Wow. That's only the second time someone outside the Judeo-Christian tradition has opened the Senate.
If you know the orgin of the Catholic Church then you can see his point. Chirst instructed Peter to start his church. Peter started the Catholic church (not Methodist, Lutheran, 2nd Baptist, ect... ). The Catholic church has been around since Christ was alive. Therefore, one can conclude that Christ knew what kind of church Peter would start and if it wasn't what he wanted he would not have told Peter to start it.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EZ9To30Hz7A"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EZ9To30Hz7A" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> Just be a good person and love God. None of us know what happened thousands of years ago
or it could be said that the Catholic Church bares no resemblence to the church Jesus started but that they just claim to trace it back to Peter. Peter actually didn't "start" anything. And as far as the first Pope thing -- Peter and the current idea of a pope are really quite far apart. Peter was married (Jesus visited and healed his mother-in-law) and would never let another man bow down to him and certainly never allow another man to kiss his ring (sound like idolatry to me).
Benedict is a traitor for saying this. I thought all the apostles were supposed to establish churches and spread the Gospel. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Christianity According to tradition, the Coptic Orthodox Church is the Church of Alexandria that was established by Saint Mark, the apostle and evangelist, in the middle of the 1st century (approximately 42 AD).
Not at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility Getting upset about the kissing the ring thing is kind of silly too. It is completely custom of a different culture that is hundreds of year old. Those people back then would probably think that shaking hands is bizarre. You cant look at cultural greetings out of context and judge them based on our own modern western world view. Some cultures bow, some curtsy, some shake hands, some kiss, some hug. The ring is from the Middle Ages. All Bishops and Cardinals wear them along with the funny hats. Different religions and people of the world have different customs. Jesus knelt down before John the Baptist. Big deal. It all sounds like insecurity to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility Papal infallibility From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is the dogma that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. For all such infallible teachings, the Holy Spirit also works through the body of the Church to ensure that the teaching will be received by all Catholics. This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. According to Catholic theology, there are several concepts important to the understanding of infallible, divine revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium. The infallible teachings of the pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium". In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. Papal infallibility does not signify that the pope is impeccable, i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin. According to 'The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Catholicism': "In reality, the pope seldom uses his power of infallibility......rather than being some mystical power of the pope, infallibility means the church allows the office of the pope to be the ruling agent in deciding what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the church."[2] Since the 1870 solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I, this power has been used only once: in 1950 when Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics
Logically, that's formalism to the point of absolute absurdity. By the Pope's reasoning, if the Catholic church decided tomorrow that human sacrifice is an appropriate form of worship, it would still be the only true church - there would be no break i nthe "apostolic succession," after all. Substitute your own parade of horribles for my own, and the logic still holds.
