Intrigued by Catholicism, but just can't convert for many reasons

[CaliLobo]

eddie too:

in protestantism, authority comes through the discernment persuasive ability of a human being.

a pastor, a minister, the founder of a protestant church, according to calilobo, discerns the teachings of Jesus through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

in catholicism, authority comes through the magisterium, the hierarchical priesthood that exists through the gift of Apostolic Succession.

Agreed. Not just founders of churches, but all Protestants.

it is clear from Sacred Scripture as well as Sacred Tradition that Jesus Himself created a hierarchical structure for His Church. there are a multitude of passages in the NT that demonstrate He did this…

Not disputing that the CC is hierarchical. Protestant churches have structure as well, their own teaching authority and “magisterium” if you will.

i, for one, am very interested in whether or not calilobo understands that the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church was created by Jesus.

It may have been, but history isn’t enough to persuade me to join a church. Islam has a long history…

the understanding of authority within protestantism and within catholicism are distinctly and substantively different. calilobo has stated this fact himself.
the question then becomes which understanding does a prudent man believe most likely came from Jesus.
to the best of my knowledge, nowhere in the Gospels is it written that Jesus gave everyone the same gifts, the same knowledge and the same authority from Him.
in fact, even protestants do not believe that every believer possesses the same authority. that is why they have ministers and pastors, some even have bishops.

Agreed.

as calilobo recognizes and has told us, the big difference is that the protestant leaders are either self-appointed, elected or selected by those who have previously established their authority within their ecclesial community.

so, calilobo seems to believe that leaders are more likely to be knowledgeable of and more faithful to the teachings of Jesus because they are not part of the apostolic succession that has existed from the beginning of the Lord’s Church than if they are part of that succession.

the primary support calilobo gives for this belief is that he disagrees with how the current Magisterium of the Catholic Church is leading the Church. his disagreements are many. they range from the manner in which the liturgy is performed through the moral principles and laws that are promulgated to the theological dogmas that are also promulgated. that is meant to be a summary list of calilobo’s disagreements and is not meant to be a comprehensive listing.

YES. YES. YES. See next post for more.

to support their belief in the RCC as opposed to protestantism, knowledgeable and faithful Catholics on the other hand, have history, the writings of early Christians…

in addition, many, many catholics (and the many catholics i am talking about here is not limited to those who have been canonized by the Church) have lived lives of heroic virtue exemplary charity and exemplary courage…

Protestants appreciate this history as well. But history alone isn’t enough.

also, it was the RCC that preserved dogmatic teachings such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Cross of Christ. in fact, the RCC was the sole preserver and provider of these dogmas for over 1,000 years at which point some members of the eastern Roman Catholic Church split off, primarily because of a dispute on the Primacy of Peter. about 500 years after that, others who disagreed with the hierarchy found followers and gave birth to the protestant reformation.

Okay, but history alone isn’t enough. The Protestant reformation happened because the Magisterium lost its way (see below).

none of what i listed as coming from and through the RCC can be claimed by protestantism. as calilobo has aptly demonstrated, protestantism has provided the world with a multitude of people divided over the meaning of Jesus Chris, His life, His death and His Resurrection.

Catholics exaggerate the division. As I said before, no Protestant church says a believer is in scandal because he doesn’t follow a particular church’s magisterium. No Protestant church will say, for example, that you are in scandal because you voted for Obama (which is what the CC indirectly has said).

 

[CaliLobo]

as i said earlier, i welcome any information, thoughts or observations calilobo can provide that give a prudent and reasonable person good reason to support protestantism instead of the wealth of history and teaching that comes to us through the RCC.
mere disagreement with the way the magisterium of the RCC is doing its job does not seem sufficient to me.

Disagreement with the Magisterium is a VERY KEY reason why one wouldn’t follow a church. Why follow a Magisterium that isn’t Christlike? It hasn’t been Christlike throughout history, for reasons like:

