Romans 10:10 says
"For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

----------------
If Baptism is all that is needed according to the Catholic method, then Philip sure screwed up big time...

Acts 16:31
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy household."

Acts 8:34-38
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

------------

Mark 16:16
He that believes AND is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned.

Baptism is a sign of a good conscious:
1 Peter 3:21
"The like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscious toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

To have a good conscious, one must have first repented and acknowledge in receiving forgiveness.

Babies don't know to or have the capacity to make this kind of judgment...

-Funny how the truth sets one free eh?

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-07-13 10:35:03 AM

You guys call yourselves christians? Those of you who are protestants, what do you care if the pope doesn’t consider your particular church the True Church of God. The old fart is sort of a catch-22 build by Catholics themselves: if he says that protestant churches are equal to His One True Church, he has to renounce his claim to represent Christ on earth? This exchange between people who claim to be Christians is simply shocking. Keep this up and in a few years, you will all be praying five times a day facing East.

Posted by: andré | 2007-07-13 10:35:12 AM

Kathy
PS: where in the Bible does it use the word... "bible"? Got ya!

Ummm, it says it right on the Cover...

No, Got ya!

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-07-13 10:36:57 AM

andre' "Those of you who are protestants, what do you care if the pope doesn’t consider your particular church the True Church of God."

-----------------

You know, you're right, I don't care. But does it mean I just roll over and go to sleep when a leader of a very large cult brings more division between believers of any stripe?

Does it mean as a Christian I cannot speak my thoughts to a public forum?

Yes, I am to avoid doubtful disputation, so if that is what you are say, you are correct again my friend.

At the same time I'm sure you would have equally and righteously tell Jesus not to upset the money changer's tables at the temple right?

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-07-13 10:40:18 AM

I'm reminded of that female stand up comic back in the 80s. A male heckler yelled out, "Are you a lesbian?"

She snapped back, "And are you the alternative?"

Like I said dudes, just keep talking. "The cover"? I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. Pure. Comedy. Gold. Thanks for making my day!

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2007-07-13 10:42:08 AM

"Keep this up and in a few years, you will all be praying five times a day facing East."

Just an add on in giving andre' the benefit of the doubt.

He is right in a sense, in that dividing Christians is not the way to go about spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world.

As to say this would never happen, well Jesus Himself even said He's a home breaker.

You know - the mother-in-law, daughter, etc verse.

But really andre' who started all this, so old fart as you say. If it was some old fart on 7th ave SW, I'd just ignore him, but seeing this person is a leader of a 1billion strong demon, err, denomination, then, well different rules apply.

Especially seeing when I grew up, I was told he's God's representative on earth, or basically untouchable.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-07-13 10:45:42 AM

...as the song goes "good catholic girls start much too late", yer slow on the uptake.

Relax eh, I was making a joke about it being on the cover.

One can say Ave Maria isn't in the Bible either...

Hey say two hail mary's and call me in the morning, that should help your morning sickness.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-07-13 10:51:21 AM

**Especially seeing when I grew up, I was told he's God's representative on earth, or basically untouchable.**

And what does the Catholic Church itself say, tomax7?

Posted by: Dennis_Mahon | 2007-07-13 11:00:49 AM

Dennis: "And what does the Catholic Church itself say, tomax7?"

Why ask me Dennis, am I the Pope?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.

Besides the bishopric of the Roman Diocese, certain other dignities are held by the pope as well as the supreme and universal pastorate: he is Archbishop of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy and the adjacent islands, and sole Patriarch of the Western Church. The Church's doctrine as to the pope was authoritatively declared in the Vatican Council in the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus". The four chapters of that Constitution deal respectively with the office of Supreme Head conferred on St. Peter, the perpetuity of this office in the person of the Roman pontiff, the pope's jurisdiction over the faithful, and his supreme authority to define in all questions of faith and morals.

Read further down about his authority:

Not only did Christ constitute St. Peter head of the Church, but in the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven," He indicated the scope of this headship.

--- wait Jesus gave this authority to all believers.

-----------------------------

Wikipedia defines the Pope also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

The Pope (from Latin: papa, Papa, father; from Greek: papas / παπάς = priest - originating from πατήρ = father )[1] is the Bishop of Rome, the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church and head of state of Vatican City. Roman Catholics believe he is the Successor of Saint Peter, also making him the Vicar of Christ. The office of the Pope is called the Papacy; his ecclesiastical jurisdiction is called the Holy See (Sancta Sedes in Latin) or Apostolic See.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-07-13 11:10:13 AM

Did you know that almost every word of the Catholic Mass comes from Scripture too? That must mean the Mass is great, right?

