Religion.

[Zapatista]

They would probably not function as 'churches' but thats rather the point isn't it you don't even need them to commune/worship god.

I don't actually think it makes them slow learners at all, hence the undecided smiley that went with that comment, but it does make me wonder why the need for a pope and what does that say about the religion? Or is it just a an historical anachronism that people like to hang onto? Your own comment suggests its something that delinates catholicsm.

Change the term pope to president and it might be easier. Like any organiseation you need a structure or your not really organised. Groups of people running around claiming to follow the same faith wouldn't be possible unless there was somone who defined and policed the rules of that faith. The pope is at the top of that organisation the same as a president might be.

An historical anachronism? That's a loaded question. It's no more nor less an historical anachronism than the Taoiseach.

[take_yer_points]

Putting aside any belief in God one may hold - with the recent revelations of clerical abuse, the fact that nearly every war was fought over Religion and the fact that people are today killing in the name of one God or another, what do people think of Religion in the world?  Are we better human beings because of these institutions telling us what to think, what is right and wrong, how to live our lives to enjoy eternal salvation!!  Personally I think most are interested only in there own earthly salvation which parishioners or their flock help make very comfortable due to their voluntary work and monetary donations, they also have shown time and time again that they are a haven for very sick and perverted individuals, whether their perversion is child abuse, terrorism or whatever and in most cases these unregulated institutions are beyond reproach.

I would not for one second doubt that many people in many religions are very decent individuals who are "doing God's" work, but if there is a God and you believe that is so; why do you have to be part of some institution to worship him, surely you will be judged on how you lived your life, how you helped others, how you treated people with respect and kindness.  Surely it will not be on how many times you went to mass, going off sweets for lent, bombing people from different religions, inciting hatred to people of different colours and creeds because they don't accept your version what is essentially in all religions a good story!

Just seen this on the news which takes us back to the original question. Unbelievable:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8555018.stm

[delboy]

They would probably not function as 'churches' but thats rather the point isn't it you don't even need them to commune/worship god.

I don't actually think it makes them slow learners at all, hence the undecided smiley that went with that comment, but it does make me wonder why the need for a pope and what does that say about the religion? Or is it just a an historical anachronism that people like to hang onto? Your own comment suggests its something that delinates catholicsm.

Change the term pope to president and it might be easier. Like any organiseation you need a structure or your not really organised. Groups of people running around claiming to follow the same faith wouldn't be possible unless there was somone who defined and policed the rules of that faith. The pope is at the top of that organisation the same as a president might be.

An historical anachronism? That's a loaded question. It's no more nor less an historical anachronism than the Taoiseach.

I understand that any organisation needs a top man and any and all of the christian churches have a hierachy and all have a 'top man' but none of them have the same role as the pope, papal infallabilty, speaking 'from the chair', being appointed by divination of gods will etc none of those positions would be analagous IMO.

Didn't mean to serve you up a loaded question so to speak, im an outsider looking in and i was putting it into words or concepts that i could understand. By historical anachronism i mean that the role has become so ingrained and part of the religion that in many ways it has come to delinate it and hence the need for it. Or maybe you feel there is still a genuine need for papal infallabilty and speaking from the chair.

Its interesting to note the parallels between christianity (catholism) and islam (shia) in this respect, "shia muslims  believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession."

[muppet]

If God is all knowing then it's brave of you to question what he does and why he does it. Gods reasoning would be inconceivable to humans.

Then God is obviously a woman.

[Zapatista]

I understand that any organisation needs a top man and any and all of the christian churches have a hierachy and all have a 'top man' but none of them have the same role as the pope, papal infallabilty, speaking 'from the chair', being appointed by divination of gods will etc none of those positions would be analagous IMO.

Didn't mean to serve you up a loaded question so to speak, im an outsider looking in and i was putting it into words or concepts that i could understand. By historical anachronism i mean that the role has become so ingrained and part of the religion that in many ways it has come to delinate it and hence the need for it. Or maybe you feel there is still a genuine need for papal infallabilty and speaking from the chair.

Its interesting to note the parallels between christianity and islam in this respect, "shia muslims  believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession."

The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of many past spiritual leaders. Ganesh is a diety worshipped as a God. There are many more.

