The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The failure of Protestantism > Comments

The failure of Protestantism : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 7/12/2007

Why do Protestants remain separated from the Roman Catholic Church after most of the reasons for their separation have disappeared?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Birth control, abortion, the pope.
Posted by billie, Friday, 7 December 2007 8:35:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
... praying to saints (and the whole creation of saints to begin with), hail marys, penance, pergatory.
Posted by commuter, Friday, 7 December 2007 9:24:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Huh, I keyed in 'pope' to the search function and the word wasn't mentioned in the article.

I'm gonna go with 'the pope.'

Lock in 'The Pope', Eddie.

As another poster said, abortion's another one - more specifically, contraceptives.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 7 December 2007 9:36:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is fascinating to read Peter Sellick’s enthusiasm, for closer affinity with the Bishop of Rome by Christians beyond his control, and compare it with Catholic Paul Collins’ numerous writings against that dictatorship (but not against his church).
Billie has summed up the basics impeccably.
Posted by colinsett, Friday, 7 December 2007 9:36:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter, I think you are getting some pretty fundamental philosophical relationships wrong here. Protestantism begets individualism, rather than the other way around, and the individualism of protestantism comes directly from the gospels, and Socratic philosophy as transmitted by Paul and Augustine. Catholicism is the hold-out of Aristotelianism.

The reason why protestants like me would never become part of the Roman church is because it is prescriptive and collectivist. While the practice of many Catholics may be in principle quite protestant, as might be the outpouring of some Catholic theologians, that is because we in the west live in a Protestant world, Luther et al having won the battle of ideas.

And it is a much better world for that.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 7 December 2007 9:45:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst I am not terribly fond of saying such things, but Peter Sellick's writings are becoming increasingly indistinguishable from those of a soggy cardboard box.

Apart from the previously mentioned issues, one could also suggest congregational control ("Priesthood of all believers", Hussites), and the Catholic positions on prima scriptura and sola fide.

These are generally considered absolutely core points of differentiation between Catholicism and mainline Protestantism. Then there's those of the Radical Reformation, such as the rejection of childhood baptism, and those who rejected Nicene Christology, such as the Socinians and various forms of Unitarianism.

All of this is very basic to understanding the difference between Catholic and Protestant thought and the fact that Peter Sellick doesn't even mention the issues indicates his extraordinary intellectual poverty when it comes to writing on religious matters.
Posted by Lev, Friday, 7 December 2007 9:49:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The catholic church is the most grotesque and obnoxious institution on this planet. It is an entirely man made worldly power seeking institution that has nothing whatsoever to do with Real God.

There are other grotesque institutions, but what makes the catholic church most obnoxious, is its claim to represent God, Truth, and Reality --- the STENCH of "holiness".

It is doubly obnoxious because it also falsely claims to be the only source of "truth" in this world, implying that all other faith traditions (including protestants) and their resultant cultural expressions, are deluded and full of "relativistic" errors---and hence need to be converted to the "one true way". It thus pretends to have a claim on the totality of Humankind. A claim which is totally obnoxious.

Never mind that the Asian traditions have been around much, much longer than christianity which is really just a relatively new and aggressive bully on the block---wanting to muscle everybody else out of business, which it has done via it having been, and still IS an integral part of the Western imperial project and its drive to total power and control.

This reference provides some insight into why protestants have run out of steam.

1. http://www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/new_age_spirituality.html

This reference, especially the first essay, explains how and why the church came to be a worldly power---which had nothing whatsoever to do with Truth---in fact Truth with a capital T became unacceptable, damnable even. Witness the persecution of Illuminated saints such as Theresa of Avila and St John of The Cross by the ecclesiastical "authorities".

1. http://www.dabase.org/proofch6.htm

This essay/talk asks the question "Who Owns the Holy Brightness" and points out that ALL religions are man made cults.

1. http://www.adidam.org/flash/truthandreligion/index.html

Plus a discussion of Real God 1. http://www.realgod.org
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 7 December 2007 9:54:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To the layman, any argument as to which branch of Christianity should be dominant is undermined by the question, why does it matter?

