According to a new 36 page catholic document, non-catholics are "deficient", and that they have less of a chance of salvation than catholics.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/05/pope.faith.reut/index.html

How does that make you as a protestant feel, Peter? Does it make you angry that the vatican thinks you have less of a chance for salvation because of your religion? Well then, now you know how the rest of us feel when you denigrate our personal beliefs because you think that your way is the only way.

Hey, Ben, are you Jewish, too?

Well, there must be exceptions to every rule, because I have seen many Catholics, including priests, behaving in less moral, sinful ways, and know non-Catholics that are practically saintly in their behavior. So many Catholics don't even go to church, when there are dozens of services a week for them, whereas there is only one service in my church, and we all seem to be able to fit it in our schedule. I won't even mention the time the pastor of my local Catholic church, who has known me since grade school, tried to run me over with his car. (No, it definitely was not an accident!) Oops-I mentioned it. How's that for a man of God?

Peter, are you including all religious groups in the above statement, or are groups such as Hasidic (sp?) Jews and the Amish exempt from above. These two groups are even more religious, I believe, than most Catholics. If you did not mean to include them, you shold have rephrased your statement. I believe there are good and bad in all religions.

I'd just like to say that whoever wrote that is not God, is not quoting the Bible, and I notice little difference in Catholics and non-Catholics in term of religious strength.

Hasidic Jews are, if I remember correctly, ultra-Orthodox. The Amish are a Christian group that lives the same way they did in the 17 & 18 centuries, and are very devoted to God. They believe things like electricity & other modern conveniences are sinful, and the only way to God is by leading a simple life. They are also called Plain people. I don't think there are any Amish communities in England, so I'm not too surprised you don't know about them. I do have a hard time believing that the Catholic church would consider a group like the Amish not worthy of salvation.

Hey, Ben, are you Jewish, too?

Half Jewish, actually. My dad is Jewish and my mom is a Unitarian.

(Note to MikeC: I know that by talking about my religion, I'm being some what hypocritical by violating my policy of not revealing my political and religious views. However, I now believe that policy to be ridiculous and outdated. From now on, I will not hold any of my views back.)

Wouldn't the Amish be somewhat like the Quakers?

Even though I like Weird Al's "Amish Paradise," I confess a great respect for them. I know I could never live as simply as the Amish do.

I'm not sure about the Quakers.

I also admire the Amish for being able to keep their ways so well. I've visited Amish areas in Pennsylvania. When they're asked why they do something (or not do something), they just reply taht it's their way. Very matter-of-fact. Oh, to have such strong beliefs! I'm not sure if I could live that way. I'd like to think that I could, but then I remember that they probably wouldn't let me wear my contact lenses. I have always hated my glasses! It's petty, I know.

Nixon was a Quaker.

Please note, that was not an entry in The Game. I was pointing that out to show that the Quakers are not along the lines of the Amish and the Mennonites, but that they do use modern tech.

Not a very observant Quaker: He served in the military, swore an oath to become President, and was not very mature in his language.

God, please deliver me from your believers

I thought Nixon was a Quaker, but I wasn't sure, so I didn't mention it. One of my Social Studies books in grade school had the religions of each President listed. That sort of stuck in my head. Since not much else from that book remains in my head, I wasn't sure of those facts were straight either! :)

It is not entirely fair to single Nixon out in this instace. Most of the presidents (and other major politicians, for that matter) for the last hundred years have identified themselves with the religious denomination they "inherited" as children, and made a show of going to Church services (especially around Christmas, Easter, and Election Day), but there were few of them who really believed in all the tenets of their faith, and fewer still who actually practiced their religion.

This is especially so in the last fourty years, and is one of the things that makes Lieberman so newsworthy.

There seems to be something about the personality required of someone who is willing to endure the political process in order to wield the "ultimate" worldly power that makes them less susceptible to the introspection and meditation necessary to truly accept the lessons of their faith.

I brought up Nixon, because somebody mentioned them in the same breath as the Amish, so I used Dick as a counterexample.