1. Crusades, enough said. Meddling into medieval politics, “blessing” one lord and not another if he donated enough or did certain favors.
2. Simony, indulgences. Stealing money.
3. Spanish conquest of the Americas. Slavery of the natives. Now Hispanics are wisening up and leaving the CC because they see how it has oppressed their ancestors and continues to oppress their women. (Sadly, Hispanics are the only reason why the CC in America has steady membership. Membership among whites is falling like a rock).
4. Inquisition. Murder of dissenters.
5. Exacerbating the HIV problem by opposing condom distribution
6. Opposing the rights of women and gays to have equal privileges and benefits of life (right to marriage like straights, and dominion over one’s body like men do)
7. Promoting suffering of women, poverty, crime, and environmental damage by opposing abortion and birth control
8. The sex abuse scandal (I hate to bring this up, but it’s now rearing its ugly head in my hometown of Los Angeles. And why didn’t Benedict fire Roger Mahoney much earlier???).
9. Hindering divorced people’s access to Communion. Protestant churches are much better at showing love to the divorced population.
10. Historical closed-mindedness towards Bible translations in foreign languages, hindering access to the Gospel. Execution of Wycliffe.
11. Not allowing Mass in the vernacular until the 1960s, hindering accessibility to Mass
12. Not doing enough to oppose Hitler
13. Theft of artwork, which the Vatican possesses
14. Come on, would Christ really have supported a MORMON for President???
15. Need I say more? It can be argued that the entire history of medieval and modern Europe is that of oppression by organized religion, including the CC. (A position commonly held by academia)

Who cares about the history of a church when clearly, the Magisterium has lost its way throughout history?

Who cares about the early church writers and forefathers, and saints? Do those writings and saintly deeds save today’s people? You can’t just sit proud at your history. Bygones are bygones.

How can I follow the authority of a Magisterium that is not Christlike? Isn’t that following a hypocrite?

Ironically, it can be seen that the Church has performed at its worst when it has meddled the most into politics (Crusades, Inquisition).

vsedriver:

Jesus did not ‘eliminate all that’. That is a protestant misconception. Jesus did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it… that is to make it perfect. But the High Priest was not alone.

If Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and is the new High Priest, and is appointed to it forever, then why do we need a system of priests and Apostolic succession? Believers can instead go directly to Jesus for authority.

Yes, Jesus may have made his first church hierarchical, but why do we have to continue following this first church, when its Magisterium has lost its way (see above)?

One more thing. Many of you have said how could the Holy Spirit inspire different people to have conflicting views of Jesus’ teaching. But, as you also agree, faith is a mystery and we cannot know everything.

Conflicting views of Protestants are a result of the mystery, and a natural result of the fact that we prioritize the Great Commission and need to evangelize to diverse types of people. At least we are not delegating evangelization to the priests (which lay Catholics seem happy doing).

In addition, a Protestant church will not say one is in scandal for disagreeing with it. However, when it’s clear that one is not following Jesus’ teachings, we do not hesitate to make the call and say that he or she is not a true believer. I don’t find that call-making among Catholics, who seem to tolerate lukewarm believers more than Protestants.

 

[CaliLobo]

One more thing… I know Catholics believe the gates of hell won’t prevail against the CC, and that is why they remain faithful, even if the Magisterium messes up.

My counter is: first, Protestant churches believe they directly connect to Jesus, bypassing apostolic succession, and second, the history is contentious. Protestants believe there were many non-Catholic churches throughout history, which were historically oppressed by the CC, and that the CC was started by Constantine, not Jesus. The “invisible church” argument with respect to the Rock has merit.

 

[vsedriver]

Disagreement with the Magisterium is a VERY KEY reason why one wouldn’t follow a church. Why follow a Magisterium that isn’t Christlike? It hasn’t been Christlike throughout history, for reasons like:

1. Crusades, enough said. Meddling into medieval politics, “blessing” one lord and not another if he donated enough or did certain favors.

 

[vsedriver]

1. Not doing enough to oppose Hitler

Apparently the Jews disagree with you. Might have something to do with the fact that the church saved 90% of Italy’s Jewish population. Although it was kind of the USA to close their borders to Jews fleeing to escape Hitler. They were forced back to Germany and died in the camps. You should read the Assisi Underground or The Scarlet Pimpernel of the Vatican if you want to know what the church did during the war. If the Pope had publicly condemned Hitler it would have been open season on Catholics. This way the Pope used the Church to work behind the scenes to aid people.

1. Theft of artwork, which the Vatican possesses

what art would that be?

1. Come on, would Christ really have supported a MORMON for President???

why not? it’s just another brand of Christianity according to you. Beside I think Christ would prefer a president who would protect the unborn over a president who actively sees babies as an unwanted punishment.

