The Other Pope (MAJOR BARF ALERT)

John Paul II was a complex man and among the more intellectual popes in history. Because of his admirable stance against Stalinism in Eastern Europe (which did not in fact involve any denunciation of communism or socialism per se) and his anti-abortion stance, he is often claimed as an ally by the American Right (which is mainly Protestant and mainly about the best interests of wealthy business people).

But John Paul II was often an inconvenient man, whose moral vision would be upsetting to the US Republican establishment if it were taken seriously. He opposed the death penalty, to which George W. Bush is so attached. He opposed the Iraq War. He condemned laissez-faire capitalism and cared about the exploitation of workers, who he felt should have a dignity that is seldom bestowed upon them by the Walmarts and other firms in the US. And he cared about the rights and welfare of the Palestinian people in a way that virtually no one in the American political establishment does. He symbolically blessed the Palestinian claim that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Palestinian people.

That is, the Pope's message sometimes had a strong progressive content, and he was in some important ways on our side. That progressives might have had differences with him on some issues should not forestall our celebrating his progressive legacy. The American Right appropriates shamelessly anyone who even halfway agrees with them. We on the left must learn to make sectional alliances and commemorate those areas of agreement we have with people like John Paul II.

“The message of Bethlehem is good news of reconciliation among men, of peace at every level of relations between individuals and nations. Bethlehem is a universal crossroads where all peoples can meet to build a together a world worthy of our human dignity and destiny. The recently inaugurated Museum of the Nativity shows how the celebration of Christ's birth has become part of the culture and art of peoples in all parts of the world.

“Mr. Arafat, as I thank you for the warm welcome you have given me in the name of the Palestinian Authority and people, I express all my happiness at being here today. How can I fail to pray that the divine gift of peace will become more and more a reality for all who live in this land, uniquely marked by God's intentions? Peace for the Palestinian people! Peace for all peoples of the region! No one can ignore how much the Palestinian people have had to suffer in recent decades. Your torment is before the eyes of the world, and it has gone on too long.

“The Holy See has always recognized that the Palestinian people have the natural right to a homeland, and the right to be able to live in peace and tranquility with the other peoples of this area. In the international forum, my predecessors and I have repeatedly claimed that there would be no end to the sad conflict in the Holy Land without stable guarantees for the rights of all the peoples involved, on the basis of international law and the relevant United Nations resolutions and declarations.

“We must all continue to work and pray for the success of every genuine effort to bring peace to this land. Only with a just and lasting peace -- not imposed but secured through negotiation -- will legitimate Palestinian aspirations be fulfilled. Only then will the Holy Land see the possibility of a bright new future, no longer dissipated by rivalry and conflict, but firmly based on understanding and cooperation. The outcome depends on the courageous readiness for those responsible for the destiny of this part of the world to move to new attitudes of compromise and compliance with the demands of justice.

“Dear friends, I am fully aware of the great challenges facing the Palestinian Authority and people in every field of economic and cultural development. In a particular way my prayers are with the Palestinians -- Muslim and Christian -- who are still without a home of their own, their proper place in society and the possibility of a normal working life. My hope is that my visit today to the Dheisheh Refugee Camp will serve to remind the international community that decisive action is needed to improve the situation of the Palestinian people. I was particularly pleased at the unanimous acceptance by the United Nations of Resolution on Bethlehem 2000, which commits the international community to help in developing this area and in improving conditions of peace and reconciliation in one of the most cherished and significant places on earth.

“The promise of peace made at Bethlehem will become a reality for the world only when dignity and rights of all human beings made in the image of God are acknowledged and respected.

“Today and always the Palestinian people are in my prayers to the One who holds the destiny of the world in his hands. May the Most High God enlighten, sustain and guide in the path of peace the whole Palestinian people.”

"The pope’s first brush with the zero sum politics of the Middle East came almost as soon as he landed near Tel Aviv on Tuesday on a flight from Jordan. After being presented by Israeli children with a jar of sacred soil to kiss, the pope was told by President Ezer Weizman that Jerusalem is “the eternal capital” of Israel.

