This post is a departure from all the previous entries but such posts may be presented on occasion, so don't be surprised. The Sydney Morning Herald had an article a short while back entitled "You are not real churches, Pope says to Protestants." The piece was written by John Hooper in Rome and Stephen Bates in London dated July 12, 2007. Here are a couple of quotes from the article. "Protestant churches have reacted with dismay to a new declaration approved by the Pope insisting they were mere 'ecclesial communities' and their ministers in effect phonies with no right to give communion."
Further: "The view that Protestants cannot have churches was first set out by Pope Benedict seven years ago when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he headed the Vatican ministry for doctrine. A commentary attached to the latest text acknowledged that his 2000 document, Dominus Iesus, had caused no little distress."
But it added: "It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'church' could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church."
The above photo is from the article in the Sydney Morning Herald. To read the full article, go to the following link: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/07/11/1183833598314.html
As one that has been exposed to various religious denominations throughout my life, these statements appear to be a departure from that of Pope John Paul II and are more divisive of various churches, and focusing on their differences, rather than inclusive of what all have in common. There is enough trouble in the world without fanning the flames of discontent. We all live together on this globe we call Earth and we should learn to live with one another in peace and harmony rather than focusing on our differences. There is enough hatred, discord and war in the world as it is, so it's not advisable to add to it, in my opinion. I don't see what church doctrine and hierarchy has to do with the message of peace and loving others as you would have them love you, or as the Biblical passage goes, "do onto others as you would have them do onto you!" In today's "me" generation this message is falling by the wayside. Further, it would seem proper to get one's own house in order before finding fault with others, atleast that is my thought on the matter. I welcome your comments.
4 comments:
*shrugs*
That's what religion does. It divides people and brings conflict... all for what? for nonsense.
Of course, if they believe it is true then all the division and conflict is just fine. I mean, we're talking about heaven and hell here.
It's not just religion itself but society as a whole that is like that and particularly the establishment, or as some call it, the Cabal. The divide and conquer method is used by the elite to control society, to have the common people follow their dictates blindly. Remember, the judical court system has its root in the religious system.
Sow the seeds of discord and the reward for that action will come sooner or later. We will soon see!
I disagree. I'm not sure what you mean by "the establishment", but government and the people in power want to UNITE people. That's not necessarily good... I mean unite them as in make them sheep, as you said. They CANNOT both divide people and have the common people follow their dictates blindly!
What do you mean the judicial court system has it's roots in the religious system?
The government (and establishment) which wants to maintian the status quo may have unity in mind on the face of it but in reality things work out quite different. It's all a 'smoke and mirrors' type affair. As for divide and conquer, the way any power maintained order was by dividing the opposition (or enemies). The Romans did that and so did other powers such as the British (empire) and others. In Canada, this is how a political party can gain power (elected) when the electorate (voters) are divided. This way the party in question can get elected and form a government eventhough they may not have more than say a third of the votes in their favour. It's all rather complicated but if you want more information, I can certainly give it to you privately (email).
As for the law courts, compare 'inquisional system' with the 'ecclesastical courts' (remember the "Inquisition?"). Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
"Beginning in 1198, Pope Innocent III issued a series of decretals that reformed the ecclesiastical court system. Under the new processus per inquisitionem (inquisitional procedure) an ecclestiastical magistrate no longer required a formal accusation to summon and try a defendant. Instead, an ecclesiastical court could summon and interrogate witnesses of its own initiative, and if the (possibly secret) testimony of those witnesses accused a person of a crime, that person could then be summoned and tried. In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran affirmed the use of the inquisitional system. The council also forbade clergy from conducting trials by ordeal or combat. As a result, in parts of continental Europe, the ecclesiastical courts operating under the inquisitional procedure became the dominant method by which disputes were adjudicated. In France, the parlements — lay courts — employed inquisitorial proceedings."
Ecclesiastical courts were run by the Church. This was in a day before courts operated by the state (as country or division thereof) were established.
Post a Comment