The pope definately delinates the the church through the symbolism of the position. His infallibility is a matter for anyone individual to interpret themselves. The catholic church is based on faith and in the faith that we don't understand or agree with everything but have faith in it. If a follower of the church has faith that the pope is in the seat of st peter and building the church of Jesus then the pope is infalible to them. I do think that it's is very important to many catholics that the pope is infallible in certain matters. Luckily for the Catholic church there has been a seperation in the role of the church and the role of the state. This way we can still have faith in the pope guiding our spirits while attributing phycical selves to the state. Often a case of 'when it suits us'. Anyone can pick a thousand holes in this but it boils down to 'I think therefore I am' with most religons.

[The Iceman]

I heard a good analogy at the weekend about the Roman Catholic Church.

Our Church is the boat that Jesus launched toward Heaven over 2000 years ago.  It might take wrong turns, there will be a lot of bad weather, rough waves and a lot of sea sickness, but this is the same and only boat that will hit dry land as Jesus intended....

Also before you throw the whole Papal infallibility out there please look it up and understand what it means and when it has actually been used in the last 2000 years....

[muppet]

I heard a good analogy at the weekend about the Roman Catholic Church.

Our Church is the boat that Jesus launched toward Heaven over 2000 years ago.  It might take wrong turns, there will be a lot of bad weather, rough waves and a lot of sea sickness, but this is the same and only boat that will hit dry land as Jesus intended....

Also before you throw the whole Papal infallibility out there please look it up and understand what it means and when it has actually been used in the last 2000 years....

Is there anyone keeping an eye out for icebergs?

[Hardy]

Also before you throw the whole Papal infallibility out there please look it up and understand what it means and when it has actually been used in the last 2000 years....

It was only invented in 1870.

[delboy]

I understand that any organisation needs a top man and any and all of the christian churches have a hierachy and all have a 'top man' but none of them have the same role as the pope, papal infallabilty, speaking 'from the chair', being appointed by divination of gods will etc none of those positions would be analagous IMO.

Didn't mean to serve you up a loaded question so to speak, im an outsider looking in and i was putting it into words or concepts that i could understand. By historical anachronism i mean that the role has become so ingrained and part of the religion that in many ways it has come to delinate it and hence the need for it. Or maybe you feel there is still a genuine need for papal infallabilty and speaking from the chair.

Its interesting to note the parallels between christianity and islam in this respect, "shia muslims  believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession."

The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of many past spiritual leaders. Ganesh is a diety worshipped as a God. There are many more.

The pope definately delinates the the church through the symbolism of the position. His infallibility is a matter for anyone individual to interpret themselves. The catholic church is based on faith and in the faith that we don't understand or agree with everything but have faith in it. If a follower of the church has faith that the pope is in the seat of st peter and building the church of Jesus then the pope is infalible to them. I do think that it's is very important to many catholics that the pope is infallible in certain matters. Luckily for the Catholic church there has been a seperation in the role of the church and the role of the state. This way we can still have faith in the pope guiding our spirits while attributing phycical selves to the state. Often a case of 'when it suits us'. Anyone can pick a thousand holes in this but it boils down to 'I think therefore I am' with most religons.

True but they aren't christian faiths and it was christianiity that i thought we were discussing, i don't mind broadening it though, hence why i popped a bit in about islam (christianity can get a bit dull to be honest).
I don't understand how the popes postion and symbolism can delinate the church yet his infalliabilty can be interpreted by the individual, surely if its open to interpretion then it can't be infalliable?

Depending on who you ask the concept has either been only about for a few hundred years or it came into being a few hundred years after the setting up of the church, interesting that it wasn't a founding tenet of the original church.

[Zapatista]

I don't understand how the popes postion and symbolism can delinate the church yet his infalliabilty can be interpreted by the individual, surely if its open to interpretion then it can't be infalliable?

If you believe the pope to be infalliable then he is. If you don't believe it then he isn't.
The pope symbolism as an Icon or as the representative of the church could delinate the church. It's all open to interpretation. If it wasn't everyone would be catholic.

[The Iceman]

I understand that any organisation needs a top man and any and all of the christian churches have a hierachy and all have a 'top man' but none of them have the same role as the pope, papal infallabilty, speaking 'from the chair', being appointed by divination of gods will etc none of those positions would be analagous IMO.

Didn't mean to serve you up a loaded question so to speak, im an outsider looking in and i was putting it into words or concepts that i could understand. By historical anachronism i mean that the role has become so ingrained and part of the religion that in many ways it has come to delinate it and hence the need for it. Or maybe you feel there is still a genuine need for papal infallabilty and speaking from the chair.

Its interesting to note the parallels between christianity and islam in this respect, "shia muslims  believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession."

The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of many past spiritual leaders. Ganesh is a diety worshipped as a God. There are many more.