1. Need I say more? It can be argued that the entire history of medieval and modern Europe is that of oppression by organized religion, including the CC. (A position commonly held by academia)

If you really study history it wasn’t the Church doing the oppression but the political leaders at the time. They defied the church often when it was convenient and when the church really began to crack down the kings walked away and started their own church. No king likes to be told what he can and can not do. At which point Catholics were persecuted, tortured and killed in far greater numbers than they ever did to the protestants.

Who cares about the history of a church when clearly, the Magisterium has lost its way throughout history?

well clearly if the Magisterium can lose its way then that means it can teach error. That means we have no means of learning Truth. So I guess there is no Truth. No Truth, no good news, no need to follow Jesus as he might just be a regular guy. No need to read the bible as it is just a collection of error filled stories.

Who cares about the early church writers and forefathers, and saints? Do those writings and saintly deeds save today’s people? You can’t just sit proud at your history. Bygones are bygones.

without a solid foundation, you won’t stand when the going gets tough. Without roots to the truth, you can never have the truth.

How can I follow the authority of a Magisterium that is not Christlike? Isn’t that following a hypocrite?

Then Jesus was a fool to pick twelve guys who weren’t perfect to spread his teachings.

Ironically, it can be seen that the Church has performed at its worst when it has meddled the most into politics (Crusades, Inquisition).

in some cases the church had a duty to meddle in politics, Viva Christo Rey!

 

[vsedriver]

If Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and is the new High Priest, and is appointed to it forever, then why do we need a system of priests and Apostolic succession? Believers can instead go directly to Jesus for authority.

Why did Jesus bother to teach his disciples? Why give them authority? He who hears you hears me? Christ founded ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC (universal) and APOSTOLIC church. He didn’t send his apostles out to start 12 different denominations with multiple interpretations of his teachings. Even Jesus said, Obey the Pharasees, even if they behave as hipocrits. Because it is God’s law you follow not the man.

Yes, Jesus may have made his first church hierarchical, but why do we have to continue following this first church, when its Magisterium has lost its way (see above)?

The magisterium has not taught error. Some may have abused their position, been sinners and generally bad guys but they still teach the Truth that Jesus gave to his Church. And some have been holy men of great wisdom.

One more thing. Many of you have said how could the Holy Spirit inspire different people to have conflicting views of Jesus’ teaching. But, as you also agree, faith is a mystery and we cannot know everything.

Faith is an act of the will not a mystery. Truth is or is not. Something can’t be true and not true at the same time.

Conflicting views of Protestants are a result of the mystery, and a natural result of the fact that we prioritize the Great Commission and need to evangelize to diverse types of people. At least we are not delegating evangelization to the priests (which lay Catholics seem happy doing).

The conflicting views of protestants are the result of man imposing his understanding on scripture instead of following Jesus’ teachings as he taught them to his disciples. Mankind has a problem with authority figures. Funny I know many lay catholics involved in evangelization and it is growing.

In addition, a Protestant church will not say one is in scandal for disagreeing with it. However, when it’s clear that one is not following Jesus’ teachings, we do not hesitate to make the call and say that he or she is not a true believer. I don’t find that call-making among Catholics, who seem to tolerate lukewarm believers more than Protestants.

I find that hard to believe. Seems to me when protestants disagree on how to follow Jesus teachings they split off and form a new church. In fact it is kind of hard to determine what some of Jesus teachings are in the protestant faiths. I mean Jesus clearly stated no divorce yet many protestant churches have no problem with their members divorcing and remarrying. And now many have no problem with gays marrying.

Catholics like to keep the door open to those who may change their minds. We are not all at the same place on our spiritual journey. For Catholics, Truth does not change. We do not expect our theology to conform to our way of thinking but we are to conform to the theology as it is what Christ taught.

 

[vsedriver]

One more thing… I know Catholics believe the gates of hell won’t prevail against the CC, and that is why they remain faithful, even if the Magisterium messes up.

