VATICAN CITY (AP) - Next up for Pope Benedict XVI: a welcoming nation that wants to get to know him.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Jacquelyn Martin)In preparation for Pope Benedict XVI's upcoming visit to Washington, banners have been hung at the Catholic University of American, which is adjacent to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, at right, in Washington on Monday April 14, 2008.
Benedict's first trip to the United States as pope begins Tuesday — a five-day visit to Washington and New York, including a speech at the United Nations. Anyone expecting strident speeches from the man once called "God's rottweiler" for his role defending Roman Catholic doctrine will be disappointed.
Benedict will deliver an unwavering message that society needs religious values, but this intellectual pontiff will do it in the most positive way possible. After making relatively little headway in his efforts to re-ignite the faith in Europe, America's roughly 65 million Catholics seem anxious to hear him.
"He has a way of helping us see what the Gospel and what the Catholic faith tradition asks of us that is challenging and not frightening," Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl, Benedict's host in the first leg of the five-day trip, told The Associated Press.
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican secretary of state, notes that "religion is deeply rooted in American life despite the separation of church and state."
A March poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found nearly three-quarters of U.S. Catholics viewed Benedict positively. Among the U.S. public at large, 52 percent viewed the pope favorably, but about one-third said they didn't know enough about him to answer.
Nearly three years after he assumed the papacy following the death of John Paul II, the pope's trip to America will change that.
"The intention behind my visit ... is to reach out spiritually to all Catholics in the United States," Benedict said in a video greeting to the U.S. ahead of the trip.
Catholic leaders say any perception of Benedict as a mirthless scold is unfair — a hangover from his long tenure as head of the Vatican office that enforces orthodoxy. Bishops and others describe him as a shy, humble man with a keen sense of humor and a love of teaching. Long before he went to the Vatican, Benedict, a theologian, was a university professor.
The Rev. David M. O'Connell, president of the Catholic University of America, noted that John Paul emerged on the world scene at the relatively young age of 58 when he was elected pope. He eventually became a grandfather figure for the church as his pontificate stretched to 26 years.
Benedict was already 78 when he was elected in 2005, and has been perceived as a "wisdom figure" for Catholics from the start, O'Connell said.
"This pope, without in any way trying to be critical of his predecessor, has emphasized Jesus Christ, not the person of the pope, as critically significant," O'Connell said.
"The other pope used his personality to spread the Gospel and the Gospel message, and he did it very effectively. This pope knows he doesn't have a rock star personality and he's using what his greatest gifts are to get the message out there. And his greatest gifts are intellectual and pastoral."
Benedict has struggled against the tide of secularism, but may see the United States — which he visited five times as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — as a chance to gain ground.
In recently receiving the new U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon, Benedict welcomed what he called the American people's "historic" appreciation of the role of religion in shaping public policy.
He used the occasion to condemn abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage, praising "the efforts of so many of your fellow citizens and government leaders to ensure legal protection for God's gift of life from conception to natural death." Continue >>
RSS
Online4Him-
He who does not eat the son of god has no life. :P
The ten commandments are our guidelines toward salvation. I would like to point out that the first three of the ten commandments (nine if you are protestant :D) Are about your relationship with God. The last seven are about how you act. So seventy percent of what you do for salvation is about what you DO! Just throwing that out there.
This article “What Divides Catholics and Protestants?” along with “The Pope come to America: Evangelical Thoughts” have brought to the forefront what some of us have been debating here for months. How does one obtain salvation is the real question. Salvation is receiving Jesus Christ period; depending on him alone for our daily spiritual needs. It is not through any church denomination, priest/pastor, or ritual that one becomes saved. It is surrendering to the Holy Spirit and standing on God’s promises by faith.
Simply put, Jesus ALONE saves!
He that HATH the SON hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life – 1John 5:12.
Therefore if any man BE IN CHRIST, he is a NEW CREATURE: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new – 2Corinthians 5:17.
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that LOVED US, and WASHED us FROM OUR SINS in his own blood, - Revelation 1:5.
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious PROMISES: that BY THESE ye might be PARTAKERS of the DIVINE NATURE, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust – 2Peter 1:4.
tliml,
If I remember correctly, there were many people chiming in all at once and discussing various topics. I also remembering asking you to repeat your orininal question; so if it took two days later to answeryour question, perhaps it is in the same time frame that you repeated it. Anyways, it was answered; taj never answered my question at all.
Online-
You eventually answered it, however, it took about two days to get it out of you.
tliml,
That is untrue; if there was a continual question that I avoided, it could not be that difficult to remember and ask again.
Online-
Of course I did, I am not an elephant. However, I remember getting extremely aggravated that you could not say yes or no. I would post things like "Online- Give me a 'Yes' or a 'No' nothing else! This isn't really that hard a concept here!"
tliml,
Did you forget the question?
Online-
Because it was in like... two threads ago.
tliml,
That is not true; if it were, why not re-post it?
Online,
Don't you talk about yes or no questions. You dodged one of mine for... like 12 posts.
taj,
Should you really be trying to prove a point after your unwillingness to answer a simple Yes or No question?
online,
how did you justify the teachings of Ellen White, soul sleep, etc. against scripture when you joined the seventh day adventists??
EvanCal,
Who is the one overly concerned with their ego here?
“it does not sound like you have formally studied in seminary,” “Unlike you, I have participated in many ecumenical dialogues with Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelicals, Catholic and Orthodox for twenty years,” “I am a Pastor of a Reformed Christian Church,” and “This year I will be meeting with leaders from the United Methodist Church.”
Really, this is not the place to toot your own horn; am I supposed to be impressed or overwhelmed by these self indulged statements?
Seriously, let’s discuss the real issues here; you stated, “You have reached some very odd conclusions in scripture.”