The pope definately delinates the the church through the symbolism of the position. His infallibility is a matter for anyone individual to interpret themselves. The catholic church is based on faith and in the faith that we don't understand or agree with everything but have faith in it. If a follower of the church has faith that the pope is in the seat of st peter and building the church of Jesus then the pope is infalible to them. I do think that it's is very important to many catholics that the pope is infallible in certain matters. Luckily for the Catholic church there has been a seperation in the role of the church and the role of the state. This way we can still have faith in the pope guiding our spirits while attributing phycical selves to the state. Often a case of 'when it suits us'. Anyone can pick a thousand holes in this but it boils down to 'I think therefore I am' with most religons.

True but they aren't christian faiths and it was christianiity that i thought we were discussing, i don't mind broadening it though, hence why i popped a bit in about islam (christianity can get a bit dull to be honest).
I don't understand how the popes postion and symbolism can delinate the church yet his infalliabilty can be interpreted by the individual, surely if its open to interpretion then it can't be infalliable?

Depending on who you ask the concept has either been only about for a few hundred years or it came into being a few hundred years after the setting up of the church, interesting that it wasn't a founding tenet of the original church.

Infallibility was instituted by Jesus.
"What you bound on earth will be bound in heaven"  it was only used for the first time in the 19th Century and to my knowledge has only been used 2 or 3 times in history.  It is not a huge issue but is one that is constantly and wrongly brought up by people.
I think before bringing it up people should research for themselves and also research how decisions are made, the Pope's actual role and duties and how the Catechism is maintained and updated......

[muppet]

I don't understand how the popes postion and symbolism can delinate the church yet his infalliabilty can be interpreted by the individual, surely if its open to interpretion then it can't be infalliable?

If you believe the pope to be infalliable then he is. If you don't believe it then he isn't.
The pope symbolism as an Icon or as the representative of the church could delinate the church. It's all open to interpretation. If it wasn't everyone would be catholic.

* Not for work or within earshot of the easily offended *

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMx8QvhULIs

[delboy]

I understand that any organisation needs a top man and any and all of the christian churches have a hierachy and all have a 'top man' but none of them have the same role as the pope, papal infallabilty, speaking 'from the chair', being appointed by divination of gods will etc none of those positions would be analagous IMO.

Didn't mean to serve you up a loaded question so to speak, im an outsider looking in and i was putting it into words or concepts that i could understand. By historical anachronism i mean that the role has become so ingrained and part of the religion that in many ways it has come to delinate it and hence the need for it. Or maybe you feel there is still a genuine need for papal infallabilty and speaking from the chair.

Its interesting to note the parallels between christianity and islam in this respect, "shia muslims  believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession."

The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of many past spiritual leaders. Ganesh is a diety worshipped as a God. There are many more.

The pope definately delinates the the church through the symbolism of the position. His infallibility is a matter for anyone individual to interpret themselves. The catholic church is based on faith and in the faith that we don't understand or agree with everything but have faith in it. If a follower of the church has faith that the pope is in the seat of st peter and building the church of Jesus then the pope is infalible to them. I do think that it's is very important to many catholics that the pope is infallible in certain matters. Luckily for the Catholic church there has been a seperation in the role of the church and the role of the state. This way we can still have faith in the pope guiding our spirits while attributing phycical selves to the state. Often a case of 'when it suits us'. Anyone can pick a thousand holes in this but it boils down to 'I think therefore I am' with most religons.

True but they aren't christian faiths and it was christianiity that i thought we were discussing, i don't mind broadening it though, hence why i popped a bit in about islam (christianity can get a bit dull to be honest).
I don't understand how the popes postion and symbolism can delinate the church yet his infalliabilty can be interpreted by the individual, surely if its open to interpretion then it can't be infalliable?

Depending on who you ask the concept has either been only about for a few hundred years or it came into being a few hundred years after the setting up of the church, interesting that it wasn't a founding tenet of the original church.

Infallibility was instituted by Jesus.
"What you bound on earth will be bound in heaven"  it was only used for the first time in the 19th Century and to my knowledge has only been used 2 or 3 times in history.  It is not a huge issue but is one that is constantly and wrongly brought up by people.
I think before bringing it up people should research for themselves and also research how decisions are made, the Pope's actual role and duties and how the Catechism is maintained and updated......

