Pope Affirms Right to Convert Non-Believers to Christianity

Some Catholics want to feel like an oppressed minority obviously. The complaints come across as the whines of an agrieved aristocrat.

Sadly, this is true. And that makes me sick.

Nothing worse than you got a good debate going and then those idiotic "Anti-Catholic" complaints come out.

People in this day and age don't even know what that word means. Try reading up on the riots of the 1800s, where people actually died on the streets and churches got burned to the ground. And I never heard the Roman Christians or the North American martyrs call their pagan torturers "anti-Catholics".

It's just one man's opinion, and several well-meaning Catholics have tried to talk me out of my position on this, but I still maintain that it's false, cheap, and even cowardly to use that term in an argument as if it vindicated your position.

Sheesh...somebody calls you the servant of the Whore of Babylon, call them a stiff-necked heretic! Where's common decency anymore? :)

Also, we do not "re-sacrifice" Christ - His death did that for all eternity. The Mass re-presents (notice the dash) the same sacrifice, as it is one for eternity, and not constrained by the linear progession of time as we know it.

You realise that what you just espoused is a pagan idea, right? Mircea Eliade had quite a lot to say about the religious use of "sacred time" which exists outside of or "under" profane time, and which views religious rituals as being eternal in the sense that their repetition is really partaking of the original or unitary act in "sacred time". What you just described with respect to the Catholic mass would equally apply to the ancient Mesopotamian akitu festival of the new year, and the sacred renewal of fertility via the sacred prostitution between king and priestess.

Sorry, but the Bible clearly states that Jesus' sacrifice was a punctiliar affair - it happened once, and only needed to be "presented" once. This is why Paul (or whoever) in Hebrews tells us that Christ is presently acting as our High Priest (i.e. sacrifice is done, now He can act as intercessor WITH that blood of atonement), and repeatedly emphasises the one-time-only, once-for-all nature of Christ's work on the cross.

As such, there is neither need nor warrant for "reading in" a bunch of pagan syncretism about "the Eucharist" which is not ever actually specified in the biblical text.

This discussion reminds me of the occasion when Donny Deutsch ambushed Ann Coulter and inveigled her into telling him whether Jews should be converted to Christianity. When she replied in the affirmative-even adding the Jews should be "perfected" Deutsch became indignant.

It seems to me that Coulter had the theology of her own Christianity about right. As a Christian she is charged to go into the world to proselytize. A Christian does so because he believes that he has the truth to offer. He does so out of good motive and he does so, at least in this modern age, by persuasion and not by violence. In this he is to be distinguished from the modern Mohammedan.

When a Jew rejects the proselytization, he does so out of conviction that the Christian does not have the truth, to the contrary, he has yet all wrong and false and the Jew believes that he alone has the truth.

When a Deutsch, who claims in his interview do be a practicing Jew, rejects her proselytization he is saying 1) you do not have the truth, and 2) I do.

I am at a loss to understand why it is all wrong for and Coulter to offer her faith (especially when the offer was solicited and the solicitation was bogus) thinking it is superior but it is perfectly proper for Deutsch to reject the offer because he thinks his faith is superior and hers is false.

I do not think that centuries-old pograms by people neither Coulter nor Deutsch ever knew against people they never knew, justifies Deutsch and undermines Coulter anymore than I think that slavery justifies reparations.

Your views on this matter (as on some others) are a breath of fresh air, Claud.

You do realize that your belief in a supernatural being is a pagan idea, right? And the idea of a dying/resurrecting god? And the wedding ring? Oh, and the days of the week and the months too?

Heavens, I don't know how one can prove a point by calling it "pagan". It might just be possible that the pagans were right about some things you know.

This is even debatable? I mean, are people in the Catholic Church actually wondering about this?

No.

There are people in the culture at large who moan & whine every time we have the temerity to pray for the Jews ... or speak of Jesus Christ.

So, here B16 is just saying "We're not going to stop. Live with it."