Care to elaborate on my odd conclusions?
You refer to my scriptural posts as ANTI-Catholic shenanigans; it seems that your real objective is to placate Catholicism by neglecting to proclaim the true gospel of Christ. You seem to be well settled in the ecumenical camp, this explains much; let me guess, are you a member of the liberal WCC?
Irenaeus,
On Mary:
“Do you not see the Biblical basis for this?”
No. There are many text that specifically discuss the title of “Queen Heaven” and all of them portray this title in a negative manner, see - Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17, 18, 19, 25.
Truly, all generations should call her blessed, as a great example of faith and obedience but applying anything more than what the scriptures say is inappropriate. For example, the Immaculate Conception, her perpetual virginity, bodily assumption, etc. are all unbiblical.
Irenaeus,
Why were Timothy and Titus obliged to be faithful Paul's teaching? How did they know that Paul's teaching was true? Why did Paul even find it necessary to appoint Timothy and Titus as bishops if they had no more authority than the average pew-sitter?
Timothy was Paul’s chief associate in the ministry and was called by Paul a “beloved and faithful son in the Lord” – 1Corinthians 4:17. Paul trusted Timothy to proclaim his teachings, and what were his teachings? We do not have to guess here, both Timothy and Titus’ epistles can be read today by simply opening up one’s bible. Paul declares what teaching Timothy should proclaim, it was the Word of God –
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand – 2Timothy 4:1-6.
Bishop/Elders naturally emerged in the church through the process of time. They were not appointed to an external office. Instead, they were recognized by virtue of their seniority and spiritual service to the church. According to the New Testament, recognition of certain gifted members is something that was instinctive. Three passages in the New Testament tell us that elders were publically recognized. Elders were acknowledged in churches in Galatia (Acts 14:23). Paul had Timothy acknowledged elders in Ephesus (1Timothy 3:1). He also told Titus to recognize them in the churches in Crete (Titus 1:5). The word “ordain” in these passages does not mean to place into office. It rather carries the idea of endorsing, affirming, and showing forth what has already been happening.
We have already exhaustively discussed this topic in the article – “The ‘Roman’ in Roman Catholic” – see for reference; I agree that we should stick to one topic at a time, so let’s move forward to discuss Mary as Queen of Heaven.
O4H,
"On Mary:
Sorry, I cannot accept Catholicism’s Mary as being – 'Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.' "
Again, like we did on the topic of apostolic succession, let's narrow the focus. I asked that we simply start with the queenship of Mary. Do you not see the Biblical basis for this?
O4H,
"In Sum, although Timothy and Titus were certainly ministers appointed by an inspired apostle, and though we might loosely refer to them as “successors” to Paul, it is more than abundantly demonstrated that their authority over their respective churches was derived from their faithfulness to Paul’s teachings."
Why were Timothy and Titus obliged to be faithful Paul's teaching? How did they know that Paul's teaching was true? Why did Paul even find it necessary to appoint Timothy and Titus as bishops if they had no more authority than the average pew-sitter?
Pimp My Religious Leader
http://poleblog.polemos.net/2008/04/pimp-my-religious-leader.html
A benefit to being agnostic is one does not get caught up in the silly religious squabbles that I see on these posts about whose religious views are correct. Its interesting though to sit back and read the various biased views that are held.
Irenaeus,
On Mary:
Sorry, I cannot accept Catholicism’s Mary as being – “Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; - 1Timothy 2:5.
Irenaeus,
Does that preclude the apostles or their first delegates (bishops and presbyters) from having ‘authoritative preeminence’ over other believers?
Surely, we both have discussed this at length already –
In Sum, although Timothy and Titus were certainly ministers appointed by an inspired apostle, and though we might loosely refer to them as “successors” to Paul, it is more than abundantly demonstrated that their authority over their respective churches was derived from their faithfulness to Paul’s teachings. In no way did their authority stand alone, as something inherent in their “office”. Paul’s express command was that the teachings – not the office – had been entrusted to them by him himself and were to be passed on to other faithful men. In the following passage; Paul does not seem to be passing on an office:
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand – 2Timothy 4:1-6.
taj,
I am sure that evancal appreciates your comment but he can speak for himself. You state that your church is the only true church and then call me arrogant, how ironic.
Taj,
It seems that our feelings are mutual; you feel that I am attacking or taunting you by merely highlighting what Catholicism teaches and questioning whether those teachings are really supported by scripture. Now if you feel that is an attack, well, I can’t help that. You can testify here that I have openly apologized to you when you felt otherwise. The 50, 000 + claims are irrelevant; as if any church affiliation can actually save someone. The real issue is this; do we know Jesus Christ for ourselves.
At the same time, Catholics declare that their church is the only true church and their official position anathematizes those who to trust Christ alone for their salvation, well, not only do I disagree with that from a biblical position but it is also a direct attack upon Protestant Christians. Now, I do not believe that Catholicism will retreat from these teachings but know that many Protestants will not retreat from proclaiming salvation through Christ alone. Hence the debates continue.
At any rate, these debates will definitely help us all to become more acquainted with the issues and help us all become better apologists.
Online,
I just read your response to Evan cal, do you even realize anymore how condescending you are to people? What does it matter if the person in a newcomer? the person is respectfully making a comment. "Perhaps you should have taken this into consideration before speaking presumptuously!" You are so unbelievably arrogant at times.
"Hopefully, you do not believe in a false dichotomy between the clergy and the laity". Wow the old bait and switch technique you use a million times. Get the person defending a position they never held in the first place. "You speak of your position (pastor) as if you have preeminence over other believers"...I didn't get that and he also mentioned he has theological differences with Catholic teachings, but he did it in a way you never do....respectfully. Then you ended your comments by once again putting yourself on your little comment throne with the thumbs up you probably give yourself and point out differences you have with the Catholic Church. Personally I don't mind defending Church teachings because you have encouraged me to read things I probably wouldn't have previously read...so thank you online even if you are incredibly arrogant at times.
