Let’s hope it doesn’t come to this.

Christ is King, but since we are waiting for his coming, in the meantime, a regent exercises authority on behalf of the king in the meantime. Presuming that the church of Christ is intended to be global, there needs to be a global leader carrying the banner, not endless splinterings of groups all claiming unity under Christ but opposed to each other in belief and practice.

At any rate, the Italian original has been found on some other blogs and at first glance, not only does it seem the Monsignor did not list seven new deadly sins, he also did not mention the original seven deadly sins, or suggest that newer sins were replacing older ones. About all he is saying is that there are newer ways of committing old sins in modern culture, and listed some of them. The media simply ran with its prejudices and won a bunch of dupes among people only too ready to believe the Vatican would suddenly up and decree something arbitrary like this.

But the idea that the church was built on Jesus Peter is dead wrong: the church is built on Jesus.

Oops. Guess I should stick to shorter posts….

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
…..
Seems pretty clear to me. You are correct that the church didn’t proclaim the pope as a vicar right away. They did soo in the early 400’s. So what if he doesn’t use the word “vicar” the bible is filled with vailed references to things. It is pretty clear to me that he is telling Peter that HE is the rock that he is building his church upon and that HE is responsible for “holding down” the fort while Jesus is in heaven (feeding the lambs)

Villanova on March 10, 2008 at 4:28 PM

It may seem clear to you, but it’s still mistaken. Jesus is the builder of the church, and the rock on which it is built. Rather than hang your hat on a debatable interpretation of a single verse, look to the rather clear statements of Peter himself in the Scripture.

4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

Note:
Verse 4: Jesus is a living stone
Verse 5: Ye are “lively stones”, which are built up as a spiritual house
Verse 6: Jesus is the chief corner stone

So Jesus gave Peter his name because he was a “lively stone” that would be part of the spiritual house, the church. But the idea that the church was built on Jesus is dead wrong: the church is built on Jesus.

Furthermore, “Rock” has been a metaphor or title applied to God for many years. It’s all throughout the Psalms, and David said near the end of his life, “the Rock of Israel spake to me.”

Another scripture using this same metaphor is Eph 2:19-21

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Note that in this metaphor, Peter is in the foundation of the building, but so are all the apostles and prophets.

When Jesus said, “On this Rock will I build my church,” he was referring to himself. In an almost exact mirror of his speech to Peter, Jesus said at another time, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:18-21)

18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

In fact, if you’ll read the gospels, you’ll see that Jesus often referred to himself with a metaphor. In the book of John, he refers to himself variously as: light, bread of life, the way, the truth, the life, living water, the door, and so on.

The main reason the Catholic church clings to the interpretation that Peter is the foundation of the church, is because this is the basis of their claim for apostolic succession. But the New Testament is actually consistently clear that the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ, not Peter

Was actually waiting for the release of WordPress 2.5 but I never expected to read about the update made to the seven deadly sins according to the Catholic Church.
Just as the ancient wonders of the world were matched by seven modern wonders, the deadl…

Not at all, the Catholic Church even opens to the possibility that Muslims will be saved. What we protestants will have to deal with is more time in Purgatory I’d assume.

Keljeck on March 10, 2008 at 5:38 PM

Ah, yes, I do recall that now. Still, my invitation remains open. ;-)

Just think, the church can raise countless millions to help the poor if they would just sell offsets for all the evil in the world – like a soap that allows you to wash your sins away!

Donate to our charity, and we will absolve you of the weight of your petty, selfish and venial sin!

You [Ed] wrote, “If one hoards it for one’s self and refuses to assist others in need, then that’s the sin, not the wealth”; and that’s basically what the Church is talking about.

And, personally, I don’t think it would be fair to say that the modern Church violates this. But that’s my opinion …

Maybe this is a misunderstanding of Catholicism, but doesn’t the church leadership say that if you disagree with the official position of the Vatican that you’re not a Christian? If so, when are you and Hannity going to renounce and convert to some form of Protestantism?

OneGyT on March 10, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Not at all, the Catholic Church even opens to the possibility that Muslims will be saved. What we protestants will have to deal with is more time in Purgatory I’d assume.

Seems pretty clear to me. You are correct that the church didn’t proclaim the pope as a vicar right away. They did soo in the early 400’s.

