General Motors acting like the Catholic Church

[D1B]

General Motors, the new face of corporate evil.

Catholic Churc - always the face of the evil religion and brutality against humanity.

Deny, deflect and blame......

15 yards for gross generalization, 15 more for witless hyperbole, loss of down for lack of [controlled] substance... permanent ejection.

Refute it Bungahole Bill.

GM blows and the Church has a track record that makes Adolph Hitler look like Ghandi.

[OL FU]

I believe Jesus put Peter at the head of the church. While I realize the Catholic church has Peter as the first Pope. I am not so certain as to how Peter would feel about that designation

I'm pretty sure he was fine with it. At the time, he held the title of Bishop of Rome and there is no record that he rejected the title. Of course, the bible thumpers over at Bob Jones U. deny that Peter was ever in Rome.

I think being the bishop of Rome was a much more dangerous job then than after Constantine made it much safer. Oh of course except for the period of time when the most dangerous part of the job was protecting yourself against the other men that wanted to be the bishop of Rome.

Now seriously and to get off the point of the thread. I always heard he was considered the first bishop of Rome (as the chosen Rock to build the church on). Was he actually called the Bishop of Rome? or was he "considered" the bishop of Rome after the fact?

[Ivytalk]

15 yards for gross generalization, 15 more for witless hyperbole, loss of down for lack of [controlled] substance... permanent ejection.

Refute it Bungahole Bill.

GM blows and the Church has a track record that makes Adolph Hitler look like Ghandi.

A Chevy Cobalt is safer than a bong made by you. So suck it.

[CID1990]

GM would have gone the way of the dodo and the American male testicles long ago if there were any such thing as a free market

too big to be allowed to fail, i guess

[JoltinJoe]

I'm pretty sure he was fine with it. At the time, he held the title of Bishop of Rome and there is no record that he rejected the title. Of course, the bible thumpers over at Bob Jones U. deny that Peter was ever in Rome.

I think being the bishop of Rome was a much more dangerous job then than after Constantine made it much safer. Oh of course except for the period of time when the most dangerous part of the job was protecting yourself against the other men that wanted to be the bishop of Rome.

Now seriously and to get off the point of the thread. I always heard he was considered the first bishop of Rome (as the chosen Rock to build the church on). Was he actually called the Bishop of Rome? or was he "considered" the bishop of Rome after the fact?

Peter, and the other Apostles, were definitely considered "bishops" within the early Church. Moreover, historical accounts, from the late 1st century and the second century, assert Peter established the Church in Rome, just as his brother Andrew established the Church in Constantinople, and James established the Church in Jerusalem. Each were considered the "bishop" of the Church he founded. Therefore, first century Catholics understood Peter to be the bishop of Rome.

There should be little doubt that Peter, in fact, was in Rome. In the Book of Revelation (written in about 90AD), Peter and Paul are the two prophets who are killed in the streets of the "great city." (I always get a kick out of fundies who completely misconstrue the point of Revelation and try to decipher who these two prophets will be. They read the book entirely as an end-time prophecy, when in truth many of the events "foretold" in Revelation had already happened when the book was written). Peter was crucified on the site of "Nero's Circus" in Rome in about 63 AD and was buried at the location.

Nero's Circus today is the location of Vatican City (talk about placing your enemies under your feet) and the Basilica of St. Peter's -- the most notable church in all of Christendom -- is built over the identified location of Peter's grave. Thus, the prophecy that Peter would be the stone on which the Church was built has been both figuratively and literally fulfilled.

[OL FU]

I think being the bishop of Rome was a much more dangerous job then than after Constantine made it much safer. Oh of course except for the period of time when the most dangerous part of the job was protecting yourself against the other men that wanted to be the bishop of Rome.

Now seriously and to get off the point of the thread. I always heard he was considered the first bishop of Rome (as the chosen Rock to build the church on). Was he actually called the Bishop of Rome? or was he "considered" the bishop of Rome after the fact?

Peter, and the other Apostles, were definitely considered "bishops" within the early Church. Moreover, historical accounts, from the late 1st century and the second century, assert Peter established the Church in Rome, just as his brother Andrew established the Church in Constantinople, and James established the Church in Jerusalem. Each were considered the "bishop" of the Church he founded. Therefore, first century Catholics understood Peter to be the bishop of Rome.