O4H,
“You speak of your position (pastor) as if you have preeminence over other believers; I pray that is not the case. Surely, you believe in the priesthood of all believers, right? Hopefully, you do not believe in a false dichotomy between the clergy and the laity.”
That does not necessarily preclude one from having legitimate authority above another. Surely, you believe in the priesthood of all believers, right? Does that preclude the apostles or their first delegates (bishops and presbyters) from having ‘authoritative preeminence’ over other believers?
“The Catholic view of Mary is radically different from how scripture defines her; according to the Catholic Catechism, she is described as –“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things. . .” pg. 252, (966).”
Let's first address the queenship of Mary. Mary’s title of queen is very biblical and very Jewish. Many Protestants fail to recognize this fact. Mary is queen by virtue of her Son being the king. Why? In the Davidic kingdom, the mother of the king was always the queen (or queen-mother), not the wife of the king as in medieval times in feudal England or Spain. In fact, the queen in the Davidic kingdom had a prominent place in the throne room – the king’s right hand (e.g., I Kgs. 2:19ff). There are numerous references in the OT with regard to the office and honor of the queen-mother.
So, hailing Mary as queen is biblical. In fact, the greeting ‘Hail’ is typical of a greeting made towards someone of significant status, such as royalty. The same Greek word is used when hailing Caesar, or used in the phrase, “Hail, King of the Jews.” So the angel Gabriel was hailing the young Jewess out of honor and veneration because God had chosen her… the only time that I know of in scripture where an angel honors a human being (it’s usually the other way around). Mary is not to be adored (worshiped), for she is a mere creature. She is honored, however, above every other created being by virtue of her privilege. Think about it, God bestowed the highest honor upon her by choosing her to be the mother of His Son. No other woman would ever have this honor. I couldn’t possibly give more honor to Mary than God already has.
EvanCal,
I appreciate your concerns; however, the Catholics on this board and I have been debating these issues off and on for months, though I would not expect you to understand since you may be a new comer here on the CP. Perhaps you should have taken this into consideration before speaking presumptuously!
Everyone here is at liberty to speak what is on their heart; however, you are defending an institution that anathematizes all those who have placed their trust in Christ alone - that would include you by the way. I do not know you personally, so I cannot assume to know your motives here but I do know that the simplicity of the gospel cannot be compromised. Today it seems like some Christians are more concerned about placating others when they should be proclaiming the gospel unashamedly.
You speak of your position (pastor) as if you have preeminence over other believers; I pray that is not the case. Surely, you believe in the priesthood of all believers, right? Hopefully, you do not believe in a false dichotomy between the clergy and the laity.
The Catholic view of Mary is radically different from how scripture defines her; according to the Catholic Catechism, she is described as –“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things. . .” pg. 252, (966).
It also states, “Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . .therefore the Blessed Virgin in invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.” – pg. 252, (969).
If you think me unloving for frankly highlighting unbiblical dogmas, what do you think of all the anathemas that Rome declares and their claim to be the only true church? There is a need for us all to be more loving but true Christian love will never negate biblical truth.
TAJ-
You are forgetting one thing, the people who attacked the Spartans actually AGREED on one or two things!
Dear Mr. Online person,
Shame on you! You are not a Pastor and it does not sound like you have formally studied in seminary and yet you throw open your Bible and reach some very odd conclusions in Scripture.
I may also disagree with Catholics on some doctrines, but I also disagree with Baptists on their doctrine of Baptism and I also have an issue with Pentacostals and their doctrine on having to speak in tongues to be saved. I may disagree with them, but as a Reformed Pastor I accept them as my brothers and sisters in Christ because none of these Churches deny Christ as Lord and Savior.
Unlike you, I have participated in many ecumenical dialogues with Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelicals, Catholic and Orthodox for twenty years. This year I will be meeting with leaders from the United Methodist Church. You, online, do not represent the majority of Protestants. You are a poor ambassador of the Biblical faith because you lack love in your heart. Your witness would never bring me into your church. Only a witness of love guided by the Truths of the Bible would make any impact.
Please stop your ANTI-Catholic shenanigans. I accept them as my Christian brothers and sisters and there are many more millions in the Protestant Church today who agree with me and we will continue to work with Catholics so that someday in the future we will be one as we were in the beginning.
Well, we can see from this post that the divide between Catholics and Protestants is still alive and well. Maybe this will help.
Not too long ago I was being fairly critical upon other church methods of worship. And, as we can see, I wasn't the only one. Then God spoke to me and said "Some people worship this way, and some that way. It's not necessarily how they worship, but why".
Beloved, after hearing from God, I needed to ask myself some questions:
Why am I going to church? Am I truly wanting to be by His side, or am I just trying to avoid Hell by performing a weekly ritual?
When I go to church, do I sing songs about God, or do I sing songs to God?
When I go to church, does the Holy Spirit abide there, or is He just an academic part of history?
----------------------
Beloved, in the end, it doesn't necessarily matter how one worships, but why. We all need to ask ourselves these questions, both Protestant and Catholic. It's not about the church, it never has been. It's all about Him, and will always be.
Someone once said "If God were into conformity, they why did He make no two snowflakes alike"? I agree.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Online for helping us to be better apologists about our faith. The great saints and martyrs of the Church were the ones who had to constantly defend their faith - that is what Online is calling for us to do. His taunts merely cause us to defend more ardently. The people who come on these boards come from one of the 50,000 + different protestant denominations and they come here to attack our faith. Like the Spartans of ancient times let's defend our faith as vigilant as we can using words as our defense. As this article states: "I was struck, the Holy Father just seemed very much energized,". Online helps to energize me in my faith, so thanks online and keep those attacks coming
tliml,
Great, perhaps now that you found it, it would be a good idea to read it.