(Dude's brain goes 'ping')

Sad, isn't it? While crazy fundies spend their time prooftexting hate speech, we Catholics are making brilliant films, creating great literature and art -- not to mention getting drunk and pigging out!

Honestly, which side would you rather be on?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RMzA82H-Qo

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2007-07-13 11:18:26 AM

Tomax the Misogynist: You made a "joke" rather than answer my question:

If things are only "of God" if they are specifically mentioned in the Bible, then show me where in the Bible the Bible mentions "the Bible"?

PS: the first part of the Hail Mary is in Luke.

(Note to self: When you're dealing with a guy who manages to misinterpret a Billy Joel song, you gotta type realllllly slooooowly...)

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2007-07-13 11:27:38 AM

Statues of Jesus and Mary aren't "idols", BOY.(!!!)
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | Friday, July 13, 2007 at 09:35 AM

How quickly they forget.
Can dish it but can't take it, eh Kathy?

Trying to hide behind the ALL WOMEN card eh?
Pahh-thetic.

I guess you didn't click on all the links that show your Pope JP2 and Mommy Teresa saying that 'Mary' was co-redeemer with Christ.
Mediatrix they called her
Co-redeemer they called her.

Advocate they called her.

Well the Bible(that's on the cover-it means book because Biblos was where the first codex forms were made- the HOLY part means it's set aside for the purpose of God- naturally the word book appears in the scripture 188 times) says:

1 TIMOTHY
Chapter 2

5 For there is one God, and one MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1 John
Chapter 2
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an ADVOCATE with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

ROMANS
Chapter 5

12 Wherefore, as by ONE man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of ONE many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by ONE man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by ONE that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by ONE to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by ONE man's offence death reigned by ONE; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by ONE, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of ONE judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of ONE the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by ONE man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of ONE shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

andre,

God's will is done, period, end stop.

Read the book of Jonah. The whole point is that His will is going to be done and death itself isn't an escape.

I won't be praying facing east, specifically, although sometimes I do.
Do the Jews at the wailing wall pray facing east?

Catholics are born Catholics.
Faith in Christ isn't hereditary, you must be born again. Repent, believe, and be baptized.
The faithful are chosen from the foundation of the world.

EPHESIANS
Chapter 1

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the FOUNDATION of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

REVELATION
Chapter 17

3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the FOUNDATION of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not,

9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

That city is Rome and this prophesy is yet to be fulfilled.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-07-13 11:32:51 AM

Statues of Jesus and Mary aren't "idols", BOY.(!!!)
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | Friday, July 13, 2007 at 09:35 AM

How quickly they forget.
Can dish it but can't take it, eh Kathy?

Trying to hide behind the ALL WOMEN card eh?
Pahh-thetic.

I guess you didn't click on all the links that show your Pope JP2 and Mommy Teresa saying that 'Mary' was co-redeemer with Christ.
Mediatrix they called her
Co-redeemer they called her.

Advocate they called her.

1 TIMOTHY
Chapter 2

5 For there is one God, and one MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1 John
Chapter 2
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an ADVOCATE with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

ROMANS
Chapter 5

andre,

God's will is done, period, end stop.

Read the book of Jonah. The whole point is that His will is going to be done and death itself isn't an escape.

I won't be praying facing east, specifically, although sometimes I do.
Do the Jews at the wailing wall pray facing east?

Catholics are born Catholics.
Faith in Christ isn't hereditary, you must be born again. Repent, believe, and be baptized.
The faithful are chosen from the foundation of the world.

EPHESIANS
Chapter 1

REVELATION
Chapter 17

That city is Rome and this prophesy is yet to be fulfilled.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-07-13 11:33:27 AM

"...we Catholics are making brilliant films..."

...granted I do miss Charles Heston, but interesting read about you Kathy...and I will throttle down now reading about your present physical state.

While I am honoured a distinguished person as yourself would take the time to dialog with us slow on the uptake types on here, I am taken aback by the questionable prose, err, 'poetry' you use in your descriptions of those who don't see it your way.

I was going to ask about the awards you have listed on your site as award-winning Toronto author, seeing the ones you listed are runner up and not actually won.

- Governor General's Award: Poetry
(actually a runner up 1998 )"Lobotomy magnificat"

- Four Canadian Church Press Awards
(read below how this award is selected)

- Catholic Press Award 2003
(Honorable Mention)

--------------------------------------
Checking out the Four Canadian Church Press Awards states:

Prior to 1980, the CCP held an awards program every other year, with “Tweeny” awards offered in the year between. The last reference to the “Tweeny” awards was in the minutes of the 1980 annual meeting.
In 1979 there were 65 award entries;
in 1985 160, and in 1990 300 entries.