I think a historical analysis would show that the Church had the belief of the Real Presence in the Eucharist until some folks decided otherwise in the Reformation..Either the Church got it wrong for 15 centuries or they have been right for 20 centuries. Please tell us how they were wrong for those many centuries as well as how the Reformation suddenly came upon the truth?

You do realize that your belief in a supernatural being is a pagan idea, right?

Genetic fallacy. Believe in one supernatural being is not the same as belief in any or all of them, nor does it imply a direct connexion.

And the idea of a dying/resurrecting god?

Actually, if you mean it in the sense of a dying and resurrecting god who continues to die and resurrect, over and over again, then yes, you are quite correct, and in fact would be pointing to the same issue of "sacred vs. profane time" that I remarked about with respect to the Catholic mass.

If you are referring to the Christian belief about Jesus' death and resurrection, then you are quite off-base, since that event (as I noted earlier) was punctiliar, it was a one-time affair, and was never viewed by early Christians as being a repetitive, "sacred time" event. If this is the case, then you apparently don't understand the difference between superficial similarity, and likeness in underlying thought.

And the wedding ring?

I didn't realise the wedding ring was a religious rite. Atheists get married and wear wedding rings. Religious people sometimes don't wear rings, yet they are still married. The wedding ring is not a fundamental aspect of any religious system on earth, to my knowledge.

Oh, and the days of the week and the months too?

I didn't realise that the days of the week, nor the months of the year, were in any way, shape, or form integral to the religious beliefs of any group on earth, pagan or Christian.

Heavens, I don't know how one can prove a point by calling it "pagan".

One can prove the point that something is "not Christian" or "not biblical" by demonstrating (as opposed to merely "calling") it to be pagan, since the two are basically defined to be opposites.

It might just be possible that the pagans were right about some things you know.

I'm sure they were right about a number of things - just not religious things.

Like Claud said, your whole "Pagan" line of argument is irrelevant - a god dying and resurrecting is a pagan idea, does that mean Christianity is pagan? Of course not.

the Bible clearly states

The Bible clearly states that we must eat the body and drink the blood - see John 6 as I quoted above, as well as the Pauline epistle quoted by another used. How do you interpret that away to NOT require the Eucharist?

>>The Vatican published in December a doctrinal note reaffirming the mission of all Catholics to pursue conversion of non-Catholics, including other Christian denominations.<<

Anyone have a link to this actual document?

Argue what you will, but the Bible is straight forward.

Yep.........the great American tradition of custom-made churches is proof positive that you're right.

'Course, none of the storefront preachers can agree on what it means but that's probably because it's too straight forward and they're all searching for deeper meanings when there are none.

Deeper meanings and symbolism in Scripture? What an asinine thought!

Who said, “Off with their heads!”
1. Big Mo (as in MoHAMmed).
2. The Red Queen in Alice In Wonderland.
3. Pol Pot.

Answer: All of the above.

The Pope better watch his six, ‘cause Mad Mo’s followers are on a jihad.

The “rubs” and “chafes” of Christians bent on converting are nothing in comparison to either a Jewish grandmother or, worse yet, a Jewish mother-in-law.

:-)

I'm sure they were right about a number of things - just not religious things

So they were right about no religious things, is that right? So the "Logos" of St. John....what is that exactly? And what does St. Paul mean when he says that the Gentiles had the law written on their hearts in Romans 2? Who was Melchizedek making an offering to then?

Stuff and nonsense, this idea the pagans got nothing right.

That’s for smarter folks than I, fellow believer. “I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him for that day.” 2 Ti 1:12.

It's just one man's opinion, and several well-meaning Catholics have tried to talk me out of my position on this, but I still maintain that it's false, cheap, and even cowardly to use that term in an argument as if it vindicated your position.

Well, this Catholic absolutely agrees with you on this. Being wrong about theology or the Bible does not make one "anti-catholic." This is why I disagreed with the Catholic League and others who used that term to describe Mr. Hagee.

Like Claud said, your whole "Pagan" line of argument is irrelevant

The only thing irrelevant was Claud's argument - for the simple fact that it wasn't so much an argument as a whine.