 

[St_Francis]

Disagreement with the Magisterium is a VERY KEY reason why one wouldn’t follow a church. Why follow a Magisterium that isn’t Christlike? It hasn’t been Christlike throughout history, for reasons like:

1. Crusades
2. Simony, indulgences
3. Spanish conquest of the Americas. Slavery of the natives.
4. Inquisition. Murder of dissenters.
5. Exacerbating the HIV problem by opposing condom distribution
6. Opposing the rights of women and gays to have equal privileges and benefits of life (right to marriage like straights, and dominion over one’s body like men do)
7. Promoting suffering of women, poverty, crime, and environmental damage by opposing abortion and birth control
8. The sex abuse scandal (I hate to bring this up, but it’s now rearing its ugly head in my hometown of Los Angeles. And why didn’t Benedict fire Roger Mahoney much earlier???).
9. Hindering divorced people’s access to Communion
10. Closed-mindedness towards Bible translations in foreign languages. Execution of Wycliffe.
11. Not allowing Mass in the vernacular until the 1960s, hindering accessibility to Mass
12. Not doing enough to oppose Hitler
13. Theft of artwork, which the Vatican possesses
14. Come on, would Christ really have supported a MORMON for President???
15. Need I say more? It can be argued that the entire history of medieval and modern Europe is that of oppression by organized religion, including the CC. (A position commonly held by academia)

Some of these things may not be true, some are/were ok (Crusades, Inquisition), we have tolerated a lot of Protestants for President and at least Romney was interested in restricting abortion rather than increasing access to killing babies…

But all that is irrelevant, 1. because the actual bad things you list were actions committed by indiciduals who were NOT following the teachings of the Church. Do we condemn Episcopalianism because some Espisopian ministers have run off with their parishioners’s wives whom they were “counseling”? No.

But more importantly, we are now discussing authority, right?

Who cares about the history of a church when clearly, the Magisterium has lost its way throughout history?

It is your opinion because the Church does teaches things with which you disagree that the Magisterium has lost its way. Where do you get the authority to disagree with the entity *assigned and protected by God Himself? *

Who cares about the early church writers and forefathers, and saints, when clearly, no one is following them? Do those writings and saintly deeds save today’s people?

The ECFs taught what the Catholic Church still teaches; this shows that what the Church teaches is what Christ taught. The EFCs also worshipped as we do, showing a continuity in one of the areas you are directly attacking.

What saves people is God sending His grace to people *and their accepting and cooperating with His grace. *God does not violate our free will. We choose to chase after the fool’s gold of the material world.

Ironically, it can be seen that the Church has performed at its worst when it has meddled the most into politics (Crusades, Inquisition).

Authority, Calilobo! Does the fact a math professor bounces a check invalidate what he teaches?

If Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and is the new High Priest, and is appointed to it forever, then why do we need a system of priests and Apostolic succession? Believers can instead go directly to Jesus for authority.

Because we are both material and spiritual creatures, we need the material to assure everyone that what is supposed to have occurred has occurred.

Those who were taught *by Christ’s Apostles *believed and worshipped as we do.

Moreover, one cannot escape that Mass is much more in accord with Christ’s words “He who does not eat of My Flesh or drink of My Blood **does not have Life within him.” **A hard saying, one which caused many of His followers to leave…

One more thing. Many of you have said how could the Holy Spirit inspire different people to have conflicting views of Jesus’ teaching. But, as you also agree, faith is a mystery and we cannot know everything. Conflicting views of Protestants are a result of the mystery.

But we can know some things. People cannot be inspired to teach something AND ignorant of that thing, can they?

In addition, a Protestant church will not say one is in scandal for disagreeing with it.

Since the Protestants churches all started out as disagreements with a previous church, one can see why they would not dwell too much on that particular problem!

However, when it’s clear that one is not following Jesus’ teachings, we do not hesitate to make the call and say that he or she is not a true believer.

**Hmmm, I wonder if this point might not be the crux of your problem. If someone were behaving badly and was denounced for this, Catholics would denounce him as a sinner, not as a non-believer. This may be a good point to discuss next.

I don’t find that call-making among Catholics, who seem to tolerate lukewarm believers more than Protestants.

Well, that’s a complex issue related to the question above. I’ll await your response before going further on that issue.

 

[epan]

Some of these things may not be true, some are/were ok (Crusades, Inquisition), we have tolerated a lot of Protestants for President and at least Romney was interested in restricting abortion rather than increasing access to killing babies…

But all that is irrelevant, 1. because the actual bad things you list were actions committed by indiciduals who were NOT following the teachings of the Church. Do we condemn Episcopalianism because some Espisopian ministers have run off with their parishioners’s wives whom they were “counseling”? No.

But more importantly, we are now discussing authority, right?

But some of these objections are current. The Vatican did recently and apparently violate canon law by refusing to cooperate with Irish authorities. I won’t cite the entire list of current immoralities. But, this does trouble me. If we are talking about moral authority, then how can anyone follow an immoral (by any measure) example? I don’t accept the, “it’s ok if our leaders are immoral” argument which you propose.