Sells' answer is that all these different approaches represent "a falling away from Jesus’ promise 'that you may be one'".

If you interpret this to mean that there is only one "true" path through Christianity, this is going to be a tough row to hoe, I suspect.

There is, after all, a vast range of approaches to the subject, ranging from the Pentecostals (are they actually Protestants as well as being Pentecostal?) through the Baptists and Methodists (and many, many others) to the incense-and-robes crowd. This last category possibly includes Anglicans as well... or is that just "High Anglicans"?

Best of luck trying to sort out that little lot, Sells.

The problem of course is that while people are often happy to be told the "what" (Jesus is God etc.), they frequently resist also being told the "how" (bend the knee, genuflect, kiss the robes etc.) It isn't like a recipe for Aiguillettes de Canard au Cerises, where the quality of the end product is tightly bound with the process. It's more like a house, where there are myriad ways to progress from raw materials to a comfortable dwelling, each appealing to different people in different ways.

I think this is a case of "be careful what you wish for", Sells. Outside the narrow caste of "professional theologians both Protestant and Catholic" who concern themselves with "the centre of the faith", there is a bunch of people who have rejected Catholicism for a reason. Or many reasons, what do I know.

But I do understand human nature, and - especially where religion is concerned - people dislike being torn from their comfort zone.

If the heads of the various factions do get together and agree hey, we are all Roman Catholics really, you are going to see a major increase in the number of people who are disillusioned with the concept of religion as a whole.

And I'm sure that's not what Jesus had in mind either.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 7 December 2007 10:09:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you dig a bit, you will find that the 'sacrement of indulgence' is alive and well..... "the selling of forgiveness" in street language.

Luther railed against it.. and I know that He who said "I came not to be served but to serve and give my life as a ransom for many" would also rebuke such a practice.

Paul who wrote

Romans 1:17 for in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

So...any Church (so called) which seeks to 'sell' forgiveness... is clearly way off the Biblical track.

The RC church may (and does) respond that 'true' faith is when it is 'through' the RC Church, but I find the call of the Lord is not to 'a church' but to the Almighty..... when they respond to that call, they 'become' the Church/Ekklesia/congregation.

ORGANIZATIONAL UNITY vs SPIRITUAL UNITY.
Sells fails to observe that being part of an 'organization' saves no one. You can be a Catholic sinner or a protestant sinner.. or a worldly/secular sinner. The true body of Christ exists in perfect unity among the various traditions, and it consists of those who name the name of Christ, as Lord and Savior and enjoy fellowship one with another irrespective of 'brand'.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 7 December 2007 10:35:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Sellick's argument is based upon the flawed premise that the Roman Catholic Church has changed.

The Roman Catholic Church has never changed, and never will.

Its tactics and manoeuvers change according to the circumstances in which it finds itself, but its strategy is the same yesterday, today and forever - to rule the world in phoney righteousness through the man ordained as Bishop of Rome.

Papal primacy is the sticking point, not only with Protestants but with Eastern Orthodoxy. The Bishop of Rome will never yield his primacy because he cannot. To do so would be to admit that he has no 'apostolic succession,' has no authority passed on by the Apostle Peter, and is not the "Vicar of Christ" on earth.

Of course it can be conclusively demonstrated that there is no validity to any of the claims of the Bishop of Rome, but that is another matter.
Posted by vynnie, Friday, 7 December 2007 10:59:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would seem that some brains are hard wired for religion, while others wonder in amazement that seemingly sensible persons can get so excited about essential meaningless issues. Such as how many angels can live on a pin head.

David Biello writing in Scientific American Mind of Oct/Nov 2007 makes it all clear. Studies on Buddhist or Carmelite nuns using modern brain imaging techniques indicates that certain brain areas including the temporal lobe are activated during religious experiences.

It has also been suggested that some religious experiences are a manifestation of temporal lobe epilepsy. This work is consistent with the notion that the brain can be conditioned to respond in a religious way by physical acts such as prayer, fasting, self-flagellation or the ingestion of hallucinogenic chemicals.