There should be little doubt that Peter, in fact, was in Rome. In the Book of Revelation (written in about 90AD), Peter and Paul are the two prophets who are killed in the streets of the "great city." (I always get a kick out of fundies who completely misconstrue the point of Revelation and try to decipher who these two prophets will be. They read the book entirely as an end-time prophecy, when in truth many of the events "foretold" in Revelation had already happened when the book was written). Peter was crucified on the site of "Nero's Circus" in Rome in about 63 AD and was buried at the location.

Nero's Circus today is the location of Vatican City (talk about placing your enemies under your feet) and the Basilica of St. Peter's -- the most notable church in all of Christendom -- is built over the identified location of Peter's grave. Thus, the prophecy that Peter would be the stone on which the Church was built has been both figuratively and literally fulfilled.

Interesting and thanks. Bishop just doesn't sound like a Jewish kind of title but I really was asking for education. I guess the church organized more quickly than I would have expected considering its outlaw status.

PS I am not one of those Jonesers that Cid was referring to who didn't think Peter was in Rome .

[JoltinJoe]

Peter, and the other Apostles, were definitely considered "bishops" within the early Church. Moreover, historical accounts, from the late 1st century and the second century, assert Peter established the Church in Rome, just as his brother Andrew established the Church in Constantinople, and James established the Church in Jerusalem. Each were considered the "bishop" of the Church he founded. Therefore, first century Catholics understood Peter to be the bishop of Rome.

There should be little doubt that Peter, in fact, was in Rome. In the Book of Revelation (written in about 90AD), Peter and Paul are the two prophets who are killed in the streets of the "great city." (I always get a kick out of fundies who completely misconstrue the point of Revelation and try to decipher who these two prophets will be. They read the book entirely as an end-time prophecy, when in truth many of the events "foretold" in Revelation had already happened when the book was written). Peter was crucified on the site of "Nero's Circus" in Rome in about 63 AD and was buried at the location.

Nero's Circus today is the location of Vatican City (talk about placing your enemies under your feet) and the Basilica of St. Peter's -- the most notable church in all of Christendom -- is built over the identified location of Peter's grave. Thus, the prophecy that Peter would be the stone on which the Church was built has been both figuratively and literally fulfilled.

Interesting and thanks. Bishop just doesn't sound like a Jewish kind of title but I really was asking for education. I guess the church organized more quickly than I would have expected considering its outlaw status.

PS I am not one of those Jonesers that Cid was referring to who didn't think Peter was in Rome .

The terms used in the early Church were "episcopos" and "presbyter", so you are correct that "bishop" is neither a Jewish title nor a term which was actually employed by the early Church. Moreover, the early "episcopos" were generally recognized to have authority over the world-wide Church, with Peter being considered the "first" among equals.

The understanding of what being "first" among equals meant, over time, was what caused the split between the Catholic Churches (including the Roman Catholic Church) and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Today, the Eastern Orthodox Church continues to recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but contend that his primacy is limited to teaching and instruction (i.e., in a matter where there is a dispute over faith or morals, the instruction of the Bishop of Rome takes precedent), but deny that the Bishop of Rome has jurisdictional authority over the other apostolic Churches. They assert that the Ecumenical Patriarch has governance authority over the Eastern Church, as the successor of St. Andrew, the founder of the Eastern Church. They claim this is the same authority which Andrew was recognized to have in relation to his brother, Peter.

The Catholic Churches, on the other hand, contend the primacy of the Bishop of Rome includes primacy over both instruction and governance, and that the Bishop of Rome has governance jurisdiction over the universal Church.

The Western and Eastern Church have steadily improve their relationship over the past 50 years and are closer to unity than anytime since 1054. However, the meaning of primacy of the Bishop of Rome remains a stumbling block. The Catholic Church, however, recognizes that a Catholic may satisfy his or her Mass obligations by attending a Mass in an Eastern Orthodox Church. Pope Francis has become particularly close to Bartholomew, the current Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. I suspect that Francis is personally willing to give up the claim to the right of governance over the Eastern Church, in return for a recognition of the teaching authority of the Bishop of Rome (sitting ex cathedra) -- but he is not sure how to accomplish that in view of centuries of papal assertions to the contrary.