 

[eddie_too]

epan,

do you interpret st. francis post as advocating catholics follow immoral examples?

i did not interpret it that way.

 

[St_Francis]

But some of these objections are current. The Vatican did recently and apparently violate canon law by refusing to cooperate with Irish authorities. I won’t cite the entire list of current immoralities. But, this does trouble me. If we are talking about moral authority, then how can anyone follow an immoral (by any measure) example? I don’t accept the, “it’s ok if our leaders are immoral” argument which you propose.

Please provide link(s) to info about this as I do not know much about all this.

The authority the Church has is wrt what the Church *teaches. *The Pope and thus the Church are protected from teaching error, but they retain their free will; God gives them no special protection wrt committing sin.

To counter this, the Church does show us whose example to follow: the [canonized] saints’.

I have seen a lot of Protestants do a lot of bad things, but I do not say they are theologically incorrect because of those things; they are theologically incorrect because their theology is wrong. I have also known some Protestants who pit me as a Catholic to shame, because they pray and are so generous with the Lord. But that does not make them theolically correct.

 

[St_Francis]

But some of these objections are current. The Vatican did recently and apparently violate canon law by refusing to cooperate with Irish authorities. I won’t cite the entire list of current immoralities. But, this does trouble me. If we are talking about moral authority, then how can anyone follow an immoral (by any measure) example? I don’t accept the, “it’s ok if our leaders are immoral” argument which you propose.

BTW, what I meant by those arguments being irrelevant was that we are trying to discuss one topic at a time rather than 10 or 15. We are discussing authority, not the myriad sins, real or impuned, of the Church, which are irrelevant to *the issue of authority, *but not to other conversations.

 

[eddie_too]

calilobo,

your understanding of Jesus and His flock appears to be that Jesus wanted every member of His Church to be their own pope.

the individual and the individual alone can decide what Jesus taught and how Jesus wanted him or her to live.

for me, that raises the question of how this makes all of Jesus flock one.

i guess it is possible to say they, in the most minimal way imaginable, are all one in the fact that none of them have to agree with any of the others (they all have their absolute independence from each other in common so to speak), but i know of NO reason to interpret Jesus prayer “that all might be one as He and His father are one” in that way.

in fact, right reason and every other fact or understanding i have ever heard or read indicates that the Father and the Son are perfectly One in Every Way.

so, why would it be a correct understanding of the teachings of Jesus to conclude that He taught everyone that their individual understanding of Him, His life and His teachings is sufficient to make them one with each other as He and His father are One with each other?

 

[eddie_too]

calilobo,

it has been demonstrated throughout the history of mankind since the first Pentecost Sunday, that believing there is no need for anyone to submit to authority about who and what Jesus is results in DIVISION of His flock not unity.

it has also been demonstrated throughout history that very few followers of Jesus believe that each person is to be the sole determiner of what Jesus taught.

even when people rebelled against the authority of the RCC, they did so over specific disagreements; and, virtually every one of the protesters ended up joining with others who disagreed in the same manner.

it is an intrinsic need of human beings to belong to a flock, to be a member of a group, to share a common bond. the more a human being shares with another human being the more this need is met. our Creator made it that way. Jesus, being the Incarnation of our Creator knew this and created His Church in a manner that enabled His followers to satisfy this intrinsic need.

 

[eddie_too]

calilobo,

i am making multiple posting for several reasons. one is that it is easier to read and follow shorter postings. another reason is that there are natural divisions in the information i am trying to provide. so, i continue.

it is one of the most fundamental teachings of the RCC that every human being MUST follow his or her own conscience. this teaching seems to be one that you are expressing very strongly. for example, it correlates to your concept of being guided by the Holy Spirit. but that teaching is not the sole teaching Jesus gave His children and is not meant to stand independent of related teachings. it does not override all other information that Jesus taught His children.

in addition, an essential corollary to the command to follow your conscience is that the individual has an obligation to continually seek to inform his or her conscience. to make it, in other words, more fully compliant with the natural and Divine Laws.

even acknowledging the need to make the conscience more fully compliant demonstrates that two or more perfectly formed consciences would agree in every way. again, we run in to that concept of unity (being One) that Jesus prayed we would experience in our lives.

we also run into the concept of Truth. what is it and how do we access it?