In receiving the pope in Bethlehem, Arafat rebutted by terming Jerusalem “the eternal capital” of Palestine. There too the pope kissed a bowl of soil, a potent symbol for Palestinians since the gesture is generally reserved for sovereign nations."

Then there was his opposition to war as a tool of international diplomacy, his respect for the United Nations Charter, his concern for the impact of an Iraq war on ordinary people (in which he was prophetic). I somehow don't think he was actually on the same page as John Bolton.

""NO TO WAR"! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences. I say this as I think of those who still place their trust in nuclear weapons and of the all-too-numerous conflicts which continue to hold hostage our brothers and sisters in humanity. At Christmas, Bethlehem reminded us of the unresolved crisis in the Middle East, where two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, are called to live side-by-side, equally free and sovereign, in mutual respect. Without needing to repeat what I said to you last year on this occasion, I will simply add today, faced with the constant degeneration of the crisis in the Middle East, that the solution will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed conflict, as if military victories could be the solution. And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than twelve years of embargo? War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations Organization and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations."

Then there is his position on the death penalty, from a 1995 encyclical. He did not shrink from openly intervening in Irish, Filipino and other national politics to push for an abolition of the death penalty.

" "This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence."(46) Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.(47)

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

The American Right is unalterably hostile to the environment, and to international treaties which might interfere in a rapacious exploitation of it. John Paul II was of a different view:

'In Tertio Millennio Adveniente, the Pope had already called for "a livelier sense of responsibility regarding the environment." Quoting from that apostolic letter today, he went on to observe: "Today, mankind has discovered-- largely in reaction to the indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources which has often accompanied industrial development-- the significance and the value of an environment which remains a hospitable home for man, where mankind is destined to live."

The Holy Father said that environmental dangers force world leaders in science, industry, and government to find new ways to use the earth's resources responsibly. The key challenge, he said, is "not only to limit the damage which has already been done, and apply remedies, but especially to find approaches to development which are in harmony with respect and protection for the natural environment." '

Pope John Paul II took a dim view indeed of unbridled capitalism of the sort that has come to dominate every aspect of life in the United States.

the danger of treating work as "merchandise" -or as an impersonal "work force"-remains as long as economics is understood in a materialistic way. It is this one-sided approach that concentrates on work as the prime thing, leaving the worker in a secondary place. This is a reversal of the order laid down in the book of Genesis. The worker is treated as a tool whereas the worker ought to be treated as the subject of work, as its maker and creator. This reversal - whatever other name it gives itself- should be called 'capitalism"- an economic and social system that historically has been known as opposed to "socialism" or "communism." The error of early capitalism can be repeated wherever the worker is treated as a mere means of production, as a tool and not as a subject. To consider work and the worker in the light of humanity's dominion over the earth goes to the very heart of the ethical and social question. It is in insight that should be applied to all social and economic policy, within each country, but also internationally, to the tensions between East and West, North and South."

and then it becomes clear that Pope John Paul II was actually pro-Union and pro-cooperative and pro-workers' rights. All those corporate fat cats holding seminars on "how to bust a union before it gets going in your company" and who fund the Republican Far Right, which turns around and trades on the Pope's moral authority in the culture wars, must be pretty upset by statements such as this:

"It is useful to recall the changes of the last ninety years. Although the "worker" remained the same, "work" changed. New forms of work appeared and disappeared. Though this is normal, it is necessary to watch out for ethical and social irregularities. It was such an irregularity that gave rise -in the last century- to the "worker question" or the "proletariat question," provoking a great burst of solidarity among workers, mainly in industry. It was a reaction against the degradation of the workers, their exploitation with regard to their working conditions and security; against an unjust system that safeguarded the economic initiative of the owners but did not pay attention to the rights of the workers. This reaction is in line with the church's teaching and justified from a social morality point of view. Worker solidarity has brought profound changes. Various new systems have been thought out Workers often share in running and controlling businesses, influencing working conditions, wages, and social legislation. But new systems have arisen that allow old injustices to continue and new injustices to appear. New developments and communication reveal forms of injustices more extensive than the ones that aroused workers' solidarity in the last century, not only in industrialized societies but also in agricultural countries. Solidarity movements can also be needed for social groups not previously mentioned but who find themselves in a "proletariat" situation. It can be true of the working "intelligentsia," people with degrees and diplomas, who cannot find work- a situation that arises when education is unsuited to the needs of society, or when there is less demand and less pay for work that requires education. We must consequently continue to study the situation of the worker. There is a need for solidarity movements among and with the workers. The church is firmly committed to this cause, in fidelity to Christ, and to be truly the "church of the poor."