Actually, that language wasn’t used until the 5th or 6th century. The early church used that term to refer to the Holy Spirit, not to the Pope.

15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. Feed my sheep…

Peter had denied Jesus three times, which is why he does this. It isn’t to say that Peter is any greater than the other disciples, rather it is only because of Peter’s denial that Jesus does this. All of the other disciples are called to feed Jesus’ sheep too. This scripture says nothing about the supremacy of the Pope.

The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built:

If you look at the greek there are two words being used as rock. There is Petros, from which we get Peter, and Petra, which signifies a much larger rock. What Jesus is saying then is “Thou art Little Rock, and on this Big Rock I shall build my Church. He’s not saying that rock is Peter necessarily, but he’s saying that it shall be built on the statement Peter had just made.

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Loose on earth… The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted.

No, not at all. Jesus is giving his disciples authority regarding halakha or how to live the faith. It has nothing to do with Indulgences. That’s Catholics reading their own beliefs into scripture.

Which is really what you are doing, reading your beliefs in verses that if you weren’t Catholic would not see as proof texts.

Glad to see there is so much pure hate for Catholics on here – you guys are nut jobs. Must be jealous of our papal succession or the fact that Peter founded OUR church on the rock.

Villanova on March 10, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Jealousy?!? I don’t think so.

My freedom in Jesus Christ makes me not even try it.

And if pointing out the contradictions is the work of “nutjobs”, then I have a bridge to sell you.

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Thou art Peter, etc… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, John 1:42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Upon this rock, etc… The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, Matthew 7:24-25. The gates of hell, etc… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Loose on earth… The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

Seems pretty clear to me. You are correct that the church didn’t proclaim the pope as a vicar right away. They did soo in the early 400’s. So what if he doesn’t use the word “vicar” the bible is filled with vailed references to things. It is pretty clear to me that he is telling Peter that HE is the rock that he is building his church upon and that HE is responsible for “holding down” the fort while Jesus is in heaven (feeding the lambs)

The comments on weatlh are largely missing the point, as if caring for the poor was primarily an issue of money – money cannot solve the problem but we like to think it can because giving money is easy, but giving of oneself is not.

The early church was aware that weatlh isn’t the problem per se, but people who have stingy hearts and cannot be bothered to put aside their own interests or make a genuine sacrifice with their lifestyle, even if they are making large contributions out of abundance.

The woman with the ointment intended to glorify God, and for such a case, no expense is really out of place, so long as that intent remains. Judas was mainly looking out for his own interests, hence the rebuke, no matter how much good the poor might have gained from whatever Judas wasn’t intending to steal.

On the issue of sin…

Religion is concerned with telling people how they ought to live. Any religion worth its salt will be advising people on what is right and what isn’t. With apologies to the Bible-only crowd on the boards, I don’t think the essence of that kind of advice is giving people the holy book and thinking the job is done or that God will do the rest. Rabbis/priests/pastors/preachers are concerned with telling people what the words mean, and giving them lessons on Christian living. Otherwise, there really is no point to sermons if meaning is self-evident.

Do we not have papal succession from Peter (the first pope) who god said was his vicar on earth and gave him the responsibility of starting his church?

Villanova on March 10, 2008 at 2:10 PM

I hesitate to continue, because I think I’m about to make a fool of myself. But the early Church did not recognize the primacy of the Pope, the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is disputed, and God never said “the Pope is my Vicar.” The notion of the Pope as “Vicar of Christ” did not develop until much later and such language is not to be found in Holy Writ.

In Acts 8 the Council of Jerusalem was decided by James the Just, not Peter. Seeing as it took place in Jerusalem. Peter didn’t deliver any verdict. The Bishop of Rome was not thought to have the powers now granted to him.

The Church’s wealth was donated by people over the centuries as a way to honor God by beautifying the Church; should we now violate their wishes? The Pope, incidentally, lives in a simple cell in the Vatican. His lifestyle is hardly opulent.

It was also stolen, and the result of the purchase of Indulgences. Also, you speak of John 12 when Jesus rebukes Judas for objecting to Mary’s anointing of his feet. I think you are misunderstanding the point of that story. It is not saying we should give our riches to an opulent church which will horde them until the end of days. The reason Judas objected is not because he genuinely cared for the Poor, but so that he could have the money to himself. The reason Jesus rebuked him is because she was using her money to serve God, mainly him.