 

[eddie_too]

calilobo,

we also run into the concept of Truth. what is it and how do we access it?

the answer to this question is the essence of your concerns. from what you have written, you currently believe that the Bible is the sole source of truth. that the truth contained in the Bible is revealed to individuals through the Holy Spirit. that contradictory interpretations are unavoidable and for that reason must be accepted and should be ignored as insignificant.

this validity of this line of reasoning runs up against several factors. first, it does not take into account the prayer of Jesus that all be One as He and His father are One. it implies that Jesus’ prayer was futile. that there was nothing Jesus could do to unite His followers.

this line of reasoning also runs in to the reality that it is intrinsic to the nature of human beings that they are most fully human in communion with other humans, by joining with other humans with whom they share a common bond.

 

[epan]

Please provide link(s) to info about this as I do not know much about all this.

The authority the Church has is wrt what the Church *teaches. *The Pope and thus the Church are protected from teaching error, but they retain their free will; God gives them no special protection wrt committing sin.

To counter this, the Church does show us whose example to follow: the [canonized] saints’.

I have seen a lot of Protestants do a lot of bad things, but I do not say they are theologically incorrect because of those things; they are theologically incorrect because their theology is wrong. I have also known some Protestants who pit me as a Catholic to shame, because they pray and are so generous with the Lord. But that does not make them theolically correct.

This really gets to the crux of my hesitation with Catholicism - the investiture or papal authority in a fallible person. We are all fallible. But when, I look at the obvious corporate maneuvering to avoid liability, acceptance of responsibility, and financial risk, at the expense of the victims… then I have to wonder whether the leadership has the right to lead a spiritual organization.

How can one dismiss such acts, even as they are happening, while at the same time embracing the leader as being a moral example?

The Vatican is shrouded most of the time. We have no idea who makes decisions, or why, or how, unless they reveal that. But we do know that the Irish legal authorities asked for the cooperation of Catholic authorities in the investigation of child abuse cases. The Vatican responded by claiming diplomatic immunity. How can this be? I can understand a corporation using any legal trick it can, but how can this be correct for a Church? I don’t mean to be rude, but I would really like to understand this.

 

[eddie_too]

calilobo,

if truth were determined by each of us separeately, then the the truth divides us. the primary meaning of truth is whatever an individual understands. truth at least for purposes of this world becomes completely arbitrary and subjective and divisive rather than unitive.

a Roman Catholic has the ability to distinguish between the message and the messenger.

a RCC theological concept is that Jesus created a Perfect Institution that would be run by imperfect human beings.

one element of that concept means that while the Magisterium is necessarily composed of men who sin and make mistakes in their lives. sometimes these men commit very grave sins and very serious mistakes with very serious negative consequences,

but another element of that concept is that the institution Jesus created is Perfect because it is the way He ensured our access to His Holy Spirit. Jesus imbued His Church with the Holy Spirit. in doing this, He ensured that His institution would act to accurately and correctly preserve His teachings and His grace for His followers forever.

never forget that Jesus prayed that His followers be one as He and His father are One. that is the essence of God’s plan for His human creatures. that prayer lies at the heart of everything Jesus said and did. every belief should be weighed against this prayer of Jesus.

a follower of Jesus must include this weighing when forming his or her conscience, when deciding what to believe about Jesus. we must all ask does my understanding of reality adequately address and adequately respond to Jesus prayer that all might be one as He and His father are One. that would be perfectly in agreement in every imaginable way.

admittedly, the RCC does not do this perfectly. that is primarily because its members are in multiple stages of spiritual development. consequently, those most spiritually mature will understand, speak and act differently from those who are just beginning the journey of faith. in heaven, there will be no division of any type between any of heaven’s residents.

 

[Stephen168]

How can one dismiss such acts, .

Again, Do you have links to your claims? It helps us to know what you are talking about. They are ‘current events’

 

[Stephen168]

The Vatican is shrouded most of the time. We have no idea who makes decisions, or why, or how, unless they reveal that. But we do know that the Irish legal authorities asked for the cooperation of Catholic authorities in the investigation of child abuse cases. The Vatican responded by claiming diplomatic immunity. How can this be? I can understand a corporation using any legal trick it can, but how can this be correct for a Church? I don’t mean to be rude, but I would really like to understand this.

I would like to understand it too. Do you have links to the events and the canon law the Vatican violated?