Interestingly, the Carmelite nuns interpreted the findings differently. To their way of thinking brain activity was not the cause of religious experience. They saw the images as evidence of God interacting with their brains.

This is a good example of Thomas Kuhn’s approach to the history and philosophy of science. When new “facts and observations” become available and require a new paradigm. The defenders of the old paradigm invent a series of ad hoc explanations and modifications to preserve the established theories.

Surely, given time the old religious paradigms will be swept away and with it the absurd theological claims of protestants, Catholics and indeed of all believers in the heavenly menagerie
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 7 December 2007 3:08:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anglican longing for Rome! Come from the Irish-Catholic tradition. Left 35 years ago but remained in touch. Been back since - Outback where the only viable community was Catholic.

Am female. Catholicism has nothing to offer me. There is the old saying, referencing Irish-Catholicism: there are only two types of women: whores or virgins. Little understanding of women in the halls of Roman power.

I have grave difficulties with the priesthood - Roman or Anglican. Prefer the priesthood of all believers. Had too much of priestly power and ambitious clericalism. Even with women priests, I sometimes see women following the same sterile path as male colleagues.

Am amused by Anglicans who think they are the same as Roman Catholics. No understanding of cultural nuances. It is like a family separated over time and distance, getting together rarely. They are not in touch with all that has happened and influenced each in between gatherings and each has developed separate cultures while apart.

I warn against any idea that Anglicans can be a separate order/bloc within Catholicism. A group of English Anglicans tried this when Hume was in charge. Anti-female ordination clerics discussed crossing to Rome. They were rebuffed because Rome doesn't accept you because you are against something. You have to join Rome on its terms: lock, stock and usually the barrel as well.

Vatican II has brought changes not present in Anglicanism. Many Catholic priests think that many Anglican priests are too into bells, smells, and pretty frocks.

The clerical collar does not go over big with your average Catholic Parish Priest. Vestments and clerical garb have been simplified. The only place I've seen a biretta in years is on the head of an Anglican priest. Nearly fell over when I saw a Roman soutane on a staffer at St Paul's Cathedral at the installation of Ab Philip Freire! Thought the clock had rolled back 50 years!

If Rome was on to-morrow's agenda I wouldn't sign up. Denominationalism is scandalous. Economic rationalism is distorted progression of Protestant attitudes to scripture. I think I would be off to the Quakers.
Posted by Miss Eagle, Friday, 7 December 2007 4:30:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DB - have a feeling you are terminally confused about what a "sacrament" is. I do remember another occasion when a poster explained something you had labelled a sacrament was actually not.

The selling of indulgences to which Luther took objection was not, I think you will find, anything to do with sacraments. This referred to the habit of people paying money for a modified "Get Out of Jail Free" card: - so much money resulted in so many days parole from purgatory As no-one has succeeded computing exactly how many days till infinity ends, this was a pretty good racket as one could go on paying for days off with, of course, no end in sight. You said this still goes on to-day...well I know that theres one born every minute, but its hard to imagine?

Lev
yes, I too would have thought that a quick answer to the question of what stops Protestants becoming Romans was available without any meanderings away from the tenets and bedrock issues: how many Protestants accept the concepts of The Trinity...Transubstantiation...the Sacraments. How many lay religious Protestants would be happy taking the 3 vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and making the leap into religious orders? All the rest, the issues Sellick brings up, appear to be so much window dressing and do not touch issues of faith at all but merely preference.
Posted by Romany, Friday, 7 December 2007 7:59:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells says
"the freedom of the gospel which orders culture aright under the Lordship of Christ."
forgetting that culture was hardly ordered 'aright' prior to the reformation and that the universal rule of the church was in large part the cause of the problem rather than the solution.

The many denominations that exist today represent a rich cultural diversity within the faith community. Lets thank God for that and enjoy it. As Sells points out there is increasing agreement among theologians of all denominations on the core elements of faith. It is no accident that this is happening in a context of great religio-cultural diversity.

