Cards on the Table

CARDS ON THE TABLE

The Mass

If the Catechism is to be believed, then each time the Mass is performed, Christ's work on the cross is made present and the work of our redemption is carried out:

"In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner." Pg. 344, #1367

"When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present. As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out." Pg. 343, #1364

But the Bible reveals that the work of redemption was a one time act which was completed when Jesus died on the cross:

"...but now once in the end of the world hath he (Jesus) appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Hebrews 9:26
"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Hebrews 10:10

When Jesus shed His blood, that one time act purchased eternal redemption for all who would put their faith and trust in Christ alone:

"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he (Jesus) entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Hebrews 9:12

The Bible specifically states that this sacrifice need not be done daily:

"Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people' s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." Hebrews 7:27

Yet the Catechism is adamant that:

"Every time this mystery is celebrated, 'the work of our redemption is carried on' ..." Pg. 354, #1405

But God's Word is equally adamant that Christ's death was a one time event:

"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many..." Hebrews 9:28
"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;" Hebrews 10:12

Jesus did all the work necessary to procure man's salvation when He died on the cross. No further work has ever been needed.

Who gets the credit?

For the Catechism to claim that the Catholic church plays a part in the redemptive work of Christ is to steal from the Lord Jesus credit He alone deserves for the work He accomplished at Calvary.

According to God's Word, Christ did it all, once and for all. His death was a divine act, the most wonderful sacrifice ever made. It occurred once, never to be repeated again. Still the Catechism insists:

"The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice." Pg. 344 # 1367

As lovingly as possible it must be said that this statement is purely sacrilegious. To suggest that a priest performing a religious ritual is a part of the torturous death Jesus endured is nothing short of blasphemy.

To associate the rituals of the Catholic church with Christ's work on the cross is ludicrous. The Catholic church played no part in the work that made redemption possible and it deserves no credit.

Once again, Catholicism tries to force Christ to share His glory with the Catholic church, while the Bible shows that Jesus alone deserves the glory.

Conclusion

Where will you place your trust? In the Word of God... or the traditions and teaching of the Catholic church?

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:" 1 Peter 3:18

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com

Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

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

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (the return of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exaltheth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4

"If protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the cardinal in a letter of Feb. 10, 1920.

Does the Papacy acknowledge changing the seventh-day Sabbath? It does. The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for the priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'--Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345. The same, in slightly different wording is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p. 402. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? "Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."--Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p. 58. (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris {1916 ed.}, p. 67.) "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p. 174. "The Catholic Church,...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."--The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Question: Is Saturday the 7th day according to the Bible & the Ten Commandments? Answer: I answer yes. "Question: Is Sunday the first day of the week & did the Church change the 7th day--Saturday--for Sunday, the 1st day: Answer: "I answer yes." "Question: Did Christ change the day? Answer: I answer no! Faithfully yours, "J. Card. Gibbons"--Gibbons autograph letter.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for the doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9

Receiving the mark of the beast or the seal of God in the mind or the hand is not a literal "mark" to be put on our foreheads or our hand but it is our consent to whom we will obey. "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey? Romans 6:16

PaganPlace (Capital "P")

I stated that wars are fought by individuals that are out of balance. How you choose to interpret "balance" is up to you. In my opinion it does not make a difference what one calls themselve from a spiritual (I take it you would agree that we are spiritual) standpoint. Because you are Pagan with a big "P" or little one, does not mean that you don't have, or ascribe, to some "God concept". Otherwise the US military would not give you status. Lastly, because one does not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, practice, goals, etc., does not make them homophobic anymore than your views make you "Christianphobic". Everyone has a God-given right to live and believe as they choose, which is also the basic formulation of democracy. I will not paint "P"agans or homosexuals with a broad brush, you might try not to do the same.

A Baptist dies and goes to Heaven. St. Peter meets and and tells him that there is a separate place in Heaven for each religion and directs him to go down the hall to room 32 -- but to be very quiet when he passes room 17.

Later, a Methodist dies and goes to Heaven. He is directed to room 24 and is given the same warning to be very quiet when passing room 17.

When a Catholic arrives and St. Peter explains the situation with the admonishment to be quiet when passing room 17, the Catholic responds 'I think this is great that you have a separate piece of Heaven for all of the faiths -- but why do I need to be quiet when I pass room 17?'