Note the concern for the needs of poorly paid or unemployed academics and knowledge workers. David Horowitz, eat your heart out!

Finally for today, it is worthwhile noting that John Paul II declined ot enter into the frenzy of Islamophobia that is unfortunately so common among the US Religious Right. He was the first Pope to visit a mosque and address a Muslim congregation, in Damascus.

1. I give heartfelt praise to Almighty God for the grace of this meeting. I am most grateful for your warm welcome, in the tradition of hospitality so cherished by the people of this region. I thank especially the Minister of the Waqf and the Grand Mufti for their gracious greetings, which put into words the great yearning for peace which fills the hearts of all people of good will. My Jubilee Pilgrimage has been marked by important meetings with Muslim leaders in Cairo and Jerusalem, and now I am deeply moved to be your guest here in the great Umayyad Mosque, so rich in religious history. Your land is dear to Christians: here our religion has known vital moments of its growth and doctrinal development, and here are found Christian communities which have lived in peace and harmony with their Muslim neighbours for many centuries.

2. We are meeting close to what both Christians and Muslims regard as the tomb of John the Baptist, known as Yahya in the Muslim tradition. The son of Zechariah is a figure of prime importance in the history of Christianity, for he was the Precursor who prepared the way for Christ. John’s life, wholly dedicated to God, was crowned by martyrdom. May his witness enlighten all who venerate his memory here, so that they – and we too – may understand that life’s great task is to seek God’s truth and justice.

The fact that we are meeting in this renowned place of prayer reminds us that man is a spiritual being, called to acknowledge and respect the absolute priority of God in all things. Christians and Muslims agree that the encounter with God in prayer is the necessary nourishment of our souls, without which our hearts wither and our will no longer strives for good but succumbs to evil.

3. Both Muslims and Christians prize their places of prayer, as oases where they meet the All Merciful God on the journey to eternal life, and where they meet their brothers and sisters in the bond of religion. When, on the occasion of weddings or funerals or other celebrations, Christians and Muslims remain in silent respect at the other’s prayer, they bear witness to what unites them, without disguising or denying the things that separate.

It is in mosques and churches that the Muslim and Christian communities shape their religious identity, and it is there that the young receive a significant part of their religious education. What sense of identity is instilled in young Christians and young Muslims in our churches and mosques? It is my ardent hope that Muslim and Christian religious leaders and teachers will present our two great religious communities as communities in respectful dialogue, never more as communities in conflict. It is crucial for the young to be taught the ways of respect and understanding, so that they will not be led to misuse religion itself to promote or justify hatred and violence. Violence destroys the image of the Creator in his creatures, and should never be considered as the fruit of religious conviction.

4. I truly hope that our meeting today in the Umayyad Mosque will signal our determination to advance interreligious dialogue between the Catholic Church and Islam. This dialogue has gained momentum in recent decades; and today we can be grateful for the road we have travelled together so far. At the highest level, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue represents the Catholic Church in this task. For more than thirty years the Council has sent a message to Muslims on the occasion of Îd al-Fitr at the close of Ramadan, and I am very happy that this gesture has been welcomed by many Muslims as a sign of growing friendship between us. In recent years the Council has established a liaison committee with international Islamic Organizations, and also with al-Azhar in Egypt, which I had the pleasure of visiting last year.

It is important that Muslims and Christians continue to explore philosophical and theological questions together, in order to come to a more objective and comprehensive knowledge of each others’ religious beliefs. Better mutual understanding will surely lead, at the practical level, to a new way of presenting our two religions not in opposition, as has happened too often in the past, but in partnership for the good of the human family.