"You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" -- R. Nixon
"I have never been a quitter" - R. Nixon

Of the most recent presidents (starting with FDR), this is what I basically seem to remember about their religions:

ROOSEVELT: Religious, but not exactly devout. Felt too self-conscious to pray in public church.

TRUMAN: Avid Bible-reader, probably devout.

KENNEDY: Not the most strictness of Catholics, had a sense of morality that was more secular than religious.

JOHNSON: From what Billy Graham has said, Johnson seems to have been a strongly religious man.

NIXON: Enigmatic as always. Apparently a Quaker.

FORD: I believe Ford was a Christian, although I'm not exactly sure how devout.

CARTER: The first "born-again" president. This was an issue in the campaign.

REAGAN: Another enigmatic--probably religious, but just what he believes is a mystery.

BUSH: ?

CLINTON: Seems to be religious whenever he's committed some great sin. Candid but still enigmatic.

In that case, Slick Willy is like Jimmy Swaggart.

A year and two days to think that one up? Your drone's sense of humor is developing fast.

Why are you Catholic bashing? As an not-very-good-Catholic I want to point out that very few Christian sects think the others have snowballs chance in heck of salvation. Why do people think Catholics are any different than the Southern Baptists? (Yeah, they both think they are right and everyone else is going to heck. They all think that. Even the Amish.)

As for hypocrites, margie, should I mention Swaggert, Baker, any politician in a scandal (They mostly claim to be religious protestants --like Gary Conduit whose minister father thinks Satan played a big part in his woes.) Yeah, the Catholics are bad, but so is the religion you inherited.

BCohen, I never heard of a half-Buddhist. You are either pregnant or not. You either believe in Judaism (sp?) or not.

Mike C. what about Eisenh, uh, Ike.

Anyone else I failed to P-off?

Uhhhh, William, I checked my posts over several times, and I can't seem to find where I used the word, "hypocrite." Seeing as how it's a word I almost never use, I was pretty sure I wouldn't have used it here. I did mention in my post 10:06 am 9/8/00 that there are good and bad in all religions (see the last line), so I'm not sure where the hostile attitude is coming from.

As to the religion I "inherited," do you mean the Lutheran I was baptized under, the Methodist and Dutch Reformed churches I currently attend, the Catholic school I went to for nine years, or something else?

Margie,

I quote form your post of September 8, 2000, because I have seen many Catholics, including priests, behaving in less moral, sinful ways, and know non-Catholics that are practically saintly in their behavior I never claimed you used the word hypocrite but you described behavior that was definitely hypocritical. Your post implied that Catholics have corner the market on hypocrisy.

As for the religion you inherited, whether it is Lutheran, Methodist, Dutch reformed, or Catholic, also has it's share of sunshine worshipers. Catholics do not have a monopoly on going to church and claiming salvation but behaving in "less moral, sinful ways". (I thought that is a good example of hypocrisy but decided to quote you instead.)

Oh bother. Can we knock off the petty attacks?

I've really had it up to here with them.

In my 9/8 post I was responding to BCohen's post (the first one on the board) regarding the Catholic belief that all non-Catholics are not going to heaven. I was demonstrating that there are good and bad in all religions, that Catholics are not any more deserving of heaven than the rest of us. I still do not see where I was referring to anyone as hypocritical. I believe that you did not see the last line of that post, where I summed up the rest of the post. I also believe there are posts missing, since I was responding to a post by Peter, which is not there. Please do not take my quotes out of context. I try to be open to all opinions, but it is difficult to do when my opinions are treated so harshly.

::A year and two days to think that one up? Your drone's sense of humor is developing fast.:: Rene

Don't start on me AGAIN.

Reagan was/is devout. I once heard a speech from his son Michael, who should be an authority on the subject. He elaborated on the role of faith in the man's life.

I belive it is the job of the Vatican is to claim that the Catholic Church is the best way to God, and if they didn't they are betraying what they belive in. Of course, having the "best way" does not exclude the "Good way" and the "Better way".

Or the other way and the alternative way either.