St. Peter responds 'That's the room for Jehovah's Witnesses and they think they are the only one's here.'

I mean, seriously, it's not just Catholics, ...as much as Christians claim to be the sole residence of charity, I've gone hungry or spent a night in the cold more than once cause I would have been expected to lie or bend knee for a meal.

The Church still claims to speak for me, when it comes to claiming numbers, or should it come time for me to not be buried as though I were Catholic all along, my non-recognized life-partner might end up attending a Catholic funeral, but, no, Catholic Charities ain't exactly need-focused about who they help.

Been poor all my life, and, the Church might claim the body, ....I might end up buried in a casket that costs more than anything I ever owned in my life, and they probably won't even write on the tombstone, "Get the Frick up, Ma, I'm OK. :) "

I mean, you know what you got to go through to get a Do Not Embalm order if you aren't Jewish, around here?

I mean, maybe I could get cremated and placed in an urn depicting the cremation process, (cause it's apparently not OK to scatter ashes in US territory) with a little plaque that says, "If You're Not Part Of The Solution, You're Part Of the Problem..."

Eh, it's the little stuff. :)

Seriously, though. Christian (And Catholic) triumphalism rarely fact-checks.

Bill,

Thank you but I feel pretty good (even with cancer). You don't know what a relief it is to let God do all the judging instead of me. Maybe it's what Jesus meant about a light burden.

And I was very well "catechized" by the Catholic church. Granted I've met many people, perhaps like you, who were "cauterized" by the Catholic church. People who in their zeal to be the best Christian forget how to be Christ-like.

Who said you got the dollar first? :)

No doubt about it, if you receive a Catholic dollar you are expected at Mass.

"Besides for all the dolor Catholicism has brought into this world the universal church continually helps many thousands of needy people on a daily basis."

This no longer flies with me in America, since the Church has chosen to support candidates who cut social services to enrich the wealthy, while kicking back *less net help for the poor* via 'faith-based intitiatives,' so the likes of them can spend a lot of even those crumbs on conversion efforts, rather than help.

And that help's a lot harder to secure for those in need than they let on, when saying this stuff about how 'charitable' they are.

Pope Benedict tells me the Catholic Church is the only vessel capable of receiving the full expression of Christ. Vernacular – My Church is better than yours. He may be right, it matters little to me, my faith is not seeded in some theological tournament competition.
Besides for all the dolor Catholicism has brought into this world the universal church continually helps many thousands of needy people on a daily basis. I don’t believe ecumenical combat among Christians is the Popes desire here, after all that white flag disclaimer-- (Other non-catholic churches can be instruments of salvation) is still included in the decree. So just what is this Pope hunting for?
Observation
- Many Protestant Pastors rail against Islam eliciting little response from Muslims.

- Last year the Pope lobbed a fairly benign indirect query Islam’s way that brought him death threats and caused riots for several weeks. He responded to this in the Christian way - not repaying an evil threat with another evil threat.

While many Christians do not accept Pope Benedict as their leader it is quite clear that Muslims believe him to be THE leader of Christianity, and make no mistake about it this Pope wants to lead.
I think Benedict is itching to engage Islam in a genuine dialogue of beliefs; this is what a leader should do. The question is how will the Nation of Islam respond – dialogue or diatribe.
I am beginning to like this Pope.

Umm, what, Rock?

Whose history books have *you* been reading?

Christianity hardly made the world less 'bloodthirsty,' if you read any history at all... they just changed who was getting executed.

Pagans were hardly 'godless:' those who had religion had plenty of Gods, ...as for your disapproval of homosexuality, frankly, that was a mixed bag, but hardly a 'homosexual' world as you so decry.

Frankly, it seems to have been Paul who brought virulent homophobia to the table in those 'refreshing early times,' along with certain other prejudices.

When speaking of contemporary Pagans, you should capitalize the name like everyone else's, though. We're real people, not theological bogeymen to kick around.