The Church isn’t doing that, or not nearly enough in my opinion. Purchasing expensive shoes, funny hats, and popemobiles is not akin to anointing the master’s feet and showing our utmost devotion.

The Church professes to care for the poor, and I do believe them, but they have the means to do so much more, they have the means to anoint the master’s feet, but they do not. Instead, they buy golden goblets, but the first Eucharist was with a wooden cup. Though given Catholic Theology, I completely understand why, in light of this verse, such a thing would be done. I simply reject that aspect of Catholic Theology.

I don’t believe serving the Church is the same as serving the LORD.

(1) Girotti said “ruining the environment“. I haven’t seen anything in his words about carbon emissions or manmade global warming. So unless you have a quote to that effect, stop putting words in his mouth. And also take note of the fact that Girotti is not the Pope.
We are supposed to be stewards of this earth. Does anyone not believe that “ruining the environment” is therefore seriously wrong?

(2) He did not say that being rich is wrong. What he referred to is “the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few.” In the past this has been condemned as “avarice” (not ‘gluttony’, as Morissey fluffs his theology again). It is still wrong today.
Accusations that the Church should sell all its wealth to give to the poor need to re-read the story about Christ and the woman anointing His feet with expensive ointment, and note His words to Judas when the traitor protested on exactly this point. The Church’s wealth was donated by people over the centuries as a way to honor God by beautifying the Church; should we now violate their wishes? The Pope, incidentally, lives in a simple cell in the Vatican. His lifestyle is hardly opulent.

(4) Morissey claims to be a practicing Catholic, but anyone who enthusiastically urges his readers to buy a copy of Playboy (which Morissey has done – he was so thrilled to be listed in their top-ten bloggers’ list) is not a practicing Catholic in any common understanding of that term. Lots of people (Kennedy, Pelosi…) claim to be practicing Catholics. Doesn’t mean they are. People like this should pick up the Catholic catechism and inform themselves concerning the Faith to which they supposedly adhere before trying to act as spokesmen.

Keljeck on March 10, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Do we not have papal succession from Peter (the first pope) who god said was his vicar on earth and gave him the responsibility of starting his church?

WayWard Fundamentalist Christian on March 10, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Just one point I need to make, it’s hard for the Bible to say anything about pollution or genetic manipulation. The writers never had to deal with these issues, and so God never had to tell them how. So it’s a matter of interpretation, guided by the Holy Spirit, as to what God would command us regarding these issues. I see no problem with the Catholic Church pronouncing their decisions, as any other church body does.

I had hopes when our new Pope was first elected that he would be a strict ‘constructionist’; instead he has already delved into trendy Euro-Socialist thinking on several issues–and now this one.

The Pope didn’t say this, it’s an interview from the official Vatican newspaper.

There is of course absolutely no Bibilical or even traditional church precedent for ruling that littering is a ’sin’–the closest we can come to any global ecological pronouncement on the subject would be to ‘be fruitful and multiply’.

I disagree. In Genesis we are told that the LORD has given us dominion over the Earth. This means we have control, and I’d suppose we would do good to take care of it. Seeing as it is God’s creation, I suppose it would be a matter of sin to defile it seeing as “sin” is defined as that which gets in the way of our relationship with God.

Not that I’m saying pollution is sinful in the sense that individuals should repent, or agreeing with St. Gore of Tennessee, but to say that it’s not Biblical, or that there is no Tradition regarding taking care of the Earth, is wrong. We should do our best to protect the Earth. Now, the debate becomes whether human caused Global Warming is real, and what can we do to help without hurting ourselves.

Glad to see there is so much pure hate for Catholics on here – you guys are nut jobs. Must be jealous of our papal succession or the fact that Peter founded OUR church on the rock.

Yeah, I don’t like the hate either, but your second sentence is debatable. :)

Does the Catholic Church feel that the Bible wasn’t good enough the first time around that they need to add what God deems as damning?
They’ve been doing it for years.

Right – lets just go ask Barack’s protestant “minister” about adding stuff to the bible.