Online-
Thank you for making yourself chief of my affairs. Yes I have found your bible. Have you found your Klan hood yet?
Blue:
It is true, you are wrong. Happy? Now as for your Golden Throne... I wish you could see the multi-millionaires of the Protestant religion. (The pope may have a golden throne, but he does not get paid and he actually lives a fairly simple life) The Pope has his house, food, and living expenses covered by the church. Your Protestant church catalysts are so wealthy it is not even funny... as for contraception... it is wrong... oh... my... god...
HA! Look at that... two people gave my previous comment a thumbs up. It's ok guys, if my comment has nothing to do with the argument, I would rather not be like a Protestant and give it thumbs up just because it is posted by someone of my own religion. Let's not sink to "heathan" level here.
Once i heard this mr. benedict practically declare war against contraception and criticize non-catholic churches as not real churches, i thought... how does this man think he can get to know america...go back to your golden throne
taj,
Instead of focusing on where I have been; why not support your dogmas from scripture? The “claims” that you make regarding your faith cannot be supported by them. You have a difficult time with answering a simple – Yes or No question; should you really be trying to prove a point?
Online,
Do you want to know what is hilarious about your continual condemnation of purgatory? It's the fact that when you left Catholicism you went to the Seventh Day Adventists and their "soul sleep"..."you sure demonstrated that from scripture".
msn,
It is funny how you accuse me of taking things out of context when you twist and distort scripture to support dogmas foreign to the first century church; for example, Purgatory, uh, yeah, you sure demonstrated that from scripture.
It is funny how you try to equate Catholicism with that of the early biblical Christianity; Catholicism began to take shape during Constantine’s reign and eventually engulfed Europe with its arrogant claims; you continue to elevate dogmas that neither Jesus nor the apostles taught. Hmmm. . . Who is the one taking things beyond that which is written?
Trying to support the papacy from Isaiah 22 is disingenuous to say the least and Matthew 16:18 speaks of Peter’s “declaration that Jesus was the Christ”, this revelation is what Christ built his Church upon (himself). It is “CHRIST” which the church is built upon not Peter.
dgnymn, you say "The Gospel is NOT Catholicism!!!! NOT ONE BIT!!!!" Have you ever read The Didache (the teachings of the Apostles) written while the Apostles were still alive? You're going to find the word Eucharist in there...
Have you ever read Ignatius of Antioch, who in 110 A.D. writes the name of the early Christian Church, known as "Catholic?"
My friend in Christ, the real question is if, like modern-day unknowing Pauls, you found out that the Church you've been persecuting is the one that Jesus founded. Would you come home for one reason and one reason only? Because for Catholics, it's all about Jesus. We're Catholic because we're Christian. We know our Shepherd and we hear His voice. We know the house built on Rock, unmoved by 2,000 years of human stupidity by those within its ranks, myself included.
My friend in Christ, come home.
dgnymn,
"What...the presumption that he is the successor to Peter; that Mary is the Queen of Heaven; that we should pray to the saints: that we should give indulgences: that we should do the Mass and the Eucharist????"
Well said!
ONline,
Does everyone on this board have to use this board to educate you on the WHOLE BIBLE. You take bits and pieces out of context. Prime Minister is absolutely Biblical! Did you ever read the Old Testament??? Isaiah 22 is a prefigurement of Matt 16:18, notice Eliakim getting the keys to open and shut for the Kingdom of David and then in Matt Jesus give the Keys to Peter to bind and lose. You see Isaiah 22 reveals a new dynastic office of Prime Minister to the King from the House of David. David was the King and Eliakim was made Chief Minister with these Keys. But who is the KING OF KINGS? Jesus!! So when Jesus talks to Peter it isn't about earthly royal kingdom like David's it is about being in charge of God's people on earth.
When I say read the early church fathers, I tell you to read them because they were discussing the Scripture versus longer than there have been Protestants. We Catholics just think context is important and that gaining wisdom from those who were taught by the Apostles seem a far greater guide than from someone who just opened up their Bible and told the rest of us how the Holy Spirit guides you.
The Gospel is NOT Catholicism!!!! NOT ONE BIT!!!! Have we forgotten the truths of the Reformation and what those great saints had to suffer due to the Papacy and all the Popish claims to sovereign rule in the world??!!?? Give me a break!!! Benedict should stay in Rome, because I do not care to know what he knows!!! What...the presumption that he is the successor to Peter; that Mary is the Queen of Heaven; that we should pray to the saints: that we should give indulgences: that we should do the Mass and the Eucharist???? C'mon, folks...this is one of the primary false cults in the world today!!! We have forgotten because we have forgotten our history!!!
REPENT, FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND!!!!
Taj,
It is funny that you would ask me a question when you failed to answer mine with a simple YES or NO. Msn had to speak in your behalf and bail you out; at least he was honest enough to declare what he truly believes. Dancing around a simple YES or NO question was interesting; have you finally translated that tough English sentence yet?
tliml,
One question; have you finally found your bible yet?
msn,
“Where you and I agree and differ is that Jesus IS the Spiritual Head of the Church and the Pope is not, the Pope is simply the prime minister.”
You are right when you say, we differ on the pope being prime minister; where is that in the scriptures? Jesus specifically said the Holy Spirit would come in his name to lead, teach, and guide – John 14:26 & John 16:13.