Church union is undesirable and thankfully also quite impossible. Sells is being a bit tragically romantic when he imagines that the laiety is predisposed to unity and that the churches might be re-united in some sort of bottom-up groundswell of ecumenical enthusiasm.

And by the way.... while we're talking about unity in terms of 'returning to Rome'.... the Eastern churches are not 'break-aways' from Rome and it makes no sense really to speak of Rome as the church to which all should return.

The denominations offer a richly diverse range of religious cultures and there is just no need to merge the community of faith back into any particular expression of christian culture. In fact such a thing would inevitably become a deeply evil institution. Lets not go there!
Posted by waterboy, Friday, 7 December 2007 11:42:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reasons for separation of churches in the 16th century were multi faceted. They included Corruption, Despotism, and religious dogmas that were put in place not to enlighten the faithful but to prevent them from straying.

While the Catholic church has reformed from a kleptocrasy, many of the dogmas put in place such as the infallibility of the pope have prevented later administrations from removing some of the ridiculous edicts of the power hungry popes.

The fact that in European catholic countries, the birth rate is the lowest in the world and church attendance is the lowest ever would indicate that nearly all roman catholics cut and paste the teachings of the church and that the entire package is unpaletable except for a tiny minority.

The requirement for a single point of enlightened guidance is not something the catholic church can provide without serious re examination of the past 1000 years of poor judgement.
Posted by Democritus, Saturday, 8 December 2007 2:20:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is great to see an enthusiastic article written with fixed argument and a keen attachment to the issue.
While the seemingly absolutist nature of the arguments prompts a list of readily available counter-arguments (insightful 'broadening clean up'), it is a good example of how members of the Christian community feel about the ever-broadening disunity of the Church/es in the modern age.

Aside from valid arguments mentioned above, it is surprising that -waterboy- had the only reference to the (Eastern) Orthodox Church, arguably the least changed as per the original teachings, and something that struck me as a strong contradiction of the author's positioning of the Roman Catholic practice as the ideal that Protestantism should return to.

Apparent relativity forces us to wonder: "Why do Catholics not push away years of misunderstanding and reunite with Orthodoxy?"
Debate: never ending?

Thankfully, we do live in an age of diversity; plenty of reasons for the existence of both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
Posted by Serge, Saturday, 8 December 2007 2:31:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, fair enough Peter Sellick. I guess it's better to be united and delusional than schismatic and delusional.

:-D
Posted by Mercurius, Saturday, 8 December 2007 8:03:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Waterboy.
I find your comment surprising. The reasons for ecumenism are theological in that we are called to “one Lord, one faith and one baptism” and I find you celebration of diversity incongruous. What about a celebration of unity? In my experience the call to celebrate diversity is really a smug glossing of real differences so that we can all feel good. But I take your point about the danger of the one church and I think that was what Avery Dulles points to when he says that the separation of the churches robs the Church of its Catholicity. Certainly the Roman church appears a monolith, but as Hauerwas points out it accommodates diverse forms of the faith.

Also do not get me wrong about my attitude to the Roman church, I think the ruling of contraception, based as it is on natural theology, which the present pope himself has observed has capsized on the rocks of Darwinian evolution, is a huge mistake. I also think that the insistence on a celibate clergy has done untold damage. I am fond of quoting Genesis: “ Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." While celibacy may be a sign that vocation trumps biology its insistence has decimated and estranged the priesthood. What would the Vatican be like if its halls resounded to the calls of children and priests went back to their wives after a trying time in the parish? As it is the priesthood is attractive to those who are not strongly heterosexual with the obvious consequences.