Simplicity...
If we limit the conversation to what Christianity is, or should be, it is very simple. Please allow me to keep my sanity in the propigation of a system of belief (religion) that was designed for all mankind. Christianity has elements of almost every major religion and religious based themes (i.e., is "Hell a Christian Doctrine? It looks a lot like Egyptian, babylonian, greek view of afterlife...no record of it as described in books of Moses... my personal jury is still out) At it's core Christianity seeks to bring mankind/creation back into balance and harmony with the creator. Now this concept can be applied to those that worship forms of nature, or forces. You wonder why we have wars and fights and disagrements? Because we are out of balance with God, and this is why we have no respect for human life or our plant. It is a sickness that this disconnect brings to us all. We call it sin. Christianity at it's root is all about an individual not yeilding to his primal and selfish desires (power, domination, unbridled passions, care and preferance of others). This can actually be accomplished(to some degree)without religion. It just does not recognize that one is a sinner in God eye. If you raise a child in this environment they will have elements positive qualities. Christianty should cause one to look at themselves in relation to who God is in his pure nature. Once this is accomplished we then see how far we have to go in our humanity to really love. At the same time we recognize what unconditional love is. There is a basic doctrine--even common sense and nature speaks to our hearts and minds. I am a fundamentalist, as some would say. Yet I know that so much in the bible is not concrete and literal. Some of it is alligorical. To believe that men have not changed some things to fit their view and concept of the world they knew and lived in is a fantasy, to say the least. That said, the book is still filled with truths for each and every individual; enough to find God if their heart is hungry. History does not back up the Catholic Church; neither does the backing of church tradition. Was not Constintine, a CEASAR, the first Pope. History does not show Peter ever in Rome (granted, in light of the US gov. actions in Iraq, we can show people anything and they will accept it). Where was a church hierarchy and priesthood in the first 300 years? Where/When was the doctrine called the TRINITY first found or discussed in the early church? It would be a hard sell to Peter and Paul(salvation to the Jew-DEUT.6:4)-to believe in a truine, personable, godhead. But people believe it "just because". Most mainstream denominations believe what the "head" propigated. For the basics, go back to the book of Acts, when the church was new, fresh, and exciting. It will cause your heart to jump! Take their doctrine as they formed it immediatly following the death, burial, and resserection of Jesus. Just read it as if you had no religion at all. I am not trying to belittle what anyone believes, but if we are going to confine this to what Christianity is, then see what YOU think. God does not care one bit about our religious fights and schisms, who's right and wrong. He does not care if you are a Jew,Muslim, atheist, pagan, Morman, Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic, whatever. He cares about truth. And If things had of stayed simple and pure (ACTS) the redemption as restoration of all mankind under God was given. They changed their whole godless, pagan, bloodthirsty, sensual (yes, i'm going to say it, homosexual/Corinthian) world. Christianity (PURE, BOOK OF ACTS)was made to be the message to bring man back to a free and guiltless relationship with God the creator and his fellow man by the transforming power of the real deal Holy Ghost. Not the blow-in-your-face or just belive it by confession type. The one that makes you go out and do more than sit at home and let the priest or preach absolve your sins. It was/is a system of beliefs that changed people. And we must all find for ourselves, with our human reasoning and faith, what is the "meat" and what is the discarded bone. Still, you are free to believe whatever you want: it's your right from God.

Steve W, don't feel too bad, there was a whole generation that was poorly catechized. Do yourself a favor and read up for yourself about what the Church means by conscience {hint: it's when you have striven to learn the teachings of God and then implemented them in your life}.

.....Recalling its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that "any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous" and its expression of alarm at "the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas of the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of lesislative, administrative or other measures".

Recalling also that, in its resolution 3151G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism,

Geee, and Israel wonders why anyone paying attention can see their apartheid treatment of palestinians!

Taking note of the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace, 1975, proclaimed by the World Conference of the International Women's Year, held at Mexico City from 19 June to 2 July 1975, which promulgated the principle that "international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, zionism, apartheid
and racial discrimination in all its forms, as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination",
Taking note also of resolution 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinary session, held at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which considered "that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being",

Taking note also of the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countires, adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose the racist and imperialist ideology,
Determines that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.

2400th plenary meeting
10 November 1975

1975 UN Resolution 3379

"I'm God's best friend!"

"No, I am!"

"No, he likes me best!"

"Does not!"

"Does to!"