In 1982, the CCP had only one judge for all categories. By the mid-1980s two or three judges were involved.

By the mid-1990s administration of the awards had become too cumbersome for executive members to handle on a volunteer basis, so funds were designated for a part-time awards co-ordinator.

http://www.library.utoronto.ca/canpoetry/shaidle/bio.htm
http://www.quillandquire.com/authors/profile.cfm?article_id=4818

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-07-13 11:45:01 AM

Kathy, the P hater: "You made a 'joke' rather than answer my question: If things are only 'of God' if they are specifically mentioned in the Bible, then show me where in the Bible the Bible mentions 'the Bible'"?

Ummm...pick one of the answers:

A. You can't take a joke.
B. Don't twist the scriptures.
C. Say two hail mary's referenced as in a greeting and not as prayer in the Bible.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-07-13 11:49:23 AM

whooohoo!
Love technology. Hit refresh to see updates and the stupid browser re-entered my posting.

Sorry, Kathy, wasn't digging with the three postings, but I know you think I am slow on the uptake, so figured if I said it three times you'd get it.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-07-13 12:00:26 PM

Speaking of the 'Hail Mary' check this scripture out:

MATTHEW
Chapter 6

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7 But when ye pray, use not VAIN REPETITIONS, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

And then Christ gives an EXAMPLE of how to pray and what do the Catholics do?
They turn it into a VAIN REPETITIVE prayer, called the 'Our Father", used on the rosary along with the 'Hail Mary'.

You'd think they would actually read the bible some time, just to see where the 'Our Father' comes from and notice the preceding two verses.

What does Christ call people who pray this way?
Heathens.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-07-13 12:04:50 PM

Brilliant Kathy!

It really should read Torah and Talmud respectively--but then it would not be translated first into greek, and then into Latin and finally English.

Christian polemics always baffle me, because they talk about learning and studying prophesy, but when it comes to discussing theology--interdenominational, intradenominational or even inter-religion, it really is crazy talk which winds people up like tournadoes!

I've read the New Testament, and discovered many issues which no Christian likes to discuss. One of the parts is where Jesus was on the cross. I read that part, and found it quite disturbing that people read it all the time and never consider the fact that Jews reading that, would empathize with the pain and sufferring brought on by the Romans, on a Jewish man. The cross, though a pride for Christians to wear, is actually a tool used to kill people. Had he been born today and killed with an AK 47....

Anyway, Jesus was up there, sufferring away, and what does he say?

He said:

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)

Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:43)

Woman, behold your son: behold your mother. (John 19:26.)

My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34)

I thirst. (John 19:28)

It is finished. (John 19:30)

Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. (Luke 23:46)

These are very sad words. They are the words of a man who is seeing the end of his life--being wasted away, due to Roamn fears that a Jew would take over.

I look at this and see the intercept of anti-Semitism, as it was existing at the time. The Romans killed Jesus because he was a Jew. The entire fiasco occurred in this manner, in order to discredit Jews. And ever since then, there have been people, who call themselves Christians, who use the Christian records, and use their polemics, to further attacks against Jewish people.

If we are going to get right into the real meat of the subject, and from what I have learned from Christians, what happenned to Jesus the Jew, was suppossed to be redemption for all non-Jews. However, the Romans killed Jesus because he was a physical threat to the state--the Jews were calling him King. And why did they call him King? Because fact was, no one knows when the prophesies will be fulfilled.

Take Jeremiah 33:16 for example: "In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely. This is the name by which she will be called: The Lord Our Righteousness."

Is Jerusalem safe today?

How about Jeremiah 33:17-26: "for thus says the Lord, "David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually." The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, "Thus says the Lord, 'If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.' " Moreover the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, "Have you not considered what these people have spoken, saying, 'The two families which the Lord has chosen, He has also cast them off?' Thus they have despised My people, as if they should no more be a nation before them." Thus says the Lord, "If My covenant is not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, then I will cast away the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, so that I will not take any of his descendants to be rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for I will cause their captives to return, and will have mercy on them."

As long as there is a day, and a night, the covenant stands true with his people. In fact, as true as the prophesy remains, the Jewish people still do not have a King. Hosea 3:4-5 states,"...for the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. So, important fact, the lineage is that of King David.