- a god dying and resurrecting is a pagan idea, does that mean Christianity is pagan? Of course not.

It does if the dying and rising god continues to do so over and over and over again. That's the whole point. Christ's sacrificial death and resurrection was punctiliar. It was never viewed by early Christians through the sort of "sacred time" lens which you implicitly demonstrated in your previous statement, and which was the the common way of thinking about Tammuz/Dumuzi and Osiris' yearly dyings and risings. Despite the extremely superficial detail of "a God dying and then coming to life", these pagan stories had no other similarity to that of Christ's death and resurrection. They differed in just about every other detail BUT the dying and rising part, and in those pagan myths, the dying and rising was by and large not even the primary event of interest in the myth-cycle.

So yes, there's quite a bit of difference between Christ and the dying-and-rising gods - integral storyline details, the whole "sacred time" issue, everything. Claud's argument, far from being profound, was merely profoundly ignorant of the subject of religious symbology.

The Bible clearly states that we must eat the body and drink the blood - see John 6 as I quoted above, as well as the Pauline epistle quoted by another used. How do you interpret that away to NOT require the Eucharist?

What I find profoundly ironic is that while Catholics love to quote John 6:51-56 in support of their error, they conveniently forget to also cite v. 6:63,

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

The words Jesus spoke were meant to be understood by his hearers in a figurative sense. They are spirit, and they are life. A spiritual understanding gives life as we believe on Him and "ingest" Him by faith (actually a very similar idea to that found in Jeremiah 15:16 - "Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts."). Having a fleshly, carnal understanding of Jesus' words "profiteth nothing". This is shown, too, in that those who became offended by His saying and departed were those who took His words woodenly literally - THEY (the people who thought He literally meant to eat His flesh and drink His blood) were the ones who had a carnal, fleshly understanding, THEY were the ones who demonstrated that they had never been called by the Father to come to Jesus to begin with (cf. vv. 64-65). The faithful disciples, in contrast, understood that the eternal life being offered was a result of Christ's WORDS (v. 68). It was believing on Christ's message of Messiahship and being the one God had given to His people to nourish their SPIRITUAL needs, that gave eternal life - as Peter understood.

Elsewhere, the Scripture gives no indication of any sort of understanding of the transubstantiative sense of the bread and wine. In Luke 22:18, in the very act of instituting the Lord's Supper, Jesus said, "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." Jesus clearly says it was "fruit of the vine", and He gave it to them while He was yet living. If we are to take Catholicism literally on this, we have to believe that Jesus gave His disciples blood and flesh pertaining to His sacrificial death, when He hadn't even been crucified yet. They were eating His flesh as a re-presentation of a sacrifice which had not even occurred yet. And one which Jesus had clearly and specifically said was NOT His actual blood, and which He then said (v. 19) was "in remembrance of Him". Jesus outright TELLS them that the Lord's Supper was not anything more than a symbolic remembrance of what He was shortly going to do for them.

The other major place in the NT besides the Gospels where the Lord's Supper is dealt with is in I Corinthians 11. In this passage, again, Catholics like to pull a verse out of context (in this case v. 26 - "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."), while ignoring the surrounding context and the lexical analysis. I've seen Catholic apologists point to this verse and argue that the act of "shewing" the Lord's death till He comes means that the act is occurring again and again in the transubstantiated Eucharist. Of course, this is not what "shew" (Gk. kataggelo) means. the words actually means "to proclaim, announce, report, or publish", and refers again to the act of remembrance (which Paul makes explicitly clear in vv. 24-25, where he again states that these were "in remembrance of" Christ's sacrifice - not a re-creation or "re-presentation" of it. The act of the Lord's Supper is exclamatory and evangelistic, not re-presentational.

Exactly, and I agree with you about Hagee.

Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization

As a Protestant, I have no objection to Roman Catholics attempting to convert Protestants to the faith of Rome, as long as the RC Church has no objection to attempts to convince Catholics to become Protestant.