I don't see how that quote justifies papal infallability it could be taken to mean any number of things, if thats the justification for it then it sounds pretty sketchy to me.
I know infalliable teachings have only being carried out a few times, but just because its used infrequently doesn't mean its a non-issue, its one of the fundamental differences between the roman catholic church and the other christian churches, it seems silly to sweep it under the carpet. The prominence of the bishop of rome in the church was one of the main reasons you had the great schism between rome and the orthodox church.

To put it into your little analogy, you had a boat that set sail, rather quicky though problems about who should be the captain and what his role actually was lead to a significant proportion of the crew getting off and setting sail in their own flotilla of boats all of which sailed under the one flag but each captained by someone appointed by the crew, and that flotilla laid claim to staying true to the principles of the original voyage (orthodox church, each with their own head of their nations church). You then later on had another conflict which this time resulted in a lot more of the crew getting off the boat again complaining about the guidance of the ship and the role of the captain, these guys got into lots of small boats (protestantism) and set sail for the promised land also.

So in your boat analogy you can see the importance of who the captain of the ship was and what their role was.

For what its worth, if there is a god i think they'll all land safely.   

[muppet]

I understand that any organisation needs a top man and any and all of the christian churches have a hierachy and all have a 'top man' but none of them have the same role as the pope, papal infallabilty, speaking 'from the chair', being appointed by divination of gods will etc none of those positions would be analagous IMO.

Didn't mean to serve you up a loaded question so to speak, im an outsider looking in and i was putting it into words or concepts that i could understand. By historical anachronism i mean that the role has become so ingrained and part of the religion that in many ways it has come to delinate it and hence the need for it. Or maybe you feel there is still a genuine need for papal infallabilty and speaking from the chair.

Its interesting to note the parallels between christianity and islam in this respect, "shia muslims  believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession."

The Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of many past spiritual leaders. Ganesh is a diety worshipped as a God. There are many more.

The pope definately delinates the the church through the symbolism of the position. His infallibility is a matter for anyone individual to interpret themselves. The catholic church is based on faith and in the faith that we don't understand or agree with everything but have faith in it. If a follower of the church has faith that the pope is in the seat of st peter and building the church of Jesus then the pope is infalible to them. I do think that it's is very important to many catholics that the pope is infallible in certain matters. Luckily for the Catholic church there has been a seperation in the role of the church and the role of the state. This way we can still have faith in the pope guiding our spirits while attributing phycical selves to the state. Often a case of 'when it suits us'. Anyone can pick a thousand holes in this but it boils down to 'I think therefore I am' with most religons.

True but they aren't christian faiths and it was christianiity that i thought we were discussing, i don't mind broadening it though, hence why i popped a bit in about islam (christianity can get a bit dull to be honest).
I don't understand how the popes postion and symbolism can delinate the church yet his infalliabilty can be interpreted by the individual, surely if its open to interpretion then it can't be infalliable?

Depending on who you ask the concept has either been only about for a few hundred years or it came into being a few hundred years after the setting up of the church, interesting that it wasn't a founding tenet of the original church.

Infallibility was instituted by Jesus.
"What you bound on earth will be bound in heaven"  it was only used for the first time in the 19th Century and to my knowledge has only been used 2 or 3 times in history.  It is not a huge issue but is one that is constantly and wrongly brought up by people.
I think before bringing it up people should research for themselves and also research how decisions are made, the Pope's actual role and duties and how the Catechism is maintained and updated......

I don't see how that quote justifies papal infallability it could be taken to mean any number of things, if thats the justification for it then it sounds pretty sketchy to me.
I know infalliable teachings have only being carried out a few times, but just because its used infrequently doesn't mean its a non-issue, its one of the fundamental differences between the roman catholic church and the other christian churches, it seems silly to sweep it under the carpet. The prominence of the bishop of rome in the church was one of the main reasons you had the great schism between rome and the orthodox church.

To put it into your little analogy, you had a boat that set sail, rather quicky though problems about who should be the captain and what his role actually was lead to a significant proportion of the crew getting off and setting sail in their own flotilla of boats all of which sailed under the one flag but each captained by someone appointed by the crew, and that flotilla laid claim to staying true to the principles of the original voyage (orthodox church, each with their own head of their nations church). You then later on had another conflict which this time resulted in a lot more of the crew getting off the boat again complaining about the guidance of the ship and the role of the captain, these guys got into lots of small boats (protestantism) and set sail for the promised land also.

So in your boat analogy you can see the importance of who the captain of the ship was and what their role was.

For what its worth, if there is a god i think they'll all land safely.

It could be support for bondage.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

It seems the Vatican has taken extreme measures to tackle falling vocations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SipHMR2pe-4&feature=related