I have studied enough church history to realize that Rome as long since abandoned the true gospel of Jesus Christ and has usurped an authority that is not hers to begin with. You council me to read the early Christian writings but at the same time you neglect the clear teachings of scripture to keep the man made traditions of Rome. You failed to support Purgatory from the scriptures and I am not expecting you to do anything less with all the other dogmas.
msnchris,
Something you might not be aware of is that a Jesuit can NEVER become Pope. It has never happened and it will never happen because the Jesuits have taken a pledge not to become Pope. However, msnchris you are right about their liberal ways and it hasn't escaped our pope. Pope Benedict XVI has publicly reminded members of the Jesuit religious of their vow of obedience to the pontiff and said their main job was to interact with modern culture. The Vatican has had a sometimes tense relationship with the Jesuits.
In a highly publicized incident, Pope John Paul II named a temporary replacement to lead the order after Rev. Pedro Arrupe suffered a crippling stroke in 1981, brushing aside Arrupe's choice for an interim leader in an unprecedented change-of-command.
You are right there are liberal elements in the Church who want to destroy the strong moral leadership of the Church that is why we have to pray for our spiritual leaders and especially our papa, who as you pointed out is our president/prime minister and not our Lord and Savior. Seriously Online how long were you a Catholic to get the two confused??
Oh... look... our church leaders discussing moral values... What do your church leaders discuss? I believe it has something to do with whether they hang the black man that they captured with a long rope or a short rope. It is kind of funny to imagine thought... (Deep Narrator Voice) "The pope... has arrived... he will be addressing moral values... but first he is having a birthday lunch with his buddies."
Yes... I took my time to read every page of Catholicism for Dummies. It is quite a well-written book, it has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur so anything in it about Church Doctrine goes... That means you wilderness ;)
By the way... I am going to keep hammering you with "Peter Stories" until you at LEAST admit that he had supremecy over the other apostles. "I give you the keys to heaven" "THOU ART PETER, and upon this rock I built my church." JESUS WAS TALKING TO PETER, NOT HIMSELF! If you pretend that he was saying "Oh yea, guess what, you ARE Peter, and I am building this church upon myself" you are a blind fool! PERIOD! Let's also see... In Acts, Peter and... jeese forget who else... were preaching Jesus' word. The guards captured them and brought them before the Sanhedrin. The bible says "Peter answered, because he was full of the Holy Spirit" mhm... When the apostles were visited by the Spirit... the wording is different... check it out. So... since the wording is different for PETER and nobody else... he obviously has supremecy over the others... COMMON!
Sorry guys, been a long time. I have one question for all you Protestants out there. In the bible, before they ate with Jesus they prayed and fasted. Before they ordained they prayed and fasted. Before they preached they prayed... with fasting... Protestants have no laws prescribing fasts. Prophet made SUCH a big deal out of something the bible DIDN'T say that we DO (Baptism by sprinkling, since some poor infant might not want to have to choke on water... :P just a guess) ... ... ... ... Kettle? Pot. Pot? Kettle...
Online,
Your bias is so strong probably because of your church hopping that you are a prime example of faith without reason. I can say AMEN to everything you wrote about Jesus. I agree and AMEN AMEN!
Where you and I agree and differ is that Jesus IS the Spiritual Head of the Church and the Pope is not, the Pope is simply the prime minister. Jesus is the King, and the Pope was entrusted with the keys to the Palace as Prime Minister. Some people might losely use the description that the Pope is the Head of the Church, and this is not a Catholic description. This is a secular description. The Pope is simply the Prime Minister and Chief Shepherd based on Scripture who has primacy among all other Shepherds who all serve the King of Kings to bring HIS FLOCK unto to HIM.
Since you can't figure out what church to stay in, then keep studying the early church. If you do this is what will happen. You will leave ND', for a Lutheran or Trad. Anglican Church, then you move to an Orthodox and then finally home to the Catholic Church. It could take you a long time, but I will pray this will happen and the moment you return I will know that you authentically followed the Truth of Christ no matter where it leads you. NEVER BE CONTENT with your relationship with Christ keep searching for Him and Keep loving Him. I don't want you to just read the early fathers to create a more genuine style of worship, I want you to experience the fullness of Christ love which can be found in both WORD & SACRAMENT.
Jesus loves you and I don't doubt that you, my kind of whacky fundamentalist friend will find more of His Truth if you surrender yourself through prayer to Christ. That you will read how the earliest Christians interpreted all those passages that you have memorized much differently than you have stated them. Then it will hit you. Let Him lead you and don't let your ego take charge. Let Jesus be everthing to you and you will find your way home to full embrace of everything Christ has prepared for you.
Because of Jesus, Chris
PS. I am not surprised you found a Jesuit who would say that, there Soceity has been a real pain lately with all their liberal ways. We do have an accurate count on the Popes, he was mistaken like many Jesuits today. Only the Pope is infallible in faith and morals from the seat of Peter.
Sorry was busy with other things, but wanted to thank Online for posting so many comments on this board. I hope that it will go to the popular section and more people will have an opportunity to read this excellent article and the other ones about the Pope in the US. As the article points out the US wants to get to know him better and this is a great opportunity. A lot of good things are going to come out of this visit and people will find their way back to the Catholic Church.
msn,
To begin with, the Scriptures tell us clearly, repeatedly, and thoroughly that Christ Himself is the Head of His Church (Colossians 1.18; 2.8-10, 18-19; I Corinthians 11.3; Ephesians 1.19-23; 4.14-16; 5.23). He Himself is the Head of His Body, and the Source of its unity. All of these Scriptures were written after Jesus had ascended to the right hand of the Father, and His Church remained on the earth. He was at that time the Head of His Church, and nothing has occurred to change that. He remains the Head of His Church today. Nowhere in the New Testament (or the Old) is there any indication that there is a second, "visible"—as Rome claims—head of the Body.