Interreligious dialogue is most effective when it springs from the experience of "living with each other" from day to day within the same community and culture. In Syria, Christians and Muslims have lived side by side for centuries, and a rich dialogue of life has gone on unceasingly. Every individual and every family knows moments of harmony, and other moments when dialogue has broken down. The positive experiences must strengthen our communities in the hope of peace; and the negative experiences should not be allowed to undermine that hope. For all the times that Muslims and Christians have offended one another, we need to seek forgiveness from the Almighty and to offer each other forgiveness. Jesus teaches us that we must pardon others’ offences if God is to pardon us our sins (cf. Mt 6:14).

As members of the one human family and as believers, we have obligations to the common good, to justice and to solidarity. Interreligious dialogue will lead to many forms of cooperation, especially in responding to the duty to care for the poor and the weak. These are the signs that our worship of God is genuine.

5. As we make our way through life towards our heavenly destiny, Christians feel the company of Mary, the Mother of Jesus; and Islam too pays tribute to Mary and hails her as "chosen above the women of the world" (Quran, III:42). The Virgin of Nazareth, the Lady of Saydnâya, has taught us that God protects the humble and "scatters the proud in the imagination of their hearts" (Lk 1:51). May the hearts of Christians and Muslims turn to one another with feelings of brotherhood and friendship, so that the Almighty may bless us with the peace which heaven alone can give. To the One, Merciful God be praise and glory for ever. Amen. "

But, to me as a non-Catholic, I do not consider he was infallible.

To me, as a Catholic (and, what's worse, a convert), I neither am obliged by RC teaching to consider him infallible nor do I so consider him.

I take ALL his opinions with extreme seriousness and respect and I frequently return to those with which I disagree and re-examine my thinking and his.

Mind you, had he defined something as de fide, that would be a different matter.

If she was sinless why does she need a savior.

My daughter has never drowned. She has never even fallen into a swimming pool. But that is because her mother and I were vigilant. We saved her from drowning by not letting her get intot a situation where drowning was an option.

Jesus's saving act saved Mary by keeping her Immaculate. She needed Him to do that, as my daughter, on occasion, needed me to keep her from falling into a pool. But I kept my daughter safe, and The Son of God kept the woman chosen to be His mother safe.

I am Catholic by the way,...

ROMAN Catholic?

... not a Mary worshiper or a believer in Mary to mediate between man and Christ.

Well what a coincidence! I'm not a Mary worshipper either, and I'm a Roman Catholic.

As to the mediation thing, that's more complicated: My mother-in-law is a great woman of prayer. I don't understand why that is so, but my experience is that it IS so. Consequently, when something really troubles me or concerns me deeply, I will ask her to pray about it.

Does that mean I "worship" my mother-in-law? Cut me a BREAK! But, in a way, it DOES mean that I expect even my mother-in-law to mediate between me and God. Not in the way that Jesus mediates, but there is still an intercessory aspect to what I ask of her. And so it is with the Mother of my Lord: I ask her to pray for me, and I also pray for myself, through Jesus Christ.

After all, I pray for the world, but I don't think I'm some kind of cosmic mediator....

Give me point blank scripture of Mary being sinless, not Church doctrine.

Why was a sin offering required following the birth of Jesus? Was not Mary exempt from Original Sin?

'If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous' 1 John 2: 1

Obviously John did not know Mary's other alleged function as co-advocate with Jesus. (Extreme Sarcasm)

How come John, who cared for Mary until her death, never mentioned the alleged Assumption?

'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 Sorry, I did not read an exception for Mary, she was a Godly women but still was under original sin.

12 years of Catholic education plus studying this subject has taught me all the canned responses to the Mary doctrine that supporters speak but in the end hold no support at all.

I believe you might have misread what I posted. I posted pretty much exactly what you said.

I was adressing the person that stated, "Everyone is agreed that John Paul was a wonderful man. But, to me as a non-Catholic, I do not consider he was infallible.". I felt that is a common, likely well intentioned misunderstanding of Roman Catholic doctrine.

I posted that I believed the pope, as a man, is with sin and error, aka not impeccable. That speaking ex cathedra is infallible.

My post:

As a Catholic, I do not believe the Pope as a man to be without error or without sin, often referred to as impeccablity. I do believe the Pope speaking ex cathedra to be infallible.

I appreciate the questions, as it obviously guides me to clarify my writing.