Sigh... what a high-minded debate...

the point of the pointless.
christianity never was a way of life it was -and still- in the boundry of the church ,the proof is manifest clear ,secularism is triumphalism so far not only in jeudo-christian cult but in many parts of the world .what is the use of digging deep down in the academecia of christianity while the way of life is secularism???
by no means i,m not inviting to secularism but if i have to chose between chris and sec i would pick secularism.
the big question is why secularism is triumphal so far ?is it the new world order ?what is the conventional world order ?what is the way of life of god?who is god?is he abstract?is he academic in the drawer of academecia?is god limited to jeudo-christianity ?is there any black and white god?or yelow ?or green?is the creator almighty god diferent from the god of christianity ?what is the diference?what is the ability of god ?why man leave his creator god and go to another man and seek his man made guidance ?why people leave christianity and run to what christianity call atheism?
if the religion suppose to be a way of life ,what is the difference between christianity and atheism while both practice the way of life of secularism?what is the history of atheism?are atheists human being or diferent species?who formed and framed atheism ?what is their back ground ?what is the back ground of jeudo-christianity?what is the meeting point?and the unmeeting point?the meeting point is, mankind is food eater and bathroom goer,whether you belive it or not ,this is the starting point at the school of advanced thought!!!.

I was taught in CCD that if a person did not know his sins were bad he would not be punished by God for them. Makes sense to me. Therefore God MUST be a relativist who judges each person individually, according to their conscience.

As long as we use God to make us feel special rather than the other way around we risk un-Godliness. My Catholic upbringing taught me humility and compassion. It taught me that " I " was the project I should be working on. And until I got that project right I had no business criticizing anyone else. I haven't gotten it right yet and I don't think I ever will.

BAAL, Samaritans were not the missing tribes of Isreal, they were a mixed race brought to Palestine by the Assyrians in 722bc when they destroyed the city of Samaria. This raced married with Jews who were left to till the soil.
These people did not accept the authority of the Pharisees and scribes, who sat on the chair of Moses.
If you remember your old testament there were 12 tribes of Israelites, 10 of which were capture and spread out through the world long before Judah fallen.
It would take a small study to bring you up to par, but I see by your posts that you take it as fables. It's hard to convince a blind man that the sky is blue when he refuses to believe there's such a color!

Bill Lang writes "When the tribes of Isreal [sic] broke off from the authority of David they weakened in their commitment to God {with the exceptions of a few prophets} and eventually disappeared."

Bill doesn't read his Bible carefully enough, or he doesn't understand what he is reading, something I find common in many Christians. These people most certainly didn't "disappear", they became Samaritans, a group mentioned repeatedly in the Gospels. In other words, they were existing at least a millennium after David.

Many of those in turn were absorbed into the Babylonian/Persian/Parthian empires. They were later converted to Islam. Their descendants are still living in the same place. Based on what I see happening in that part of the world, it is hard to see that their commitment to God has weakened, it is just channeled into a form that Mr. Lang rejects.

Put simply, the question amounts to which form of magic is best. The Pope says it's alright to once again perform magic incantations in Latin, as was done in the past. Humans seem to have a habit and preference for using dead languages for that kind of thing. I am sure many of his followers will prefer their magic in Latin.

I can recognize the difficulty the Pope faces of having to maintain that his magic works better than anyone else's, while still being polite about it.

Mr Arroyo, were the Jews showing triumphalism when they claimed salvation to only be to the Jews or that theirs was the only God? Are Americans practicing triumphalism when they claim to be the richest and most powerful nation in the world? Facts are facts! Jesus established a Church with authority to protect and share his true teachings. Rome happens to be the headquarters of that Church. As you know, the Eastern Churches are part of that Church, but refuse to hold to the head, resulting in fractions along nationalist lines. The protestant communities are Christian, but have rebelled against not just that authority, but also the doctrines Jesus handed us resulting in fractions and failure as denominations.

When the tribes of Isreal broke off from the authority of David they weakened in their commitment to God {with the exceptions of a few prophets} and eventually disappeared. When some Jews in the dessert rebelled against Moses' authority,God did away with them.

Jesus promised that his Church would never fall,or that the gates of hellitself will never prevail. It hasn't fallen and it won't because Jesus protects her!

