Some serious jackasses in that group. Here's hoping his exorcism extends to US evilgelicals as well but that might be too much to ask. Their theology is tailor made for Dick Head 47.

Even now, there are new cases reaching the light of day where the Church continued to protect and cover up these predators including some fairly recent cases.

The core of the Catholic hierarchy wants to be 100 years or 1000 years in the past. And they are losing membership fast because of it. If this Pope has any sense, he will make it a priority to bring the Church up date with where society is today.

is that Catholicism is practiced in so many countries, with different customs and society. You can see a microcosm of this in the US, where were have rank and file members in nondescript church communities, wildly liberal peace and social justice churches, and Opus Dei. It's hard to make big changes with such varied philosophies under the same umbrella.

It's a big planet for any Church, but for over two millennia, Jesus built His Church for the world through his apostles and their successors worldwide. There are over 3,000 Diocese worldwide, each with a bishop and many parishes, particularly in urban areas. That's a LOT of bishops and parish priests.

Below is a graphic of the Catholic Church's Rites worldwide. In Catholicism, a Rite refers to the distinct liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary traditions of a particular Catholic Church -- all Rites are centered in words from the Bible. It essentially describes the unique way a specific group of Catholics within the Church lives out their faith. While all Catholic Rites are in communion with each other and the Pope, each Rite is considered an autonomous church with its own distinct identity.

But I appreciate your explanation of where it stands today. Guessing it will continue to "evolve" over time.

could not possibly have been accomplished by humans alone.

First Jesus' teachings and events had to happen. Then his disciples got turned into Apostles on Pentecost, the day that Jesus poured out his Holy Spirit upon them. After that, the churches had to be established and coordinated. You can read about those years in Luke-Acts, which follows immediately after the Gospel of John.

Luke, an historian (also known as 'the evangelist') accompanied Peter and Paul to Rome, and wrote both the Gospel of Luke, and the "Acts of the Apostles,"
-- about Peter, James, John, Paul, healing the sick as Jesus empowered them to; of their various miracles (which Jesus empowered them to, and the Church Fathers decided miracles qualify anyone for sainthood)
-- how Peter raised Tabitha from the dead, Philip taught the Ethiopian chief minister to the Ethiopian Queen Candace and baptized him; Paul (who was once the persecutor of Jesus' followers) then raised a young boy from the dead, and he recorded their amazing sermons in Acts, etc.

Then they had to become bishops of the first churches, and when doctrine got misunderstood, they referred to Peter in Rome who, with John, traveled to the new churches and settled doctrine questions of their churches' converted Jews, Greeks and Gentiles' questions.

Then they of Jesus' inner circle -- Peter, James, John, and Paul -- along with Matthew and Luke, had to write the words and deeds of their Lord in the Four Gospels and the Letters from the Apostles.

So a lot went on in the first 100 years after Jesus' death (witnessed by John and 3 Marys) & resurrection, witnessed by over 500 along with the Apostles. Then after 11 of the 12 Apostles were put to death (only John died a natural death in 99AD) the New Testament of their words and deeds got put together by their appointed successors known as the Church Fathers, themselves also bishops (and the Bishop of Rome, Peter's successor, since called the Pope, the word which means earthly "father."

To your opening point... there was no hierarchy except in Apostolic succession. The bishops and ordained priests (who also have a long biblical history)who the apostles chose to succeed them, shepherded their flocks, spread the Word, and humbly guided people to more spiritual lives.
Finally, it wasn't humans. It was Jesus himself who said, "You are Peter, the rock, and on this rock I will build my church" -- he didn't say Peter or any of the apostles would build the church; not the rest of humans who Paul called "the body of Christ" -- they were just his servants. The last 2,000 years haven't been easy (martyrdom, holy wars, etc., etc.) without joy, humility, and most of all, the Holy Spirit, which is the spirit of Jesus.

And whatever was the point. That is what Jesus built his church to tell you. And it's not complicated.

In which case, yes, a human built the church.

Word counts in documents are done all the time. And topical quote indexes show that at the end of most bibles.

In a couple of places Jesus uses "Father" where he says the Father and He are "one."
John 3:13, where he says, "And no one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
John 10:30, where he says, "I and the Father are one."

Not to mention the event of Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist, witnessed by "Jerusalem and all of Judea" (Matthew 3:5), the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 3 ) who all heard the voice of God
in Matthew 3:16-17 "... And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Sone, in whom I am well pleased.

Other notable times Jesus calls God his "Father" and "Abba"
7 times in Matthew
1 time in Mark
5 times in Luke
5 times in John


The uses of which are repeated by Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude, who were Jesus' Apostles.

7 times in Paul's writings, at least
1 time in Peter's writings, at least
1 time in James' writings, at least
1 time in Jude's writings, at least

Jesus, in fact, is the source of the worldwide Christian belief in the Holy Trinity, through his revealing
a) his place at the right hand of the Father, and
b) the Holy Spirit, who spoke through the prophets (Christians were taught that by JC himself before his death, and during the 50 days he was on earth after his crucifixion)
and who works through all (Christian believers & other humans & events) now and in the future.

The above are what 1.2 billion human across six continents believe, many of them being the smartest on the planet, and at least 5 of our beloved presidents, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Joe Biden.

Horseshit.

And that is the essence of the problem. As far as we know, Jesus was illiterate, as were most people at the time. There is no evidence of his writing anything for posterity. There were some supposedly first-hand accounts from the disciples, but even those were mostly written decades later. The theology, such as we recognize it today, was developed over several centuries. The New Testament was not published as a full compilation until the 4th century, after centuries of negotiation and editing. So it seems unlikely that this represents a fully accurate picture of what Jesus said or meant.

In my view, the central case for Christianity as a religion is what has survived through folklore as the Sermon on the Mount, which includes the Beatitudes. IMHO, this is the closest thing we have to Jesus' original intent. But in 2000 years, in order for the Catholic enterprise (or any of the protestant spin-off shows) to survive, there has always been a "corporate" aspect, where the company refines its marketing messages and makes deals with the prevailing governments. It is this "necessary flexibility" that creates the space for the various factions that may be as different as night and day.

Keeping with the "corporate" theme, perhaps this is a time when the Catholic Church should accept their "downsizing" and really "focus on the core mission." That is to say, maybe it is time to insist that the Church commit to being the "Jesus wing" of Christianity, embracing and living the values expressed in the Beatitudes. And show the other factions the door.

The Jews living in the land of Israel at the time had probably the highest literacy rates in the world. I've seen estimates as high as 75% literacy rates. Part of being a Jew is reading and learning Torah, not relying on preachers.

Last edited Thu May 8, 2025, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

that there is not a single written word attributed to Jesus, and that millions of self-appointed PR people have been speaking for him ever since?

Confucius wrote things.
Gandhi wrote things. A lot of things.
Buddha wrote the Tripitaka, or at least had scribes write it at his direction.
Hammurabi wrote voluminously.

I note that Muhammad didn't write either, but he had scribes that wrote his stuff contemporaneously, so presumably Muhammad was able to verify the scribes were capturing his true thoughts.

And Socrates also apparently didn't write anything for the ages, but Plato did, of course.

None of the "gospels" was written within 40 years of Jesus death, and one of the gospels ( "Mark" ) is attributed to a guy who is believed never to have personally met Jesus at all.

Scholars say that 90% of the people in that era were illiterate. The absence of first-hand writing by Jesus and contemporary writing by others makes a lot more sense if Jesus was, himself, unable to write.

Judaism. It centered on agrarian sacrifice at the Temple.

Last edited Thu May 8, 2025, 06:41 PM - Edit history (1)

only if you want to. Because I've already studied philosophy and theology enough at the graduate level to know historical documentation. Biblical scholars are a good start (maybe check out Michael S. Heiser's The Unseen Realm...).
So is Wikipedia, for that matter. Every single book of the Bible, every apostle, every Jesus saying and events, long timelines and concepts from 2,000 BC until Jesus' day, lists of biblical scholars and archaeologists are listed there. But I've done my time at university and 35 years of teaching and am not about to explain why you really don't know what you're claiming and implying.

Have a good night.

I take it that you disagreed with something, but didn't way what it was.

Up front, I disagreed with the implication of CENTURIES AGO, and whatever else you think is useless about No matter.

Unfortunately for me, I understand what you're getting at, though.

The N.T. was assembled roughly 400 CE and the Catholic church was formed roughly 600 CE. That looks like centuries to me.

If he even existed at all, he was probably an amalgam of several itinerant, apocalyptic preachers. In Roman controlled Judea, those appear to have been a dime a dozen.

There are at least fourteen sources for the historicity of Jesus from multiple authors within a century of the crucifixion of Jesus, including the letters of Paul and a few non-biblical works, including two mentions in Antiquities of the Jews -- Testimonium Flavianum & James brother of Jesus passage -- by Jewish historian and commander in Galilee, Josephus (dated circa 93–94 AD) and a mention in Annals by Roman historian Tacitus (circa 116 AD).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#:~:text=There%20are%20at%20least%20fourteen,brother%20of%20Jesus%20passage)%20by

Paul, Peter, James and John are all made up, too, right. Herod, Caesar, too. It's all a 2,000 year old hoax. Got it.

You might as well say that Herodotus, Homer and the Trojan War are made up, too.

Nothing in antiquity existed, either, since there's no evidence and they're all dead. All university studies in classics, antiquity, ancient history need to be canceled. Guess we might as well get rid of Harvard and the rest of the Ivy Leagues, then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_higher-learning_institutions

You do realize the majority of scholars think that passage in Antiquities was forged centuries later by overzealous monks. That's been the majority opinion for decades, yet that tired old dog eared "card" keeps being played. After all, what do experts know.

Tacitus thought Christianity was a pernicious superstition. I agree, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement of one of various Jewish sects and hundreds of cults circulating in the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries. That in no way shape or form proves anything about an historical Jesus.

The lack of evidence would lead a rational person to conclude he's a 1st century version of Paul Bunion. After all, it was "common knowledge" that Davy Crockett could ride a lightening bolt .... during his lifetime no less! I kind of doubt it. Like walking on water perhaps? Hell, Crockett could leap the Mississippi! Of course, Crockett existed. We have evidence of that. Paul Bunion and Jesus? Not so much. My point being, the supposed exploits of even real people can get out of hand sometimes. So perhaps Brian was the real Jesus, but a very naughty boy nonetheless.

You do realize the Trojan War was a fiction made up by Homer. Historical Troy, or what some archaeologists think may have been A Troy, was sacked several times, but Homer's story was historical fiction at best as there's zero archeological evidence of anything happening there on the scale Homer wrote about. We do have lots of confirming evidence that Homer existed, but the Iliad and Odyssey are a mix of myth and legend, no different than Sisyphus and his boulder or Prometheus being chained to a rock and eagles eating his liver every day for eternity. Kind of like the son of god. One of many son's of god if you're keeping track of them as they go by.

Mythologies are made up stories indeed, whether they teach life lessons or explain nature.

Both the Jewish faith and Catholic Church belief systems and existence today, however, are fact based.
You can Google about them and test your claims. And remember as you date things, that all civilizations have begun with an official oral culture before those histories were written down on scrolls.

The Old and New Testaments of the Bible are both supported by a substantial amount of documentary and archaeological evidence.
The Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Bible, has its textual integrity well-established through the existence of multiple manuscript copies, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date back to 200 B.C. to A.D. 68. These scrolls, along with other ancient copies, provide strong evidence that the text we have today is largely identical to what was originally written.
The New Testament, while its original manuscripts are no longer extant, also has strong support through the existence of numerous early copies, both in Greek and other languages, which demonstrate a high degree of agreement with each other.

Here's a more detailed look at the evidence.

Dead Sea Scrolls:
.The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain a near-complete set of Old Testament books (except one), provides invaluable insight into the textual history of the Old Testament. These scrolls, dating back to the first century BCE, confirm that the text we have today is very similar to what was written centuries before.

Masoretic Text:
The Masoretic Text, a standardized version of the Hebrew Bible developed by Jewish scribes over centuries, also provides strong support for the textual integrity of the Old Testament.

The Septuagint:
The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, also provides a valuable source of textual comparison and corroboration.

New Testament Early Greek Manuscripts:
The New Testament has a vast number of early Greek manuscripts, both fragmentary and complete, dating back to the second century CE. These manuscripts, though not the original autographs, provide a high degree of textual agreement with each other, demonstrating a high degree of textual integrity.

Patristic Writings:
Early Christian writings, known as Patristic literature, often quote and reference the New Testament, providing further evidence of its textual transmission and usage in the early church.

Archaeological Evidence:
While not directly related to the text itself, archaeological evidence can corroborate events and settings described in the New Testament, lending credibility to the historical accuracy of the narratives.
In summary: Both the Old and New Testaments are supported by a substantial amount of textual and archaeological evidence, which demonstrates their general historical and textual integrity. While the Bible is not a primary source of historical information in the same way as other historical texts, it offers valuable insights into the past and is well-supported by available evidence.

What one of DU's reliable, credible news sources gives reporting space to, because it's important to the West.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/27/british-library-lends-worlds-oldest-bible-british-museum

Source your claims of "refutation" or you're not credible. It's supposed to be a discussion, though your part lacks credibility.without sources. As for all the mocking rhetorical ploys, that's the stuff of win-lose competition, not discussion.

So for all you know, they're all made up people, too, their ancestors like Moses the Israelites and Jews were all fooled and suffered for nothing, and these made up people were all killed for nothing, and all the medieval and modern and Ivy League university antiquity and classical studies programs and biblical scholarship are based on a 3,000 year old hoax, too.
Okay. Got it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text

Let's say we're in the General Discussion forum. Say it's about the OP's title line.
And you can call your baseless comments to my posts "discussion," and I'll call my lengthy response "discussion."

Why the zealousness? To me that's a sign of lack of faith on your part. And don't say I'm projecting. I don't do faith.

As the gospels portray him reading scrolls.

.... that maybe was considered to be yet another "miracle".

"The things you are liable to read in the Bible, they ain't necessarily so."

He delivered the SCOTUS that overturned Roe v Wade. So many 1-issue voters.

US Conservative Catholics ignored Francis' liberal opinions; they'll ignore Leo's, too, and stick with the anti-Abortion rhetoric they hear from the pulpit every week.

The majority of American Catholics favor legalized abortion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_the_Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States#:~:text=A%20majority%20Catholics%20in%20the,broader%20shift%20in%20American%20society.

A majority Catholics in the United States disagree with the official position promulgated by the Church, with 59% of Catholics supporting legal abortion in all or most cases. This upward trend in Catholic support for legal abortion aligns with a broader shift in American society. The gap between Catholic clergy and laity views is even more pronounced among Catholics of color, with 73% supporting the right to have an abortion. There is a distinction between practicing Catholics and non-practicing Catholics on the issue; practicing Catholics, are far more likely to be anti-abortion, while non-practicing Catholics are more likely to be in favor of abortion legalization.

And the AP VoteCast survey showed Catholics actually favored Harris on abortion.

I'm not "completely wrong". I'm PARTIALLY wrong.

That was completely wrong. Surveys showed that Catholics favored Harris on abortion. Try to spin it however you like, abortion was not why Catholics voted for Trump. The main issues which got Catholics to vote for Trump were immigration and the economy just like voters in general. Of course, Trump's position on immigration is completely counter to the official church position as well.

Oh, and the number of Catholics in the US who attend mass weekly is extremely small.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/04/10-facts-about-us-catholics/#:~:text=Overall%2C%2021%25%20of%20U.S.%20Catholics,too%20or%20not%20all%20important.

Trump-voting RTL-absolutist practicing Irish/German Catholics are the bane of my existence (my elderly Father, his partner, all my Aunts, Uncles, and Cousins), so I just might be viewing them with bias.

If Abortion wasn't their prime motivation, it's news to me.

Polling is easy to influence by how questions are framed and how questions are sequenced. Be that as it may, regarding:

his 20 years in Peru. He's a naturalized citizen of that country. I switched back to BBC after hearing Katy Tur going on about " an American pope!" for a bit too long..

I think that says a lot.

Nt.

Read about Leo XIII ....

which means he knows these people very well.

USA Exorcism

There are 1.4 billion Catholics in the world. America accounts for roughly 4% of them.

The new Pope is considered fairly young in modern papal terms, and the Conclave knew they were electing someone who could serve 15-20 years.

And they were like, "You know what? We should base our entire decision on a politician who will be in office for maybe three years. If that, given his age and health. Yes, let's hold the entire Catholic faith hostage and ignore parishioners around the world so we can deal with American Catholics who barely go to church as it is."

This seems . . . unlikely to me.

Oh, I don't doubt a rebuke of Trump might be a nice incidental cherry on top of their pope sundae, but believing that was a core motivation of that institution is extremely Amerocentric.

Our belly buttons aren't that fascinating.

The Catholic MAGA cult is already calling him the Antipope.

I mean, there was a progressive Pope last November, but the genuflecting jackasses still voted for Trump. I don’t want to hear that they were all single-issue, anti-abortion types, either. One can only speculate as to how many abortions Trump demanded from his mistresses, paid for, or otherwise covered up.

It’s time for Trumpist Catholics to admit that they’re racist dickheads who would immediately reach for the nails and the two-by-fours if Jesus the Woke Rabbi actually showed up.

newer, more open minded ones change will happen. It takes a lot of time for the Catholic Church to change.