Well, it is likely within a few hours of this posting, Pope John Paul II, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, and Servant of the Servants of God will be called into to the eternal service of the our Heavenly Father. May history remember him as John Paul the Great, who confronted the Devil in every guise he assumed in this century, who spread the Gospel, who sought to unify the Body of Christ, ministered to the poor, the ignorant, the weak, and the sick and lead the Roman Church Militant into the 21st century, keeping it within the one true faith. May the Roman Church continue to carry his light in this world. Since I am not Catholic, I cannot fully appreciate his importance to this world and the church, I know this world is a far better place because of what God has done through him. Karol Wojokta, RIP.

Now all the Catholic bashing will start anew.

I remember when John-Paul I was elected this idiots said he was the anti-pope predicted in Revelations. "The end of days is coming! Donate all your money before the rapture!"

Then he died after a few weeks. When John-Paul II was elected it was seen as "proof" that SATAN had gotten rid of the real Pope so the anti-Pope could arise. The end of days is coming! Donate all your money before the rapture!"

Here is a scary thought for you "Christian" guys. If an omnipotent being does not want to be revealed, will you know of him? In the rapture all the Athesist and Agnostics are saved the trials of the end times.

Her's a scary thought for you Catholics. "Pope Law."

Those people don't know how to count. According to the prophesy of St Malachi, there is still one more pope before Peter of Rome and the Apocalypse.

See also the discussion on this site.

Well, CNN.com is reporting Pope John Paul II is dead. The news was corroborated by the Blue Jays' radio feed; they gave a "news update" during the seventh-inning stretch.

Yeah, SAT1 interrupted "Shrek" for that, switching over to their own newssender and a special report. GRRR. If I want to see the news, I go to the news channel, when I want to see a movie, a ticker across the bottom would've been enough. (End of Rant ;))

Blue Berry: Well, that's what they get for assuming Revelations is a documentry shot in real time.

Pesti,

Man, I know it's wrong, but that Whore of Babylon riding the beast with twenty-eight legs made of stone and drink a cup of blood from the skull of the last true pope was hot.

Yea, Verily.

Did you hear about the Pope's living will? He said to keep Terri Schivo's husband away from him.

Oh you guys are so popeless.

Pope John Paul II died today

And now the main question after his death, is
"Who'se going to succeed him"...?
Could the Next Pope be African...?

Not a chance. They'll pick another Italian.

As long as his last name isn't Secola. I mean think of how they'd call him...

I heard that it's possible the next one could be Hispanic in order to kiss up...er, appeal to the growing Hispanic population in the US. Growing, because they're predominantly Catholic and don't believe in birth control, let alone practice it.

I heard that it's possible the next one could be Hispanic in order to kiss up...er, appeal to the growing Hispanic population in the US. Growing, because they're predominantly Catholic and don't believe in birth control, let alone practice it.

It could be to kiss up... er, appeal to the growing Hispanic populatin in South and Central America and Mexico.

Nice theory about the US being the only country that counts, though. :D

I know it was a joke earlier about the pope's lving will. But suppose the pope had wound up in a persistent vegitative state, (given his age doubtful but still possible or with a younger pope), where the pope isnt quite dead but isnt alive. What would the church do then?

Well, if they elect Kardinal Ratzinger from the inquisition, it'll be more of the same worse stuff. As for appealing to the hispanic population... given how John Paul II trampled on the hispanic population at various times (by acknowledging the dictator pinochet; sabotaging the "church of the poor" movement in latin america and denouncing every idea of helping the people now as marxist etc.) and that he appointed most cardinals according to his principles (while kicking out and silencing every flicker of different opinion), I seriously doubt that as motivation.

R: Baring a young Pope still being about 65, the same thing every monarchy does when the King goes insane, appoint a Regent. The Magistarium (Teaching Authority of the Church) is still held by the other Bishops to a limited degree. While a few Liberation Theologians and Latin Mass types would run loose for a few decades, the church has faced worse than a do-nothing pope.

I thought it might be something like that but wasn't sure.

Re Mark N's comment
The leading South/Central American candidate for the papacy is the Brazilian Archbishop of Sao Paulo... As such, he's NOT Hispanic, as Brazil's primary language is Portugese...
The leading Hispanic candidate,is (at present) the Cuban Archbishop of Havana...

What does language have to do with ethnicity? You're saying Brazilians are not Latino simply because they speak Portuguese? Then what are they?

He didn't say Brazilians are not "Latino"; he said that they were not Hispanic -- that they do not come from a Spanish-derived culture.

On the other hand, the "Spanish Kingoms" traditionally included Portugal until the marriage* of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castille united all of the other kingdoms under one monarchy, so Portugal (and thus Brazil) can probably be included in the category "Hispanic" under certain circumstances. I'm just not sure this is one.

*Isabella made a point of ruling Castille separately from Ferdinand's rule over Aragon, so Spain was not really united until their grandson Philip took the throne.

Re:Hispanic Debate: Brazil is part of Latin America, given it's cultural orgins in a Romance Speaking country, it is not however, Hispanic, given the main provision for being Hispanic is that your ancestors spoke spainish, except for Filopeanos.

Given the traits and issues it shares with the other countries, eg, Large Multiracial population, widespread poverty, indigenous population questions, Dominant role of the Catholic Church, problems with maintaining a stable democracy, a hirearchial culture et al, lumping all the Latin countries into Latin America is highly justifiable.

The British newspaper The Independent had a intresting article, on Monday dealing with Latin/Central American concerns over voting issues.
(Basically, the article argues that Central/Latin America, has far too little influence over Church policies, with respect to the proportion of total worshippers.
The Central/Latin American region has at present, only 20 of the current 187 Cardinals, but comprises 55 percent of all Catholic worshippers...).

I have heard that, all of Italy has as many Imperial Guard err, Cardinals, as does all of Latin America. Okay, Latin America has one more. I would attribute it to the rapid growth of Latin American Church, and the Decline of the European Church is a new trend and that most of the Cardinals are not young, and that Europe would have more higher ranked priests, given its ancient role in the church, whereas Latin America may have fewer.

Cardinal Ratzinger is the new Pope Benedict XVI. May his reign know peace and prosperity.

May the Lord have mercy on the catholics, now that the great inquisitor is the new pope.

It should have been me!

Cardinal Ratzinger gets to sit in THE COMFY CHAIR!

NOBODY was expecting him to be elected!

Hey, why wasn't I elected?


Oh yeah, the gross immorality and illegality that took place during my time as overseer.

Constanze, please enlighten me to the great inquisitor. I don't know anything about that.

Ratzinger is head of the inquisition. It just runs under a different name today - "Glaubenskongregation" (roughly: congregation of the faith?), and they stopped the burning. But they still have the job of silencing people who step out of official church line, and Ratzinger whispered John Paul II to some drastic measures in the past years. For more infos, read Peter DeRosa's "Vicars of Christ", p.173 ff. The list of people who got into trouble with the inquisition is impressive:
Hans Küng, a famous catholic author, lost his right to teach
Edward Schillebeeckx, dutch theologician
Father Leonardo Boff from Brasil
O'Keefe, vicar of the jesuit order was replaced against the wishes of the order
Hunthausen, bishop of Seattle, was disciplined
Curran, theologican, USA, lost his right to teach
Father Sweeney, Jesuit USA got into trouble simply for asking his fellow bishops about the celibacy and then publishing the results.

John Paul II was conservative, but one of the conservatives behind him was Ratzinger.

He's also not liked by the majority of the german bishops, due to the conflict between Rome and Germany about how to counsel pregnant mothers regarding possible abortion - the bishops were interested in helping the women, but Rome forbid anything that might be connected with abortions, even if it meant abandoning the women. The german bishops tried for compromise, but Rome wanted only blind obeying of orders.

[BTW, I'm protestant, not catholic, so my main sources are Peter DeRosa and Deschner. My fiancee was raised catholic and is now a sharp critic, too.]

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, if I recall correctly.

I'd take the job, but it would be something of a demotion.

Pope Francis , what do we think ?

Jeff, you have been asked multiple times to state your OWN opinion before asking for others' It's much more polite.

I really don't want to have to ban you from this section of the board but you are consistently doing something that is infuriating to other posters (and me for that matter).

Please don't leave me with no choice....