Christ is all sufficient. When He ascended to the right hand of the Father, the Holy Spirit came as His Vicar on the Earth (John 14.16-17, 26; 15.26; 16.7-13). The Church doesn't have a "visible head". Our faith is in the things that are "not seen" (see e.g., II Corinthians 4.18; 5.7; Hebrews 11.1) Peter wrote of Christ, "Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." Paul wrote to the Colossians, "If ye then were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." Jesus is fully capable of fulfilling His office as Head of His Church while seated at the Father's right hand. He has not relegated that office to anyone else.
Simply stated, neither is Rome's bishop today linked to Peter by any unbroken chain of successors. The supposed lineage has been often and irretrievably broken. There have been numerous times when multiple claimants to the papacy were seated in opposition one to another (antipopes). This office has been known to have been sold to the highest bidder. Only looking back with the benefit of hindsight does Rome now pick one of them as the 'true pope'. There have also been many times when there was no bishop of Rome for years at a time (e.g. 304-308, 638-640, 1085-86, 1241-43, 1269-71, 1292-94, 1314-16, 1415-17).
Former Jesuit Peter De Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ, speaking of John Paul II:
In the Vatican's lists he is called the 263rd pontiff, but the number is not certain. There have been times when no one knew who was the rightful pope of several claimants. Moreover, it was only in the year 1073 that Pope Gregory VI forbade Catholics to call anyone pope except the Bishop of Rome. Before then, many bishops were fondly addressed as 'pope' or 'papa'.
msn,
Though I disagree with these claims:
“There was no other Church in the beginning but the Catholic Church with Peter as its Prime Minister”,
“The Pope has the power to bind and lose and can excommunicate anyone if they create a heresy or actively involve themselves in intrinsic evil”,
“When people are Baptized they are not baptized a Lutheran or a Baptist or an Evangelical, they are Baptized a Christian of the Universal Church and therefore all Christians whether they know it or like it are "subject to the Pope" because of his Biblical primacy established by Christ himself and prefigured in Isaiah 22 as a dynastic office”,
and “that baptism saves.”
I do thank you for being honest enough to declare your true beliefs by simply saying – Yes.
ONline,
Unam Sanctum is theologically accurate. I did a research paper when I was at Gordon Conwell and I tried to prove that Vatican II contradicted Unam Sanctum. I failed. The reason that I failed is that while I was doing my research paper I had to use the context of the time on which Unam Sactum was made and why. The Goal of Pope Boniface VIII as my research concluded was to make sure Philip of France knew he couldn't take over the Church and without being subject to the Pope there is no Salvation is theolgically correct because of binding and losing. In 1302 the times called for the Pope to be very explicit. The Pope has the power to bind and lose and can excommunicate anyone if they create a heresy or actively involve themselves in intrinsic evil.
Unam Sanctum doesn't say that we have to be Subjects of the Roman Pontiff, it says we are Subject to the Roman Pontiff which is a big difference and it is important to make that distinction. Moreover, there was no such thing as Protestants at the time so context is important and this is why it doesn't contradict Vatican II. This is why Vatican II states that anyone who is baptized in the Christian Trinitarian formula they are imperfectly united to the Catholic Church through the Sacrament of Baptism and Subject to the Roman Pontiff whether implicitly or explicitly.
There was no other Church in the beginning but the Catholic Church with Peter as its Prime Minister, and as the other Apostles were subject to him not subjects of him. We are all Subjects of Jesus Christ who is our king and Savior and Christ put Peter and his successors in charge of this Church. When people are Baptized they are not baptized a Lutheran or a Baptist or an Evangelical, they are Baptized a Christian of the Universal Church and therefore all Christians whether they know it or like it are "subject to the Pope" because of his Biblical primacy established by Christ himself and prefigured in Isaiah 22 as a dynastic office.
So, Yes to your question both implicitly and explicitly. Those who reject Baptism will not be saved. So, ONline if you were baptized the proper way you are imperfectly united to the Catholic Church and subject to the Pope whether you like it or not.
“Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE)...”
You have no idea? This sentence is not in Greek or Hebrew; it is in plain English. How could this sentence say anything different from what it says? You continue to post statements about your church being the one true church . . . but then get upset when others challenge your claim, yes, I do not understand that.
I am not asking you for an alternative explanation, I am asking you if you believe that statement to be true – Yes or No.
Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE)...please, I have no idea of what context this statement was made, was he talking about Papal infallibility with regards to Church doctrine or something else. I know why don't you just do something novel and stick to the article written above? We could discuss comments like: A March poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found nearly three-quarters of U.S. Catholics viewed Benedict positively or The Pope has a way of helping us see what the Gospel and what the Catholic faith tradition asks of us that is challenging and not frightening or Bishops and others describe him as a shy, humble man with a keen sense of humor and a love of teaching or this Pope, without in any way trying to be critical of his predecessor, has emphasized Jesus Christ, not the person of the Pope, as critically significant...there are a lot of good statements in this article
Why is it that every time you are questioned for a specific answer, you side step the issue? I read your view on infallibility but you did not give me a direct answer. So I will ask it again; do you believe that statement – YES or NO?
Oh, please; there you go using the “hate” word again; how convenient. So, everyone who disagrees with your “one true church claim” is hatful, huh? Instead of answering a simple yes or no question, you want to through in gender, race, sexual preference, religion, etc. If that is not pathetic, what is?
You once peppered me for a direct Yes or No question; uh, did I answer it? Yes I did. So, why won’t you do the same?
Why don't you just go back to the article that you asked me a few hours ago, the same question, and then copy and paste my answer here? I mean for some reason you seem to be overjoyed with my answer...your hatred for the Catholic Church is just really pathetically sad. You're like a person who is overly interested in bashing a gender, race, sexual preference, religion, etc. It just comes across as really sad and pathetic.
Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy). He wrote, in part:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
DO YOU BELIEVE THIS?
YES or NO?
As you usual, you are unwilling to answer; yes or no?
I already answered your question previously, but am glad that you remembered your question.
I always find your advice funny in light of the fact that when you left Catholicism you went to the scripturally rich Ellen White Seventh Day Adventists.
Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy). He wrote, in part:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
DO YOU BELIEVE THIS?
Come on now, do you seriously believe this statement - “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”?
This one many fallacies that Rome teaches!
If you think that God wanted 50,000 Christian denominations with hundreds more being founded every week being founded on sola scriptura then that is your opinion. However, I'll stick with the 1 Roman Catholic with the Pope as the head of the Church. There are so many different interpretations of scripture and yours is just one of thousands...who is right? I know from your anonymous posts on a comment board that you think you are but I'll stick with the Roman Catholic Church, it was good enough for the early Christian Fathers and it is good enough for me
“because you might realize that the Roman Catholic Church is what the early Christian Fathers are talking about.”
The real funny thing is how you always appeal to the church fathers and your church to prove your position instead of God’s Word. I understand your reason for doing so; it is difficult to support dogmas not found in scripture.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ – Colossians 2:8.
FIRST, thank you CP for the great coverage of the Pope's first. As for "FIRST study the scriptures before they venture off reading anything else. The church fathers do have some good things to say, however, their writings need to be read in light of what the scriptures already say; why? Because they were heavily influenced by Gnostic teachings and not everything they have said is biblically orthodox"....or why? because you might realize that the Roman Catholic Church is what the early Christian Fathers are talking about. I always find your advice funny in light of the fact that when you left Catholicism you went to the scripturally rich Ellen White Seventh Day Adventists.
continued:
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned – 1Corinthians 2:10-14.
Fifth, the Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.
I would encourage others to FIRST study the scriptures before they venture off reading anything else. The church fathers do have some good things to say, however, their writings need to be read in light of what the scriptures already say; why? Because they were heavily influenced by Gnostic teachings and not everything they have said is biblically orthodox.
First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not in effect as an organization during the first couple hundred years of the Christian church. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, Christianity first began in Palestine before spreading to other regions in spite of Rome’s claim that they can trace the papacy back to Peter.
Second, the Christian church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, they discover what is already authentic. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me..."(John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, the Catholic Church is not following the voice of Christ.
Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament, which Christ and the apostles appealed to. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament, which is part of the Bible? It didn't, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired. The Jews knew through the Spirit of God what was inspired of God!
Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men. To make such a claim is, in effect, claiming the God himself is incapable of revealing his Word to the hearts of men. It is only through the illumination of the Holy Spirit can one understand any truth-
KoneWone2,
Thanks for sharing; here is another good book by Michael de Semlyen to consider, entitled, "All Roads Lead to Rome? - The Ecumenical Movement."
I feel really sorry for those trapped inside the Roman Catholic Organization. They are so blind that it takes a miracle to unplug their deaf ears and open their blind eyes. There is no other hope except in the LORD Jesus Christ alone. I mean to say, most Roman Catholics are lovely people but they are deceived lovely people and that is the fact of the matter.
A Summary Chart of the differences between Biblical Truth and Catholicism
by Richard Bennett
“Thy Word is Truth”
John 17:17
http://www.the-highway.com/rcsummary_Bennett.html
Pope Bendict's Denunciation of the True Church Exposes His own System
by Richard Bennett and Michael de Semlyen
http://www.the-highway.com/denunciation_Bennett.html
There is a lot of speculation that the Pope will chastise some of the Catholic educational institutions and I hope he does it. If it means that the Church has to close down a few schools etc. then so be it. Some of the Catholic educational institutions are not teaching Church teachings and are causing confusion which will cause divisions. Protestants and Catholics are in a war against secular society and God willing he will unite the faithful. You are 100% right:
We must all preach Jesus, Jesus, Jesus from the rooftops until all come home to our Lord and Savior!!!!
msnchris,
Thanks for your testimony. I post on this comment board for one reason: to hopefully have evangelicals come into the Catholic Church? why? because I know they will not convert due to the Saints, Mary, the music at mass, the architecture, writings of the Pope, etc. They will most likely convert due to the beliefs of the early Christian Fathers and the history/foundation of the Catholic Church which is still followed to this day. That is the reason the President of the Evangelical Theological Society gave last year for his conversion. We NEED to have conservatives in the Church because we are in for some rough times in the near future (my opinion) and it is only a matter of time before the evil members of the Church, as we saw with the priest pedophiles, try to overtake the Church - Satan is VERY powerful. Thank God we have a great Pope at the moment, but as a lay person I have a responsibility to bring members into the Church who believe in the teachings of the Church and don't want them to change. I believe what is happening in the Episcopalian Church should be a warning for all us.
Also,
I loved being a Baptist then Calvinist. I loved Scripture and these people from these Tradtions gave me my belief in Jesus Christ. I just want to make sure everyone knows that I have no ill feelings about being Protestant. Being Protestant gave me my Love for Jesus Christ and I learned from many Godly people who I still treasure. Within 20 years I saw countless divisions from my fellow Pastors' Churches. I would guess I witnessed no less that 20 divisions in 20 years. It was so sad because basically at a local level I saw friends sepparate who had known each other for years. It was heart renching.
You are right about needing a hiearchy to Interpret Scripture and I found it in the Bible and it pointed to His Church that He founded. It was councils and the final court of appeals or approval was always the Bishop of Rome who had the KEYS.
Becoming Catholic was a calling from God to join the fullness of His Son's revelation in word and in Sacrament. I am humbled by this vocation. Irregardless of denomination, I pray that we all put on Christ to be windows to others for our Risen Lord. We must all preach Jesus, Jesus, Jesus from the rooftops until all come home to our Lord and Savior.
Amen TAJ,
About a year ago I went to a conference where there were over 1,000 former Protestant Ministers who had come into the Catholic Church within the last 10 years. They like me started reading the Early Church Fathers because like most Pastors today who have to reinvent things each weekend to keep it interesting and keep the people coming in the door, we had to try something different. Well, my congregation wanted to have worship like how the Apostles and how the Early Christians had it. So, I took about three years to discover these Early Church Fathers and do some deep Scripture Study on both New and Old.
First we started taking communion every Sunday and then we started creating a Liturgy that was based on the Didache, ACTS and many other writings in the first few centuries. After about a year of this a Catholic guest came into our Church and thanked me after our Service and said this was very Catholic for a Protestant Church. He was just on vacation seeing family.
I finally realized the Truth. I became Catholic within a year and have never looked back.
Scripture would not call us to submit to those who had no real authority over us (Heb. 13:17; Acts 20:28). I'm a Catholic and when I go to Church, I also receive the scripture...I personally don't believe you can have one without the other. I'm excited with the Pope being in the US and love reading these articles!!!!
The Christian Church today is split into literally tens of thousands of denominations with hundreds of new divisions arising daily. Much of the responsibility for this divisiveness rests with the doctrine of solo scriptura. When each individual’s conscience becomes the final authority for that individual, differences of opinion will occur. When people feel strongly enough about their individual interpretations, they separate from those they believe to be in error. In the world today, we have millions of believers and churches convinced of thousands of mutually contradictory doctrines, and all of them claim to base their beliefs on the authority of Scripture alone.
Not only has solo scriptura contributed heavily to this division and sectarianism, it can offer no possible solution. Solo scriptura is the ecclesiastical equivalent of a nation with a constitution but no court of law to interpret that constitution. Both can lead to chaos. At best solo scriptura can offer an abstract doctrinal statement to the effect that “Scripture” is the sole authority. But using Scripture alone, it cannot tell us what “Scripture” is or what it means. It simply cannot resolve differences of interpretation, and the result is more and more division and schism. The resolution of theological differences requires the possibility of authoritatively defining the propositional doctrinal content of Christianity, and it requires the possibility of an authoritative ecclesiastical “Supreme Court?’ Since neither of these possibilities are allowed within the framework of solo scriptura, there can be no possibility of resolution.
Basically each person decides for him or herself what the essential doctrines of Christianity are, each person creates his/her own creed from scratch, and concepts such as orthodoxy and heresy become completely obsolete. The concept of Christianity itself becomes obsolete because it no longer has any meaningful objective definition. Since solo scriptura has no means by which Scripture’s propositional doctrinal content may be authoritatively defined (such definition necessarily entails the unacceptable creation of an authoritative ecumenical creed), its propositional content can only be subjectively defined by each individual. One individual may consider the Trinity essential, another may consider it a pagan idea imported into Christianity. Without an authoritatively defined statement of Christianity’s propositional doctrinal content, neither individual can definitively and finally be declared wrong. Solo scriptura destroys this possibility, and thereby destroys the possibility of Christianity being a meaningful concept. Instead, by reducing Christianity to relativism and subjectivity, it reduces Christianity to irrationalism and ultimately nonsense.
The individual books of Scripture were written over a period of one thousand years. Even the New Testament books were written over a period of decades and only gradually found their way to all of the churches. Numerous apocryphal gospels and epistles were written, some of which were considered authoritative in certain churches. It took time for the New Testament canon of twenty-seven books that we have today to be universally recognized. The doctrine of solo scriptura presupposes a complete and closed canon that it cannot account for or defend on its own principles. This fundamental self-contradiction is one of its most obvious flaws.
The Gospel was preached for at least 15-20 years prior to the writing of the first book of the New Testament, and that preached gospel was authoritative and binding. This apostolic tradition was the faith of the churches who received the first books of the New Testament, and it was the context within which these books and the books of the Old Testament were to be interpreted. This is the tradition to which the churches were commanded to adhere (e.g., 2 Thess. 3:6). The Scriptures were written to already existing churches, and this means that these churches had the Gospel before they had the completed Scriptures. It should go without saying that solo scriptura was not the doctrine of the early Church or of the medieval Church.
Scripture itself indicates that the Scriptures are the possession of the Church and that the interpretation of the Scripture belongs to the Church as a whole, as a community. In particular it has been entrusted to specially gifted men. This has already been examined in some detail in the previous discussion of the Bereans and the Jerusalem Council. The Apostles did not tell every individual believer to take their Bibles and decide by themselves and for themselves whether the Judaizers were correct. On the contrary, they gathered in a council as a body and discerned the truth of the matter. Their decision then was given to the various churches. The fundamental point is that Christ established His Church with a structure of authority that is to be obeyed (Heb. 13:7). Even in the first years of the Church, there were those who were specially appointed to the ministry of the Word (Acts 6:2-4). In his letters to Timothy and Titus, Paul indicates that a special teaching ministry was to continue after his death (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1-7; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 8:5-9). The modern Evangelical doctrine of Scripture essentially destroys the real authority of ministers of the Word and the Church as a whole.
Great article, particularly liked the opening line. As for solo scriptura, which you mention KoneWone, I guess it just means more Christian denominations in the future. I've read the article link you posted, so thanks for that and the following is why I have a different opinion:
Roman Catholicism's Recent Claim That It Is the True Church
Robert L. Reymond
http://www.monergism.com/RomanCatholicism.htm
Will Mr. Benedict preach and proclaim the true biblical gospel while in the United States of America?
Or will Mr. Benedict proclaim a false gospel?