And one last thing I have never actually found an answer to--and that is the doctrine of the virgin. See, in Jewish tradition, the lineage of King David follows the male line. Yes, women are born of the lineage of King David, but it follows the male line. There are balancing halachic rulings that follow "Jewishness" through the female line, but the lineage of King David always follows the male line. If Mary was really a virgin, then Jesus could not have been born of the lineage of King David since Christian doctrine states she had never been married to a man and neither did she have sex with a man from the lineage of Kind David. Joseph was just in lover with her, and wanted to marry her and take care of her, no matter what.

And then there is this small matter of "high priests". See, according to Jewish tradition, a high priest can only come from a lineage of Aaron. And, as it is a male line as well, a Jewish man cannot be both from the line of Aaron and King David at the same time (unless the Christians figured out how to breed men--NOT!). The claim in made in Hebrews 4:14. In case you are wondering, the two tribes are known as Levi and Judah--Judah being the tribe of King David.

And, to answer your question, on where Bible is "in" the book--it isn't. It is the name of the collection of Jewish writings, as interpreted in the Christian religion. "Bible" comes from the greek word "Biblia" which is plural for "byblos" which means "book".

Fact is, when the early Christian church was establishing itself, which it did in the middle east and Africa, it merged back then contemporary pagan ideas, that impressed people with the notion that in order for a man to be a god, that his mother had to have had sex with the almighty himself. If you want to read more about it, you can, by reading about Romulus, Apollonius of Tyana, Drusilla, Claudius, Dionysus-Bacchus, Tammuz-Adonis, Mithra, Osiris, Krishna, and Buddha.

This is my contribution to the theological discussion today. You all have a nice weekend, and stay out of the sun, or wear sunscrean with SPF 60.

Oh, and one last thing.

If the four testimonies of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are the word, why do they not agree with eachother?

Posted by: Lady | 2007-07-13 12:10:22 PM

There is a standing reward, I think it's $10,000 U.S., for anybody who can prove the bible contradicts itself in any place, Lady.

You like money a lot.
Where do you think the contradictions are?

Oh, and Lady? Pontius Pilate didn't want to execute Jesus. He found no fault in Him when he sat in judgement. Pilate offered up a real bonafied criminal instead but the Jews demanded He be crucified.

Instead the Sanhedran broke a number of laws(49) to get Jesus killed by the Romans.

Among the laws broken were:
ILLEGAL ASPECTS OF THE TRIAL OF JESUS

Following are some of the illegal aspects of the trial of Jesus: Trials could occur only in the regular meeting places of the Sanhedrin (not in the palace of the High Priest) Trials could not occur on the eve of the Sabbath or Feast Days or at night A sentence of 'guilty' might only be pronounced on the day following the trial.

Today, one can visit the palace of the High Priest. where one can stand in the midst of the ruins of the courtyard. A model of the structure in Jesus' time is available for viewing.

THE ISSUE OF WITNESSES
Deut 19:15: "One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."
Deut 17:6: "On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness."
Mark 14:56: "Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree."

While in the court of the High Priest, He was questioned by Annas (John 18:13) and struck by a sodier (John 18: 22). He was then brought to Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. who sought to put Jesus todeath by the false testimony of many witnesses. The witnesses brought against Him did not agree. By the law, no one could be put to death without the agreement of two or three witnesses. Although the witnesses did not agree, He was found guilty of blasphemy when He told them of His identity as
the Son of God. He was sentenced to death. Jesus suffered ridicule from the palace guards, who spat on Him, beat Him and slapped Him on the face. (Mark 14:65.) During the trial, Peter denies Him three times. The proceedings of Jesus' trial violated many of the laws of His society. Among some of the other broken laws were: (Bucklin)
1. Any arrest could not be made at night.
2. The time and date of the trial were illegal because it took place at night and on the eve of the Sabbath. This time precluded any chance for the required adjournment to the next day in the event of a conviction.
3. The Sanhedrin was without authority to instigate charges. It was only supposed to investigate charges brought before it. In Jesus' trial, the court itself formulated the charges.
4. The charges against Jesus were changed during the trial. He was initially charged with blasphemy based upon His statement that He would be able to destroy and rebuild the Temple of God within three days, as well as His claim to be the Son of God. When He was brought before Pilate, the charge was that Jesus was a King and did not advocate paying taxes to the Romans.
5.As stated above, the requirement of two witnesses in agreement to merit the death penalty was not met.
6. The court did not meet in the regular meeting place of the Sanhedrin, as required by Jewish law.
7. Christ was not permitted a defense. Under Jewish law, an exhaustive search into the facts presented by the witnesses should have occurred.
8. The Sanhedrin pronounced the death sentence. Under law, the Sanhedrin were not allowed to convict and put the death sentence into effect. (John 18:31)

Posted by: Speller | 2007-07-13 12:26:03 PM

Speller & Tomax

Just a quick head's up: Without Mary, there would be no Christianity. Her fiat is probably the single most important moment in human history. Remember just for a second that Mary was just like you and me, only far far holier, but nevertheless perfectly capable of saying 'no', marrying Joseph, and avoiding a pretty rough parenthood. She carried Christ in her womb for nine months buddy, which means her dna is mixed in with His dna. If you don't think Mary is worth revering, or was just some chick (ha!) God chose on a whim, you truly need to start reading grown-up books longer than 25 pages.