Incidentally, many experts in canon law assert that the schism of 1054 violated the law of the universal Church, and that the Churches remain in complete communion despite the appearance of schism -- that man had no authority to divide the universal (catholic, with a small "c") Church.

[D1B]

Nice catholic bullshit, Joe. All of it having nothing to do with Jesus or his message.


You're a bullshit expert.

[JoltinJoe]

This is a serious discussion. I'll tell you when it's time for your act.

Didn't I give you a research and writing assignment on the botany of Israel? Get to work.

[D1B]

Yeah, Joe, a serious discussion about catholic bullshit. You morons are no different than the fucking dorks who talk and argue about comic books and Dungeons & Dragons. They're serious too, St. Nonsense.

[D1B]

Catholic bullshit.

[OL FU]

Interesting and thanks. Bishop just doesn't sound like a Jewish kind of title but I really was asking for education. I guess the church organized more quickly than I would have expected considering its outlaw status.

PS I am not one of those Jonesers that Cid was referring to who didn't think Peter was in Rome .

The terms used in the early Church were "episcopos" and "presbyter", so you are correct that "bishop" is neither a Jewish title nor a term which was actually employed by the early Church. Moreover, the early "episcopos" were generally recognized to have authority over the world-wide Church, with Peter being considered the "first" among equals.

The understanding of what being "first" among equals meant, over time, was what caused the split between the Catholic Churches (including the Roman Catholic Church) and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Today, the Eastern Orthodox Church continues to recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but contend that his primacy is limited to teaching and instruction (i.e., in a matter where there is a dispute over faith or morals, the instruction of the Bishop of Rome takes precedent), but deny that the Bishop of Rome has jurisdictional authority over the other apostolic Churches. They assert that the Ecumenical Patriarch has governance authority over the Eastern Church, as the successor of St. Andrew, the founder of the Eastern Church. They claim this is the same authority which Andrew was recognized to have in relation to his brother, Peter.

The Catholic Churches, on the other hand, contend the primacy of the Bishop of Rome includes primacy over both instruction and governance, and that the Bishop of Rome has governance jurisdiction over the universal Church.

The Western and Eastern Church have steadily improve their relationship over the past 50 years and are closer to unity than anytime since 1054. However, the meaning of primacy of the Bishop of Rome remains a stumbling block. The Catholic Church, however, recognizes that a Catholic may satisfy his or her Mass obligations by attending a Mass in an Eastern Orthodox Church. Pope Francis has become particularly close to Bartholomew, the current Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. I suspect that Francis is personally willing to give up the claim to the right of governance over the Eastern Church, in return for a recognition of the teaching authority of the Bishop of Rome (sitting ex cathedra) -- but he is not sure how to accomplish that in view of centuries of papal assertions to the contrary.

Incidentally, many experts in canon law assert that the schism of 1054 violated the law of the universal Church, and that the Churches remain in complete communion despite the appearance of schism -- that man had no authority to divide the universal (catholic, with a small "c") Church.

First to your other posts, yes I have always thought that Revelations was totally misinterpreted by most fundamentalist.

I think the thing that is difficult to grasp is that an "underground" church could be that organized in its infancy. On the other hand, I would assume that you could set up an organization without it actually being that well organized or you could assume organization since they were Jews and Judaism has a long history of organization.

[D1B]

GM scandal getting uglier and uglier by the day. Still, they're handling it light years better than the catholic church.

The Catholic Church:

Secretly transferred pedophiles to other parishes without notifying them a predator child rapist is now leading them.

Bullied and threatened victims and families to secure their silence.

The Church paid known pedophiles tens of thousands of dollars plus pension and living expenses to walk away. They did not alert law enforcement.

Church continues to hide behind statute of limitations, soveirgnty laws, diplomatic immunity and other legal loopholes to avoid accountability.

Catholic laity continues their silence and refused to hold their church accountable.

Catholic laity continues to fund all of the above and blindly supports their pedophiles.

Church continues to lie, decieve, deflect and blame other for their crimes.

Catholic church abuse thier non profit status to avoid tranparency.

Catholic church continues to use the excuse of canon law to avoid reporting incidents of child molestation to law enforcement.

The list goes on and on.....