If find it interesting that the greatest Protestant theologian of the 20th C, Karl Barth, had to turn his back on modernism in order to write his dogmatics. Thus although there are many criticisms of the Roman church in his work, his theology is truly Catholic. Surely the Church must converge in order to be faithful and it is not helpful to conjure up a demonic totalitarianism. Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Saturday, 8 December 2007 10:25:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
They haven't given up ...
The cute, cuddly Panda Bear of the World Wildlife Federation is on the web site of the movie, 'The Golden Compass'. That movie, as you may know, and the books it is extracted from is fervently anti-Catholic with select attacks on every Christian branch with the exception of the Church of England, whose Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams, supports it.
The book the movie was made from was written by an Englishman, you see, and many of the arguments in it support that particular Christian branch. The production company hails from New Zealand, where again, hatred of the Catholic Church and love the Church of England is strong.
The Archbishop was also hotly against the invasion of Iraq and luridly opposes the continued occupation of that country by the United States.
Says the Archbishop of Canterbury, "We are doing all we can to support the Iraqi people."
Recently in a British Muslim magazine the Archbishop of Canterbury called the United States the ‘worst’ imperialist.
He further stated, “We have only one global hegemonic power. It is not accumulating territory: it is trying to accumulate influence and control. That’s not working.”
He then started talking in glowing tones about the British travesties in India, “It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly, that’s what the British Empire did — in India, for example.”
The movie ’The Golden Compass’ echoes and brings to the modern movie screen centuries of ignorance and hatred. Many of the misguided morals and themes of the movie are the same as those which have pushed many animals to the brink of extinction. Just which way is World Wildlife Federation headed? Towards the light of civilized society or into the darkness of fear and dread? The movie presents half-baked science and twists philosophical ideas until they make no sense - ideas like conservation, love, fidelity and honor.
Posted by cranston36, Saturday, 8 December 2007 11:52:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article was posted on an Anglican site and generated some interesting comments. It may be found at:

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/8190/
Posted by Sells, Saturday, 8 December 2007 4:51:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells

While the Gospels reflect the particular culture(s) of the Ancient Near East, Rome and the Hellenic world I do not believe that they 'dictate' a particular culture.

I see no problem in the great cultural diversity of the modern Churches. Yes, there are theological differences there too and that is the ground upon which there is merit in seeking some sort of unity/identity. That can be done... is being done to some extent... without necessarily merging the religious cultures that make us different.

I note that there is a recurring theme through your posts of the 'rightly ordered society'. If in this you have the idea that there is one particular ordering of society that is the ideal to which we might aspire and towards which we might work then I say that this is a romantic notion and I do not share your ideal. I certainly do not see ANY church that even comes close to representing such an ideal, however much they might talk about it.

Church Union was always a bad idea, still is! Obviously many of your Anglican colleagues think similarly else the Anglican Church would have 'United' along with the Presbyterians, Methodists and Congergationalists. At the very least it would have returned to Rome... just one more time!. The only good thing to come out of Union so far seems to be an increase in diversity so lets celebrate that
Posted by waterboy, Saturday, 8 December 2007 11:14:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the essay Peter. I think that Catholicism may not have been impervious from the cancer of enlightenment thinking. Certainly the discipline and centrality of the Catholic Church has prevented fragmenting which has troubled the Protestant church.
This being so the diversity of the Protestant church has been a great strength. It is questionable whether the rigidity of the Roman Catholic Church allows it to relate fully amongst diversity of community.

Today the Protestant Church with all its scruples and many faces has been a success in Africa, South East Asia and Korea. Perhaps I am wrong here, but it is difficult to imagine that The Roman Catholic Church could replicate such expansion
Posted by Craig7, Sunday, 9 December 2007 12:00:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig7

There is no such thing as the Protestant church.....there are thousands of protestant "churches".....all competing with each other, and disagreeing with each other. What did Jesus say about "Father, may they be one as we are one"?
Posted by Francis, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 11:10:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article asks “Why do Protestants remain separated from the Roman Catholic Church after most of the reasons for their separation have disappeared?”

Maybe because they "think" about it and “choose” to remain separate from the Church of Rome (and separate from other protestants for that matter).

I would note, whilst the Church of Rome is fond of using religious intimidation to keep control over its flock, the excesses of the “inquisition” would no longer be tolerated (despite that the office still being maintained to this day).