Posted by: Colm | 2007-07-13 12:27:37 PM

Colm: Another quick head's up.

If there wasn't a Mary, then God would have used someone else.

cheers

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-07-13 12:31:27 PM

What do you mean fiat, Colm?

NO wasn't an option for Mary.

Where do you get that ridiculous idea?

It's just another unsubstantiated Catholic myth created to excuse the idolatry regarding Mary.

NO, wasn't an option for Jonah either.
Read the book of Jonah, it's only 4 short chapters long.

The Creator doesn't take no for an answer.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-07-13 12:33:50 PM

Colm: wait, Joseph married Mary, not the other way around...
Matthew 1:18-25

18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[a] because he will save his people from their sins."

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"[b]—which means, "God with us."

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.

25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

---------
Verse 25 is the stickler, Mary wasn't a virgin after she gave birth - Her and Joe consummated the marriage and Mary had more children...

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-07-13 12:37:07 PM

Speller,

You believe that there are absolutely no contradictions, that the word is pure and exact, and that the testimonies of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are exactly what happenned?

Posted by: Lady | 2007-07-13 12:37:55 PM

NO wasn't an option for Mary.

Nice going, Speller...of all the many intellectual failings that one can note among Jack Chick fans, this is my favourite.

So...God raped Mary, eh? She had no choice but to consent to the pregnancy? Sounds kinda like a form of sexual assault from here...

The Creator doesn't take no for an answer.

Which is why God immediately smote Peter after the cock crowed that fateful morning.

Posted by: ken | 2007-07-13 12:38:20 PM

Show me the contradictions, Lady.
I'll give you the credit, the money is yours if you can.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-07-13 12:39:35 PM

yeeeeesh, that muzzie deal is starting to look sane.

Posted by: not the pope | 2007-07-13 12:40:11 PM

"Verse 25 is the stickler, Mary wasn't a virgin after she gave birth - Her and Joe consummated the marriage and Mary had more children..."

That's no more certain than the Catholic position that they did not consummate the marriage. The verse doesn't explicitly state whether they did or did not have sex.

In fact, the Catholic position is a tad more defensible if you actually UNDERSTAND how to read Scripture, and especially if you understand the concepts of proper exegesis. The key is Joseph's understanding of who Mary was and what the child within her was.

It would make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER for Joseph, an orthodox and faithful Jew, to ever consummate a sexual relationship with Mary, because she would have been -- in his eyes -- as holy as the very Ark of the Covenant. In fact, one of the names colloquially, but accurately, given to Mary is that she is the New Ark. She carried God within her...and no orthodox Jew, especially a righteous man like Joseph, would ever have engaged in a sexual relationship with someone like that.

Posted by: ken | 2007-07-13 12:42:25 PM

tomax7,

The words writen after Jesus died, are not the prophesies that we are debating here. The Christian polemics state that Jesus was predicted by the Jewish prophets.

There is no mistake that the Christian new testament says what you have indeed quoted. The problem is that there are two claims. One claim is that Jesus was a "high priest" and the other, the King of the Jews. Now, you have to keep in mind that there were no such things as denominations and Christian doctrine. Jesus was a Jew, and therefore what he had going and learned was Jewish tradition. According to Jewish tradition, a man cannot be of the line of King David through the mother. The new testament says she was a virgin, therefore there was indeed no connection with the line of King David. See, King David was a mortal man, and so are his offspring. The Jewish prophesies state that the Messiah will be of the line of King David. Therefore, although he is a Messiah to the Christians, according to Jewish tradition, he is not a Messiah that the Jewish scriptures predicted.

This is a major point and not minced words.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-07-13 12:44:21 PM

Some thoughts on Mary by a guy who used to be an evangelical:

http://www.mark-shea.com/HE10.html

Posted by: ken | 2007-07-13 12:45:04 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Thursday, July 12, 2007

"The ecumenism of the trenches"

TrackBack

Comments