Therese

I also believe the whole Vatican stance on keeping the clergy celibate is ridiculous, I think the Eastern Orthodox church proves without doubt there is precedent for married priests and only sheer greed lead to the celibacy requirement in the first place [as in a single priest is cheaper to provide for than a married priest and his family]

You know it's customary for people to think before speaking. Do you KNOW the reason why the celibacy rule was put in place?? Or did you just make guesses -- I'd say that's what you did because the FACT is that the celibacy rule was put in place in the 10th to 12th century to COMBAT nepotism not to make things cheaper. It is also because at that time, the monks of the Franciscan and Dominican orders were creating a great impact on the Western world. People were moved by their piety, their discarding of all worldly ties -- including family. And they contrasted this with their parish priests who would have been married.

Now, I'm NOT saying a married man cannot be an honorary example as a priest. However, people will always talk -- how many Anglican parishes woudl gossip about the Vicar's wife? And how come the Vicar's children were able to wear such expensive clothes and go to such good schools.

The Orthodox church also allows married men only to be priests -- the Bishops MUST be unmarried. Perhaps that is a compromise, I don't know. I DO know that the Catholic church allows married priests in it's Maronnite, Uniate, Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara rite branches -- and those ARE Catholic churchs.

So, to conclude, dear llama hunter, do read up before spouting statements that will upset others by their sheer mendacity.

Xactly -- I would have been appalled if the Pope was someone cheering at pro-death penalty rallies. A Pope would always believe that there is redemption always even for the worst kind of sinner. However, he did respect the Christian concept of Church and State -- we have the death penalty because of legal needs, not religious. And that makes us a better society for the ability to separate the two.

Texas Cowboy once gave a description of an execution in Saudi A -- it was a carnival. We, here, in the Christian west, do not celebrate the death of even the worst reprobate but we treat it as something gruesome that HAD to be done, like the killing of rats

Agreeing with the Arabs that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Arabs is not only wrong, it will only incite more terrorism...So one has to wonder what is the Pope's intention here???

The "Arabs" is such a generic term. He NEVER said it was the capital of ALL Arabs from Morocco to Iraq. I don't think he even said the statement made by Shisan (not sure about that), but would have said that the Palestinians have a right to live -- something Israel AGREES with. Israel says that Arabs who wish to co-exist peacefully with the Jews are welcome to keep staying there -- and there are many Druze Arabs who are in the Israeli army and there are many Christian Arabs in Israel.

Give me point blank scripture of Mary being sinless, not Church doctrine.

That the Bible is inspired, the nature and meaning of the inspiration, and similar issues are -- guess what -- Church Doctrine! What books are in the Bible and which aren't? Church Doctrine! I can't talk about one without talking about the other.

But you misunderstood me. I don't spend much time arguing doctrine. It's enough for me to try to articulate it clearly. I certainly wasn't trying to convince someone so much wiser and more learned than I. I'm sure my M.Div in 1976 and my study in the intervening 29 years is trivial in comparison to your learning. And that's fine. I nearly always enjoy coherent and friendly presentations of different points of view.

You seemed to suggest that the only people who needed to be saved from sin were sinners. So I tried to present, by analogy, a way that somebody could be saved from something without actually being "in" it.

Further, what you said about Mary's not being saved suggested that you do not understand what the Catholic Church says about the teaching. Certainly IF she is immaculate, it is only through the saving action of our Lord, just as every good thing every one of us enjoys is through His grace, one way or another. It's clear that you don't agree with the teaching, and I didn't hope to change that. But I hoped to address some of the misunderstanding.

As far as "canned responses" go, I never heard anyone make the analogy I made about saving my daughter from drowning. So while other and wiser people may have made it before me, it was not canned when I made it.

Am I right that you disagree with the conciliar teaching about the reliablity of the Pope's ex cathedra statements? Are you an "Old Catholic" or kind of an unofficially protestant person who wants to remain a kind of loyal opoposition within the Church?

Oh, what the heck! I'll bite:, do you believe "Mary is Queen over all things"?

Sure! Why not? The living mother of a king is usually styled "Queen" as a courtesy title. "In the UK "Queen Mother" is not an official title. The correct title for the mother of a reigning sovereign would be "Queen so-and-so"

So the mother of our Lord, the King of Kings, can be properly styled Queen of Heaven and Earth, as -- when she lived -- the mother of Queen Elizabeth II was called Queen.

I guess I don't see the problem.

What do you make of the pronouncement of the Apostolic Conference in "The Acts of the Apostles" where they say,"It seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit...."? They shouldn't have presumed to think that their decision was inspired by God, nor should they have thought the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was something to rely on?

So you believe in the blasphemy of "Church Doctrine" written hundreds of years after Jesus Resurrection.

"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." Jeremiah 7:18

Lets look at the cult of Mary worship and her being the "mother of God. "Jesus was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death." Heb. 2:9.

"..made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil. 2:7-8.

"Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." 1 John 4:2
Since Jesus was not divine (Became a servant and a sacrifice) during his human time on earth, Mary was the mother of a human being, not the "mother" of God.

So you believe in the blasphemy of "Church Doctrine" written hundreds of years after Jesus Resurrection.

Well yeah -- except, of course, for the blasphemy part.

I didn't realize you were a Jehovah's Witness (or something similar). I wouldn't have wasted your time. Sorry. My understanding was that you said you were Catholic, but now it sounds like you're in the Arian camp, rejecting the Nicene Creed.

You're also not very open in your discourse. For example, you did not quote the beginning of the passage from Phillipians.

In fact, that's what made me think you were a JW. They rarely argue honestly, in my sad experience, though I was able to make friends with one. Generally, again in my experience, their discourse is like nothing so much as that of a used car salesman of the old school. Certainly the way you excerpt Phillipians places you outside the class of people with whom I carry on conversations. I like my conversations to be either polite or informative. This one is neither. God bless ...

JW are as whacked out as those who believe Mary is the "mother" of God. Try again.

As far as topic of Mary you seem to skirt issues by calling me a JW or regurgitating Doctrine while ignoring scripture. The passage in Phil dealt with the aspect of Jesus entering into solidarity with human beings and becoming fully one of them. Jesus was setting out to do the will of His Father.

Since the will of God was for Jesus to become human, God needed a surrogate mother. That is when Mary comes into play.

Try answering some of my previous questions too, like why did Mary need a sin offering for instance? Or point to scripture saying Mary was without sin and exempt from original sin?

Please quit the name games as well and accusing me of belonging to perverted Churches. I still go to Mass, only I study scripture and take Church Doctrine with a heavy grain of salt.

Let's see:

Try again.
you seem to skirt issues
regurgitating Doctrine

Still neither polite nor informative.

Now, what I wrote was:

That the Bible is inspired, the nature and meaning of the inspiration, and similar issues are -- guess what -- Church Doctrine! What books are in the Bible and which aren't? Church Doctrine! I can't talk about one without talking about the other.

And I say again: one of the things made a matter of doctrine centuries after the ascension of God the Son of God (if you're going to be contentious and intransigent, why shouldn't I?) was which writings made up the Bible, and what part the Bible should play in determining Doctrine. In other words, the Bible itself is a tradition -- a thing handed down. Consequently, your effort to set the Bible over against the other authoritative teachings and tradtitions of the body which authoritatively determined what the Bible was (and is) can not oblige me to respond in the way you want me to.

Further, not only do I not agree with your interpretation of the passage from Philippians, but I say again that you misrepresented the portion you cited. Consequently I do not think that exploring Scripture with you will serve my needs or any good I can imagine

Finally, you write

I still go to Mass, only I study scripture and take Church Doctrine with a heavy grain of salt.

As far as I can tell that makes you a dishonest and disobedient Catholic. At virtually every Mass the congregation says a creedal formula asserting, inter alia the Divinity of Christ. I'm not saying it's dishonest not to believe that. I AM saying that it IS dishonest to act like a member of an organization and to take part in its services, all the while withholding assent from matters which the organization considers central. The Church rejected Arianism more than a thousand years ago. It seems weird to persist in being a member of a body which so wholeheartedly anathematizes what you believe while you consider its beliefs and customs blasphemous.

Basta! Find somebody else to play with. I don't like this game and I think it's bad for you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.