Of course, some of us prefer our religious affiliates to have a better way of dealing with pedophiles than to move them on and blame the victims.

When the Church of Rome can move its administration and attitudes out of the 15th century it might have some relevance to protestants, until then, it will only find truck with those of an unquestioning, repressed or primitive spirit.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 13 December 2007 6:15:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do you feel good now Col Rouge? Such a tedious contribution.

To exercise your intellect, mind and imagination have a read and a think on the purpose and contents of Pope Benedict's latest Encyclical on Christian Hope. Fear not.
Posted by boxgum, Saturday, 15 December 2007 10:09:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do you feel good now Col Rouge? Such a tedious contribution.

To exercise your intellect, mind and imagination have a read and a think on the purpose and contents of Pope Benedict's latest Encyclical on Christian Hope. Fear not.

"The concept of faith-based hope in the New Testament and the early Chuch" and "Eternal life - what is it?" should stimulate some thought.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html
Posted by boxgum, Saturday, 15 December 2007 10:11:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The church organisations reflect the structure of the society around them. The Catholic Church is feudal, with its papal king and princes and all the rest. The protestant churches arose in and reflect the social move to democracy, with more involvement of the laity, including women. That development is going on now with the rise of the pop-concert approach of the Pentecostals and the search by some for New Age spirituality. Interesting to a bystander. Protestantism has not failed; it is just a phase of history.
Posted by John Warren, Saturday, 15 December 2007 3:41:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello boxgum re “Do you feel good now Col Rouge? Such a tedious contribution. “

I feel wonderful. Thankyou for asking.

However, I feel nowhere near as “tedious” as someone who can only make a post twice because he cannot manage to organise his mind sufficiently to encompass what he needs to say in one (I refer here, of course, to the repeat of your 10:09 post at 10:11 plus a bit more of your literary effluent).

I will not bother to review the propaganda from the website you nominated, no point in looking into the pit of a papist when seeking divine guidance, revelation or intercession.

Now run back to your medieval liturgy - but watch out, there are, I hear, some very strange priests about, I would not follow a word they say either, they have been known to tell some whoppers (especially when dealing with pre-pubescent children).

John warren “The church organisations reflect the structure of the society around them.”

I do not agree.

The Church of Rome endeavours to maintain a primitive social structure, holding back social development to maximise its inherited power base.

The Church of Rome did not reflect the society around it. The Church of Rome demanded / demands to regulate the society around it and thus secure authority it has historically usurped through devices like the inquisition and sexual repression.

Take away the pervasive influence of an artificial theocracy and society would have evolve along entirely different dimensions.

There is a place for some form of religion / spiritualism in all our lives.

However, the intransigent dogma of an archaic dictatorship, which segregates people based on gender and places its perverted priest class above the scrutiny of its congregants, is something which has outlived any usefulness which it never really had.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 18 December 2007 1:54:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank goodness I have not been infected, unlike poor old God, by religion.
From the outside watching this pap discussed in 2007 is like watching the unfolding of a medieval power struggle between warring tribes each on their own hill.
This is what it is all about, of cource the Catholics want a merger again so the man (questionable) in the frock with the cloth hat and the biggest heaviest Blin around his neck can once again get control of the sheep-like starving masses.
We have mostly managed to extricate our society from the cloying oppressive mantle of control freaks who take God's name in vain and use His name to do their filthy work, all in the name of religion.

This is where the worlds most significant problem lies, religion, designed by power seeking men to control the masses. Roll on the internet and education for all so we can bypass this dross and get on with sorting out the problems caused by overpopulation and religious dogma.
Poor old God (if you believe there is a God that is) must by grinding his teeth with frustration while watchng his minnions fighting and squabling amongst themselves as to who has the correct interpretation of His word.
Be extremely wary of men wearing dresses, cloth hats and heavy blin's for this is where most of the worlds agravation is perpetrated.

Commune with your God if you must but please let us be rid of religion.
Posted by Guy V, Thursday, 20 December 2007 8:38:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy