Pope Asks Forgiveness for Unchristian Behavior toward Other Christians
From APD, January 26, 2016: Monday night at the end of a Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, Pope Francis asked for “forgiveness for the behavior of Catholics towards Christians of other Churches” which has not reflected Gospel values. His words were released in a report distributed by Vatican Radio, the official broadcast voice of the Roman Catholic Church.
“We cannot let the weight of past faults continue to contaminate our relationships,” the leader of the Catholic faith said. He also stated that all service rendered to the cause of the one gospel gives glory to the one Lord, Jesus Christ, evidently referring to Ephesians 4:1-5 and expressing support for the work of other groups.
The Pope made it clear that his goal is for Christians to collaborate in various activities, affirming what he called the need for divided Christian communities to walk together in the way of the Lord. He stated that “we can make progress on the path to full visible communion not only when we come closer to each other, but above all as we convert ourselves to the Lord.”
Metropolitan Gennadios of the Orthodox Church and Anglican Archbishop David Moxon joined the Pope as he walked into the Basilica of Saint Paul where the vespers was held, and joined him in the final blessing. In addition to extending forgiveness to other Christians for the behavior of Catholics, Pope Francis also said, “I invite all Catholics to forgive if they … have been offended by other Christians.”
“We do not know what he specifically had in mind when he asked for forgiveness,” a veteran Adventist leader told Adventist Today. “It is a broad expression and we cannot with honesty put words in his mouth and include a long list of specifics from the past history of conflict with Protestants and others. I do not think he is apologizing for the honestly-held theological positions of Catholic theology. We do need to be careful how we respond to this. It would be wrong to be unkind.”
APD is the Adventist news service in Europe.
The statement is generic and has specific meaning. It is simply part of the eccumenical movement to pave the way for the Catholic church to have the final say on religious and secular matters as well.
We judge the spirituality of the Catholic church first, and then the members based on their loyalty, understanding and confessed commitment to what the church believers. Like most denominations, the member don’t have a clue what their church teaches or believes and blindly follow along, assuming it must be true.
This happens when some aspect of truth is accepted and a person will affirm loyalty to it. It is then assumed everything else you hear is true as well, and no real challenge is considered as to whether it is or not.
Are SDA’s guilty of this fatal error? Yes, for sure and we see it clearly demonstrated on every level of church teaching as well as administration. The bible is a “dead letter” in much of the SDA church today. People assume the church knows, even if they don’t, and accept all kinds of strange and heretical teachings if some “official” church individual advocates it.
In this sense, we are just like Rome and not bible Protestants as we claim to be.
Bill,
I agree.
It is time for as many who love Jesus to stop playing church and stop accepting the cliches, and ambiguous, obscure, superficial, shallow religious lingo that is parroted so often in the pulpit and bible classes.
For example:
“The Pope made it clear (HE DID?????) that his goal is for Christians to collaborate in various activities, affirming what he called the need for divided Christian communities to walk together in the way of the Lord (What is the “way of the Lord”?) . He stated that “we can make progress on the path to full visible communion not only when we come closer to each other, but above all as we convert ourselves to the Lord.” (What does he mean by “convert ourselves to the Lord”?
Understanding is needed and that comes by biblical exposition using specifics & details.
As long as the clergy keep up their convoluted inept topical, bible warping sermons, this confusion and lack of understanding will prevail.
Above, I meant “no specific meaning”.
All sincere Adventist Christians should welcome the statement of the current Pope. Now if only our own current leadership at the GC level would be honest and admit that traditional Adventist understanding of the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the modern world was based on a widely-held 19th Century Protestant tradition of hostility toward Catholicism supported by the out-of-body visions of one of our co-founders, traditional Adventism might begin to grow up. We started that process in the 1970s-1980s but now it has been aborted by those of hyper-conservative orientation.
This is just one of these shallow sentimental calls that starts with….”We’re sorry” and wraps with…”Can’t we all just get along?”
However, there is something tactical going on with the “asking forgiveness”.
It promotes a response/conversation and can be a tool to engage the other party.
“Can 2 walk together except they be agreed?” Amos 3:3
One who walks in the light/truth can NOT have fellowship with one who doesn’t.
They can have communication but not fellowship.
We must also remember that what the Pope may state in his private opinion is not the official position of the church. Only if his declarations are made in the context of an official church declaration, can it be considered a church position.
This is critical so we don’t get confused about his private opinion vs the official church positions. The Catholic church is more than happy for him to pontificate his views that will pave the way for their final goal. So his “repentance” is not valid for the church. At best, it can be only for himself.
The old, traditional Adventist teaching to fear the Catholics is still well and survives. Nothing, not even if an angel spoke and reminded us that we are all children of God and only He will divide the wheat from the tares. God help those who will be angry when Catholics enter the kingdom before them. Maybe they can take their complaint to Him.
“God help those who will be angry when Catholics enter the kingdom before them. Maybe they can take their complaint to Him.”
This is a fictitious scenario based on contemporary, stereotypical projection.
Christlike Adventists have an attitude of humility and forgivenesss and will not react negatively to any inheriting eternal life.
Thousands, if not millions, of Catholics will be in heaven and thousands , if not millions, of SDA will wake up in the 2nd resurrection.
The Adventist church does not teach fear of Catholics. The catholic church system is identified as the little horn power not any one individual. We study history and the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.
Would Mr. Sorensen please enlighten the rest of us as to what special insight he has about what the “final goal” of the Roman Catholic Church might be? It would be nice if he only used unambiguous biblical texts to support his views.
Dr. Taylor, it would be nice if you were a SDA and there would be no need for any explanation.
I had a bet with myself that Mr. Sorensen would not answer the question. What an easy way to win a bet.
“I had a bet with myself that Mr. Sorensen would not answer the question. What an easy way to win a bet.”
I am sure you make a lot of bets with yourself, Dr. Taylor. I am equally sure you don’t lose any of them……
We are aware that you have rejected the ministry of EGW and her book the Great Controversy. I am also sure you have read it at some time in the past. Why should I waste my time going over the same scriptures she uses to prove her point?
Just admit you are not a SDA and don’t believe what we as a church have always believed and defended about the catholic church and why there was a Protestant Reformation.
At least be honest and quit beating around the bush on this issue. I don’t think too many people are fooled by the fact you don’t believe in EGW and our historic teaching. And some of us wonder why you even keep up the obscure image.
Honesty is a good thing. At least Elaine Nelson don’t beat around the bush. She opposes the church, the Sabbath, EGW, the bible and on and on. She may be wrong, but bless her heart, she is not a hypocrite about it. And as the saying goes, “Birds of a feather, flock together.” Seems to work here.
Mr. Sorensen again misunderstands. “Rejected the ministry of EGW”? No. She is the co-founder of the denomination which I happen to be a member. Since she was human, in my view, she made mistakes including theological mistakes–some rather serious. Is she unique in that? Of course not. Martin Luther, again in my view, held a number of problematical theological ideas. But that does not detract from the contribution he made. Ellen White helped found a church that builds hospitals and clinics. What more of a legacy do we want for her?
Well, enough of this back and forth thing with Mr. Sorensen.
“Well, enough of this back and forth thing with Mr. Sorensen.”
Well, Dr. Taylor, some things are negotiable and some are not. I think you negotiate some things that are far outside this possibility. Kind of like, “Well, I am a Christian, but I don’t believe in Christ.”
“I do not think he is apologizing for the honestly-held theological positions of Catholic theology,” a veteran Adventist leader told Adventist Today, with regard to the Pope’s reported apology.
So how do Roman Catholics and Seventh-day Adventists differ in their understanding of the Gospel of Jesus and eternal life?
It would be helpful for readers who are not up on the differences between Roman Catholic and Seventh-day Adventist paths to salvation, for Adventist Today to publish a clarifying explanation provided by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists clarifying the clear and essential differences between the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist church and the teachings of the Roman Catholic church with regard to the Gospel of Jesus and how a person comes to live eternally.
The Bible has too much cryptographic enigmas relative to the beast that sits on seven hills, clothed in scarlet, of which the world’s elite have fraternized with to speak a certainty of the Roman Catholic system. So lets consider “actual history”, recorded of that system. We need not look far to recognize it was the Roman Catholic system that had the auto de fe, kept hot and burning to welcome all who would not recant. The Borgias led by the Popes son, who had a fling with his own sister, was i believe a Jesuit. And lo and behold we have as the current sitting Pope, the first Jesuit to become Pope, Jorge Francis Bergolio, a potential wolf in sheeps jargon?? Who incidentally,
this past September, gave the preamble speech of the Global Warming scam, to the UNITED NATIONS. The Roman Catholic Church (the VATICAN) is the prime religious member of this auspicious world seeking control group which is itself controlled by the Elitest World Bankers. The UNITED NATIONS met again in Paris this past December for a two week sitting, and ratified the Global Warming issue which is being fleshed out currently, which gives the UN, carte blanche in administering this this global program, telling each nation what they must do. This is a harbinger of the soon to follow ONE WORLD DIGITAL CURRENCY, and ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, ala the Euro Community trial run. Has the LEOPARD changed its spots???????
Ervin’s call on Bill Sorensen to identify the final goal of RC’s is well founded. I would add that Bill needs to also identify the “strange and heretical teachings that some official church individuals advocate.” Is Bill simply venting his spleen again?
Bill Garber’s call for someone at GC to explain the difference between RC and SDA views on salvation is also well founded. But don’t hold your breath while you wait Bill.
My take on the differences is that there is very little difference. RC’s and SDA’s in general believe in justification by faith and sanctification means you spend the rest of your life working for it. The only difference is that RC’s believe individuals are sanctified by participation in the sacraments and SDA’s believe individuals are sanctified by keeping the law, indeed, getting to the point where one can keep it perfectly and stand in the presence of God without a mediator. Whatever mode one believes in it is righteousness by works.
Is it false that Christians are sanctified by keeping the LAW?
Is it false that Christians are saved by keeping the LAW?
I see the call, here, to post what the gospel is.
Try adding what saved means and what grace is.
Hebrews 10:1–14
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
Revelation 12:11
They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony;
Ezekiel 36:26-27
26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.
There are clear differences between the teachings of RC and SDA. True SDAs include confused individuals. Truth remains unchanged. Saved by Grace, Sanctified by the Blood of Jesus, prompted by His Spirit to walk in His statutes and keep His judgements.
Obedience is required, yet contributes nothing to salvation. Beads, Our Fathers, Hail Marys–works. Sabbath Keeping can be a day or following the Way. That is up to us.
Heart work is the essential thing. The Spirit of Christ in us the guiding thing. The Word of God the only true authority, not the vatican, or the g.c. Leadership, organization–potentially useful, but not saving…
You amaze me Dr Hook. I had my suspicions about you when you were my Bible teacher at Strathfield. You have fully confirmed these suspicions.
Missing from the above catalog of conspiracy charges against the Roman Catholic Church is mention of the Illuminati and other presumed secret societies. As a recent L.A. Op Ed piece points out, it is possible for true conspiracies to exist and psychological research has confirmed that we’re all wired to feel the lure of conspiracy theories, and “given a handful of dots, our pattern-seeking brains can’t resist trying to connect them.” And in a people encouraged to believe in magical thinking about the church’s future, it shouldn’t be surprising that so many theories are accepted. I suppose Adventist Catholic-related conspiracy theories add a weird kind of richness to the Adventist tapestry of belief.
Has the time also come for Adventists to apologize to Catholics for the unkind attitude toward their members we have promoted by our decrials of the sins of their popes?
No, it’s time for the Adventist church to thank the Catholic Church for the fine work it has done over the centuries developing the doctrines Adventism holds dear. Those include the canon of the New Testament, original sin, celebration of communion, the nature of Christ as divine, the Trinity, as examples. And the Reformation was the rebellious child of Catholicism which became the proclaimed parent of Adventism. (Is the prophetess as pope traceable to Catholicism? Maybe not. But close in effect)!
And thanks is due also for fitting itself to be the target of expected persecution central to the creation and continued core of Adventism by doing those naughty historical things. Without the crimes the Millerites wouldn’t have had their bogey man. Adventism wouldn’t/couldn’t be without the Catholic church.
Finally, the truth, a loud thank you is in order! That which the Millerites vilified can now be revealed as the chief corner stone of Adventism! Hiding in plain sight!
I think converts to Adventism need an institutional SDA vaccination.
There is so much denominational virus around ….
like papal paranoia paralysis,
Great controversy cancer,
Laodicean lymphoma,
Spirit of Prophecy Parkinsons…
please add to the list
Jimbob,
I love it! Can’t think of anything to add right now.
Bugs,
I hear you! I was trying to keep my focus on how Adventist teachings about the role of the Papacy in prophecy has been turned by many into a generalized condemnation of Catholics. I have great respect for the many faithful Catholics whom I have met over the years and think some of them would be excellent role models for Adventists in their devotion to God and what they have been taught about Him.
As an Adventist I will dare to speak for all Seventh-day Adventists in apologizing for any unkind attitude of any Seventh-day Adventist toward the membership of the Roman Catholic Church.
Seventh-day Adventists and other Protestants have absolutely nothing to apologize to anyone for decrying the sins of popes; nor for explaining the prophetic identities and prophetic roles of the various prophetic symbols in Daniel and The Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Stephen you can do both. It would be the Christian thing to do (No. 2, anyway).
1. Don’t apologize, even tell them how bad they were.
2. Thank them for the existence of your New Testament nor the Holy Trinity nor your church, none of which would exist without Catholicism!
My Catholic wife approved of this message!
What part of the word “nothing” did you misunderstand? When there is nothing for which to apologize, then no apology is necessary and none is appropriate—and any apology offered is therefore insincere and disingenuous.
Larry, you stole my punch lines!
We would not have our Bible today had not the one catholic church compiled, translated, and kept it for Christians today. We would not have the doctrine of the Trinity had not that same church with its bishops elected for that to be the essential doctrine of Christianity.
We would not have the ecclesiastical hierarchy practiced by most Christian churches, including the Adventist, had they not copied the orders of that first church.
The catholic church is the Mother of all Christian churches world wide. To castigate it is no different than openly revolting against you biological Mother. It is simply a favorite pastime of too many Adventists.
The fact is that Christianity essentially began as a Jewish sect; and it is from the Jewish faith tradition from which Christianity emanated. Jesus was a Jew. Peter was a Jew. Paul was a Jew.
Stephen, you stopped too soon with your reply. Yes, you are correct about Christ and his followers were Jews. But Christianity started after the resurrection, defined by the Roman Catholic Church. Many of its definitions are now the basis of Christianity (New Testament canon, Trinity, etc.). Paul spoke of Jesus as an angel. It was Catholic theologians who created the current definition spelled out as the Trinity and stated in the Nicaean Creed.
Now that’s interesting Stephen/Bugs…Let’s also remember that WE are to be grafted into the SAME olive tree the Jew’s were grafted into -the one with “Holy Roots”. Romans 11.
The early Christians did everything to separate themselves from the Jews -for fear of persecution. But that was not God’s plan. We were to be grafted into THEIR tree. We (Gentiles) were to become one under Christ WITH the Jews. We were to make them jealous for what we had –Christ/Salvation.
God did not create a new tree -there’s no mention of a new tree in scripture. If we are not grafted into THAT olive tree –with holy roots that feed the branches and make them holy too –you are NOT His, you are of another faith, another gospel, ANOTHER TREE.
The Jews are still and will be forever God’s chosen people only now the new covenant of Jesus Christ. We are grafted together –as one, not two.
Romans 11: 16-17 For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off [from unbelief], and thou, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them [Jews], and with them [Jews] partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree….
From where do you get this stuff? The more I read from you the more I understand (which is what you would want, I’d think). Does this stuff about Paul thinking Jesus was anything but divinity come from Roman Catholicism? Do they teach that “defined by the Roman Catholic Church” stuff in your wife’s church; or did you pick that up somewhere else? What is it exactly that they “defined”?
All I propose here is verifiable. Many books explain the facts so I won’t. Just Google any of my assertions and see what you find. You, of course, don’t have to accept the truth of any of it.
They don’t teach anything in my wife’s church, in the sense you ask. I attend with her sometimes as a favor to her and I can swear to that. They are much too busy plotting against and cursing Sabbath keepers (that’s a joke since they hold Sabbath services).
Stephen, faith doesn’t require you that ignore facts. God as love, or belief in Christ as savior, isn’t impeded by acknowledging the contributions of Catholicism to Christian theology. I majored in Church history at Union College, Andrews University Seminary, and the Iliff School of Theology. “Church History” in all three is basically Catholic history since it was the only church until Protestantism arose around the fifteenth century. The rebels tossed some Catholic teachings, but retained the majority as legitimate regardless of their roots.
So believe what you want, I intend to provide facts! Here I stand, I can do no other. (Ok, Martin Luther, you said it first)!
Bugs,
When you Google “defined by the Roman Catholic Church” (your words), all you get are definitions of the Roman Catholic Church. Look man, I’m just asking the source of the information that you assert. Since you are “[providing]facts,” just give me the source of your facts; so that I can read it and evaluate them as you have.
(My experience on this site is that whenever I’ve asked for the source of facts that are dubious and that subsequently have been found not to be factual, I am first told to look it up myself before uncovering the actual facts.)
It’s clear that you are an educated person, so just lead me in the direction to which this information may be corroborated or debunked, as the case may be; that’s all.
I’m saying that the founders of Christianity were Jews; and that therefore (in refutation of Elaine’s point) the Jewish faith is the actual “mother” faith tradition of Christianity.
We would not have the bible if the reforms such as Luther did not risk their life to translate it and publish it to the people. While facing tremendous persecution from the Roman Catholic church. Some reformers bones were dug up and burnt for dearing to translate and published the bible. You have a very selective view of history your arguments against Adventistism is very unbalance and clearly biased.
Hey, jumbos, this post seems so uncharacteristic of you. Has someone high-jacked your email account. 🙂
No Michael,
I just don’t waste the JN 10:10 life that Jesus offers.
🙂
The Roman Catholic Church (RC) guarantees salvation. Ensured by the tradition of the Church, that is, if the assigned penance is paid in advance, to the coffers of the church. The Pope is “Christ on Earth”, and also ensures the penalty paid for the dissolving of marriage, as though it never occurred. And of course there are listed prices for any sin. Confession, is a formal rite of the Church, from which the priests lower the hammer, for each offence.
i am not anti- Catholics. i have a Catholic son-in-law, 3 grandsons, and one great granddaughter. i am not opposed to the faith of anyone. They each have the right to choose as they will. It is the hierarchy that must pay the price for their transgressions. Would think EGHW’s detractors would grow tired of propagandizing her plagiarism, mistakes, infallibility. Give her credit for
“Steps to Christ”, and “Desire of Ages”, and her faith in the CHRIST. Every person having faith in the grace of Jesus, who has paid the ransom for each of us to have life everlasting, will not be disappointed.
“The Roman Catholic Church (RC) guarantees salvation . . . if the assigned penance is paid in advance, to the coffers of the church. The Pope is “Christ on Earth.”!? Please! Where on earth did these strange interpretations of post Vatican II RM theology come from? I wonder if Mr. Calahan would please provide us with an authoritative contemporary Roman Catholic source that makes these claims. If he can not, may I suggest that he retract his statements as totally unfounded.
Ervin, how can you be so naive. The RC Church has never, internally, given up this massive lucrative source of income. The perpetual high price Sunday Ticket is the Purgatory release. Have you not understood the voice says one thing, but the practice continues. Ever think of how the entire MAFIA stays in the good graces of the RC Church?? As per Monsignori Brown, an honest prelate.
Mr. Calahan is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts. The Catholic Church in southern Italy has refused to allow known mafia members to receive the Eucharist at mass and has publicly condemned the Mafia. But apparently Mr. Calahan has special, inside information that this is all just a show for us naive people.
Mark this quote well … “The Romish Church now presents a fair front to the world, covering with apologies her record of horrible cruelties. She has clothed herself in Christlike garments; but she is unchanged. Every principle of popery that existed in ages past exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves. The popery that Protestants are now so ready to embrace and honor is the same that ruled the world in the days of the Reformation, when men of God stood up at the peril of their lives to expose her iniquity. She possesses the same pride and arrogant assumption that lorded it over kings and princes, and claimed the prerogatives of God. Her spirit is no less cruel and despotic now than when she crushed out human liberty, and slew the saints of the Most High.” (E.White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol.4, p.387)
AT the time that EGW wrote those words in the 19th Century, we might suspect that the overwhelming majority of American conservative Protestants would agree with her. This is based on several hundred years of Protestant-Catholic conflict in Europe over many things–economic, political, and some religious issues all mixed up. Perhaps some of us have missed the point that we live in the 21st Century and the real reasons for the conflict no longer exist. So how about we cool the fundamentalist impulses and grow up.
Erv,
There are Protestants who are Protestants now for the same reasons that the Protestant reformers were Protestant; just as there are Roman Catholics now who are Roman Catholics for the same reasons that there were Roman Catholics in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Since you made the assertion, would you care to detail, demonstrate, or document for us how “the real reasons for the conflict no longer exist”?
How have you come to this determination? This would be very interesting.
If one wishes to know something about the nature of the contemporary Roman Catholic Church, you might wish to start by reading the decrees of the Vatican II Council. Of course, Protestants disagree with our Roman Catholic friends on various points of theology. What is the significance of that disagreement? I also disagree with my friends in England about the value of a monarchy.
If you are responding to me, who said that I “[wish] to know something about the nature of the contemporary Roman Catholic Church”? My point was that there are now Protestants who don’t believe that the nature of the contemporary RCC is any different than it has been in the past 400 or more years—and they are Protestants for that reason; just as there are Catholics who don’t believe that the nature of their church in 2016 is any different than it has ever been—and are Catholics for that reason.
My question to you is how have you determined that “the real reasons for the conflict no longer exist”? That is a big statement! So please elaborate.
The fear of the Catholics that the SDA Church instills in its members remains alive and well. Therefore, it will be very difficult for Adventists to be ob adjective in their judgment and validation of the Pope’s position and statements.
I wonder if the same spirit of asking for forgiveness will also be shown by the SDAs that, since the beginning, have said weird things about other denominations – including the Catholics.
Please read, “…very difficult for Adventists to be objective …”
It is one thing to expose error. It is quite another thing to impugn the motives of anyone including the current pope.
I grew up in a household where my SdA parents did the former while avoiding the latter. I assumed that the majority of SdAs did also.
Can anyone who has been around as long as I have (since 1944) provide some insight as to whether I was mistaken, when I was a boy, in my opinion about that? Was it already true back then that SdA ministers were glad to baptize anyone who was willing to answer leading questions in the affirmative, even if the candidate was a) a conspiracy theory aficianado? b) motivated by hatred toward adherents of the Roman Church or/and protestants? c) convinced that every doctrine of the Roman Church was wrong (including the triune nature of God and the divinity of Jesus)?
Even beyond those basic questions, however, is that of what people who have posted in this thread mean by “we”. If you don’t include yourself in “we”, please find a way to make the appropriate distinction.
What on Earth do each of you think “adventist” means? We have a dictionary that defines “Adventist” (with a capital A) as pertaining to the Seventh-day Adventist organization but there were adventists before there was such a thing as the Seventh-day Adventist organization so what, exactly, do you mean by your reference to adventists–or Adventists?
When I was a kid I was taught the Catholic church had secret rooms where Sabbath keepers would be held and tortured. My carpenter dad, at that time not an SDA, helped construct a new Catholic church and reported searching for such a room and not finding it. The narrative created by early Adventists is dead and should be buried. In fact it is for many of the young people.
There is a yearning among the oldsters for the prophecies to come true for several reasons. The main one is to verify their investment in a strange religion that never arrived at its proclaimed importance on the world stage. Adventism isn’t important, isn’t favored by God. It can offer plenty to people and the world, but not based on its massive prophetical errors.
Religious bogey men and straw men, fearmongering in general, was saleable 140 year ago. It was fashionable back then. The appropriate demise of historical Adventism can be measured by the decline in membership. No one in the world, including young Adventists, care about the Little Horn of Daniel. The encouraging articles I read about successful Adventist activities have no connection to a pessimistic, defunct dogmatic heritage.
Good days for Adventism are on the way. Archiving its miserable theological history is part of the process of acceleration.
“When I was a kid I was taught the Catholic church had secret rooms where Sabbath keepers would be held and tortured.” – Bugs/Larry
So, Bugs please stop being agitated when I remind you that you have been traumatized; and please stop trying to deny that your loathing of Adventism has nothing to do with your having been traumatized in your youth. Just own it without the deflecting sarcasm; and get some help. You are here because you are angry. It’s not your fault dude.
In fact, Bugs, I would venture to say that in this particular venue you have a whole lot of company.
Here’s another opinion for whatever it’s worth; the popularity of information (or lack thereof) is never a reliable gauge of its veracity.
“Agitated,” yes, you make me so angry, Stephen for calling me traumatized. Now I am writing this from the White Estate Psyche Ward for the Religiously Traumatized, the Stephen ward! As part of my rehabilitation I have to speak out loud one hundred times per day, “The pope is evil, the pope is evil, Ellen is good, Ellen is good.” I have no clue which pope or which Ellen. But the good is when I get out and relapse I’ll have a new trauma to cope with! Oh, and at night while I sleep they play over and over “Catholic churches have secret torture rooms for Adventists.” Now I think it may be true.
They have determined I don’t properly handle being lied to by religious organizations and their mouthpieces. Couple thousand volts to my noodle twice a day for two weeks they promise will properly adjust my mental distortions. They assure me I will give up the curse of independent thinking when this over and my trauma will be repressed, except anger at the devil. So I’m stuck here for a while. But I will sneak out my replies just as I am doing now. Pray for me.
Whatever gets you through the night, brother!
I agree with the writer who said Judaism is the “mother” of Christianity. Jesus had only the OT available to Him. He shared the teachings of the OT that he heard in the synagogue or local meeting house of the time. He showed how He was throughout the OT–its theme and praise.
I see no indication that Jesus wanted to start a new religion. He was Jewish as was His first followers. Interestingly, I heard much of this teaching reinforced by a Roman Catholic theologian! He pointed out the Hellenization of the church and its dualism. He stated that the church of today is nothing like the one Jesus was part of. And Revelation was given to a Jewish audience who know what the symbols meant.
See JC’s comment a little earlier. It builds on what you’re saying.
There was definitely a good deal of antiCatholic feeling in the last century that EGW warned about. There was a good deal of inter-testmental wrong theology during Paul’s time that he warned about. Its seeds are still found in the current Christian religion. Take it from there.
So we are at each other’s throats here.
This is a pretty dismal exercise in loving one another.
We are not called to defend God; God not only defends Himself, he defends us.
We all stand on common ground. Pope included.
We are God’s creation.
Him to.
Let’s go there.
The First Angel calls us there.
And a simple reading testifies to the eventual universal realization that we are all God’s creation, not just Adam and Eve.
This is what writes ‘Fallen’ to Babylon’s universal confusion.
What then becomes the saints is patience.
Patience is another word for acceptance.
One way or another we accept because it has simply become undeniable; it is not up to us.
I’m thinking that this is what being God’s creation means.
This is the Third Angel’s Message ‘in variety’.
We are just spiritual fornicators, the Second Angel explains, until we come to understand ourselves as God’s creation.
It is possible that the Pope has a better feel for this from within the constraints of Roman Catholic tradition than I did growing up Seventh-day Adventist. It is pretty impressive for the Pope to ask forgiveness for unChristianlike behavior by Catholics to other Christians. UnChristianlike treatment of other Christians is sadly what all Christians do on the way to realizing we are all God’s creation.
What does it mean that we are all God’s creation?
What does this patience look like?
Drat, Bill Garber, it would have saved me a trip the loony bin if I had read your prescription a few hours ago. But, too late, they got me. Thanks for nothing! OK, you tried.
We’re not at each others throats at all Bill. We are in ‘fundamental’ disagreement, Protestants and Roman Catholics; but we are not at each others throats. We are in a discussion of why we disagree—or if we continue to disagree; but we are being civil and candid it seems to me.
Once again, allow me to speak for all Seventh-day Adventists everywhere in apologizing for any un-Christian and /or un-Christ-like attitudes or words toward the membership of the RCC. (Now, for those who believe in the priesthood of all believers, how is my apology not the reciprocal equivalent of whatever it is for which the pope has apologized?)
Of course, there is no apology due for our Protestant interpretation of the symbols of Daniel and The Revelation of Jesus Christ to which you often refer.
Nevertheless, blessed are peacemakers.
blanketing Philly with the GC just before the popes last visit..I dunno? What I do know is in 1964 while a student at NB college I walked into the vatican with a small group of 10-15 people in a spannish workers party who had an audience with the pope, yup, past the swiss guards and into this little room. I sat there for 10 or 15 minutes about 7 feet from the man not understanding anything that was going on. But I gazed at him and what I saw was an extremely kind and gentle man. I suppose that led me to post on my facebook page just before his last visit.
“As a fourth generation Seventh Day Adventist I would like to welcome the Pope to my country and ask forgiveness for my denominations Pope paranoia, lack of respect, love, acceptance and forgiveness”
Thank you Stephen,
I’m no good at this. Wish I had a good excuse. Testimony, I mean. I’m beguiled by the temptation that I can figure things out … for everyone.
As much as I am attracted to acceptance rather than achievement, I really want to achieve. Clarity. Universally. Like clarity is a substitute for unity. Atonement.
Metaphorically at a minimum, eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is deadly. Still. It feels like.
Ellen White recounts her mother’s response when Ellen asked her mother to not share her belief that there is no ever-burning hell. Ellen said she believed the end of hell would be the end of civilization. Her mother replied, The Love of God is vastly more compelling than the fear of hell.
B. F. Skinner confirmed that positive reinforcement rather than negative reinforcement was many times more successful in reshaping behavior.
Yet here I am joining in the exploration of ‘fundamental’ disagreements rather than looking for fundamental agreements. Just calling for such a change in our collective MO is defying Skinner and Ellen White’s mother and pretty much Genesis to Revelation. My apology, Stephen.
Seriously.
How quickly we have forgotten how the Lord has led us in the past! The RCC never changes. Those are her words, not mine. This current pope is loving, caring and forgiving. That may all be well and good, but, the RCC never changes. Her words, not mine. Why not be loving and caring when you have the whole world wondering after you? No matter what anyone thinks of the SDA church, facts in the Bible do not change. The RCC is the beast power of Revelation 13 and that will never change. She will one day force everyone great and small to worship her and her false day of worship. There will be a death decree. That will not change. Whether we will be alive to see it is unknown at this time.
Linda, Vatican II implemented many changes in roman catholicism. Not sure what EGW meant but some context is needed to see if she was accurate.
Why not be loving and caring because God is loving and caring and wants us to reflect His character to others? It is in other ways that the true character of the RCC is revealed and how that contrasts with the character of God reveals who are His true followers.
EGW lived before Vatican II when the RCC “opened its windows” and DID make changes. I suggest you research “Vatican II to become informed on the changes that were made.
Elaine,
Why don’t you and Erv do us all the service of briefly summarizing the changes, as you understand them that were made in Vatican II that you both have indicated as having been significant?
Do your own homework which I did: Check Wikipedia for the full explanation.
Elaine, I will check with my Bible before Wikipedia! There is no comparison. The RCC can say many things, but, it can not change God’s word. They have tried, but, they have failed. I said nothing about EGW, only the Bible!
The question will naturally arise: are some people’s crimes so heinous that they don’t merit forgiveness? Other churches or religious groups are included? Parents who’ve abused us? Children who’ve rebelled against us? Spouses who’ve abandoned us? Friends who’ve betrayed us? Strangers who harmed us or our loved ones? The Vatican, Perhaps even some in SDA-GC Administration, Or even tyrants who’ve killed our families? Is Hitler, for example, forgivable? Can one forgive a person without forgiving their actions?
I would suggest only this: that if you find yourself holding onto a grudge against someone who’s grievously harmed you, for you to find a way to forgive them—for you to become the kind of person who can—will not only first and foremost benefit you, but ultimately may have the power to transform the life of the person you’re forgiving. Not always of course. But sometimes. And if it does, in forgiving them you’re not only setting yourself free, you’re actually contributing to something of greater importance, something the world is literally crying out for in more places than you could probably name: peace.