"Even if everybody understands that an assertion of truth forms part of virtually every theological arsenal,..."

Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not kill, fight, make war..."?

The one "true" church doesn't exist.

The bible is a novel, created by throwing together a bunch of old scrolls and then calling it the word of god.

Jesus may have been a good preacher, the son of god he was not. Same goes for Mohammed and John Smith preacher, not prophets.

The bible has no more validity than the ancient Greek, Nordic, or Roman mythologies, or the various faiths of the Far East.

God is not a he or a she, if anything it is an IT. And IT definitely did not create two humans whose offspring went on to procreate in incesteous relationships to populate the earth nor did IT impregnate a married virgin so IT can be born as ITSELF.

All of the faith where invented by humankind's inability to explain the unexplainable and those ideas where then exploited by men to yoke the masses and enrich themselves

The Reification of Belief

Stevens-Arroyo states "That is relativism: in other words, the truth is considered to be indifferent to facts: only personal interpretation counts." when discussing those who claim that any belief is just as valid as another since we are all worshiping the same God. It confuses the right to believe with the truth of the belief.

Cantwell-Smith argued in the 60's that in a pluralist world, it is dangerous to make absolute (reified) truth claims for one's faith. For every true believer, if they are persons of faith, believes that their contentions are beyond any reproach. Smith argued for the validity of a faith-based life but rejected the view that defined religion in terms of absolutely true doctrine and dogma.

One could say, following this line of thought, that doctrinal truth applies within a tradition but not across traditions. Most tradions believe that they possess the absolute truth by virtue of its revelation, where God had breached the wall of time to speak to them. Yet how can this be a standard of world truth when there are opposing revelatory truths in different traditions.

The recognition that we live in a world where many religious truth claims are made is not to subscribe to a subjective relativism. Rather, it should be seen as a claim made by a community of believers. Accordingly, the truth claims made by Christians, for example, would not apply to Islamic communities of belief.

He or she who would in spite of the diversity of religious beliefs claim The Truth for their religion would have to prove, somehow, that their revelations are superior to the rest. How would one do this without engaging in a vicious circularity?

Thus, is it not better in the name of conviviality to just claim not that this is a truth to me but a truth for my community. Doctrinal systems of belief are incommensurable because we live in a world where different faiths seek their unique understanding. There seems to me no alternative to this type of communal relativism because the truth is a function of faith not the other way around. One cannot pierce the wall of faith with evidence, argument, or reason for they are the mere children of faith.

The first question is easy to answer indeed.
People are Lutherans or Cathloic or Muslim or whatever because that's the crap they were fed as children.

I find it amusing that the author rejects an argument, not on its merits, but because "it smacks of triumphalism." He then goes on suggest the correctness of Catholic theology can be assessed using empirical tools.

I'm agonna puke.

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo takes a reasonable approach - if one assumes that Christianity is "the" true religion. Those who believe in something else - or in nothing else - might think that Roman Catholics and Protestants are like two children who are arguing about the exact color of Santa Claus' suit. Since he does not really exist, it is pointless.

I am not suggesting that God does not exist, but it is possible that an assumption that God could only be contained within Christianity may be a bit too narrow a focus.

"Balmes made a distinction between respecting another citizen’s RIGHTS to believe as they might in a democracy and the TRUTH behind their belief."

I think that's what we call "secularism..."

Pretty good idea, I think.

Regards

A Hermit

Dear Prof Stevans-Arroyo,

Who can understand why the Pope chose to move when he did?

I think he chose this time because of goings on in my little neck of the woods: the Church of England is basically in schism, tipping into the sea in the words of Edward Norman, and many therein are frantically trying merger with the Catholic Church, especially since Catholics now form the largest *church going* congregation in the UK. I think you know this simply will not happen unless the Church of England gives up its establishment--which it won't--and adheres to the authority of the Catholic Church.

And if you believe they'll do that, well, I've got an indulgence you might want to buy!

I like your pieces Professor. Of the Catholic panalists writing here you are the one who seems most comfortable in his Catholicism. (OK Fr Byron, SJ isn't really Catholic so it's easy to seem more authentically Catholic than him! BTW Byron's last piece was really anti-Catholic and disappeared soonafter it was posted. Do you know what happened?)

Regards,
Mary Cunningham