1500 years ago?  WHat split are you talking about?  The official East-WEst split didn't happen until later than that.  At that point the church was, in name at least, universal and united.

Mind you I have no anger towards the Papacy as an institution nor the current holder of the title.  Many disagreements but no anger.

Hi Gord:

Sun Warrior probably talks about the Protestant Retormation, which happened 500 years ago.

Martin Luther did not intend to split the Church or found a new denomination.

Neither did Jesus.

They only meant to renew, reform or transform the existing Church.

Maybe, in Jesus' case, not even that. I think the early movement around Jesus and John the Baptist was just that: a non-denominational, spiritual movement.

Perhaps this is where the United Church is headed: A non-denominational, spiritual movement?

Anger is not hatred. One can be angry at another without hating them.

No comment. I am not a "we"-part.

I don't know who the 'we' is that you talk about in this post.  Are you meaning 'we' the UC?  'We' the participants in the WC?  Very perplexing without adequate information.

For the record - I don't hate the Pope.  I don't agree with him on many things but that merely means I disagree - not that I hate him or the RC church and its members.. 

The Great Schism of 1054, when the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other, and all within their communion, began centuries earlier, when Rome insisted on altering the Nicene Creed, saying that the Holy Spirit emanated from both the Father and the Son. 

This was the start of the split.  At the same time, the Bishop of Rome started insisting that he, among the five major patriarchs, was first among them, and therefore the leader.

Why the pope needed to do this can only come down to hurt pride, I believe.  The capital and emperor had removed themselves from Rome, leaving the pope in charge with 'provincial' jurisdiction over the poorest and crumbling section of the Empire. 

Over the centuries the fissure grew, with more stridancy by the papacy, and the other patriarchs rolling their eyes.

So, isn't it funny that the Reformation came and bit the Roman Church in the butt?  The pope had no qualms of splitting the Church for its own pride, but how dare it be done to it?

We just did what our original organization did.

But few know the story, so not a lot of healing can be done until we approach Catholics and tell them we have both sinned.  We have both, through our pride, divided Christ's Church.  

Perhaps both Protestant and Pope should go arm-in-arm to Istanbul and apologize to the Patriarch together...

A little humility goes a long way... and so does forgiveness. 

'We'... 'I'... Oops... having not done this in quite a while, I forgot my 'literary collectivity' (hey, there's a phrase) runs headlong into modern individualism.

I guess the question is, why won't you become a Catholic, then?

Our indifference is a major indicator of how things have changed.  We are Protestant and see no reason to change.  Why don't the Catholics join us?

But if you're Protestant, you are automatically part of 'we,' without you even realizing it.  You are the product of 500 years of conflict between the two Churches.

It points to where we are today concerning ecumenism.  Only the Anglican Church still ruminates about re-joining the Catholic Communion.  And I doubt any thoughts of re-union between the Vatican and other patriarchates barely gets mentioned within its stone walls.

Why do we need to be united as one Church, when we are individuals, with our own ideas, not needing to be dictated to about what we believe?

Yet separation is rebellion, within Divine Understanding.

Christianity is in crisis in the modern world.  Has anyone in the Church looked up to realize that the war between Protestantism and Catholicism is over?  Between the Holocaust and the triumph of modern business, science and consumerism, the Church as a whole has been marginalized... split off from being the center of society.  Another 'Reformation.'  Ironically, a product of Protestantism, if you study the history.

We prefer the 'symbolism' of One Church, while maintaining our defacto walls around our sanctuaries.  Rather safe and non-experiential.  What about 'communion' and 'community?'

If you look at the theology of mainline liberal Churches and Catholicism, there is no longer much difference.  It is only the language that separates, and the bad taste from history that we have forgotten, so we can't pin point where it comes from.

I am interested in becoming a Catholic, while remaining a Protestant, a re-unification within an individual, because the institutions are incapable.  Don't tell the bishop, he'll make me renounce.  But it would be interesting to look inside every corner of Catholic theology, only to find the same thing in different words in Protestantism.  There really is no significant difference.  Division starts from small disagreements, and grow into mountains.  Christian Unity has suffered with this for thousands of years.  Perhaps real Unity could actually work in the Universal Church's favor, when now it is most needed.

If we could do that, there is no telling how the five major religions could join after as well.

Amazing the power of community.

Of course in every split within the church over teh years the charge of excessive pride (and stubbornness and intransigence) fits equally on to both/all sides.

And we often forget that the positions held were not just academic points of view.  THey were usually, or always, deeply held faith-filled positions compounded by politics.  And to many of the people involved it was really a question of how God is understood.

Sun Warrior said -

I guess the question is, why won't you become a Catholic, then?

I can only answer for myself.  I don't become RC because my views differ radically from the official teachings of that church.  Though, of course, when I was Anglican I was in a catholic church.

I don't belong to any church now, though the range of accepted theology within the UC is closest to including my beliefs.

Every denomination has a gift to offer the whole Communion of the Universal Church.

It's like a family, where everyone has both the same genetics but different personalities.  They either get along, or become dysfunctional.

The modern Universal Church mimics the modern family, where they are too busy to spend much time together, and when the kids are grown they live far away and separated.

The most radical idea is to have but one church in each community, where the 'family' can get back together and share what they bring.  Just the way Jesus wanted it to.

The fear of domination and control weakens us all.  Divided and conquered by the dominant culture.

I have never been Catholic and I wouldn't want to be one because the teaching on contraception makes no sense and the RCchurch stance on sexual morality is really dysfunctional.  If I were to get involved in a spiritual/religious group I would want it to be pro-feminist and accepting of same-sex relationships.  They won't consider having women in positions of leadership and the problems with priests who seduce children were handled very badly.   The leaders would cover it up and it was only dealt with when exposed by people outside the church.

I don't think Ratzinger deserves to be hated, I just don't believe in his authority. He is an introverted academic who has risen to the top of his organization.  The RC positions on contraception, roles of women, its own authority, celibacy and are problems that should be opposed.

I'm not a member of any religion and my criticism of the RC church is from a humanistic /political point of view rather than from a Christian or protestant point of view.

Fair enough.  I guess this is for those who click with religion.

Yep, pretty much what Marzo wrote.  The RC church is so painfully backwards on everything sexual.  You could build a pretty good society based on laws and practices and leadership roles that are the exact opposite of what the Vatican does or wants.

At the last Conclave, the bishops had the chance to elect a more moderate pope, who might have done some good.  They did the exact opposite - the elected their enforcer as pope.  So now we sit back and wait for this one to die.  Not with a sense of hatred for the man, but with a sense of hope for a better choice next time.

I have Irish Protestant roots, and ancestors who were proud members of the Orange Lodge.......I thought that was why I cannot become Catholic.

On a more serious note, I think you have some good thoughts Sun Warrior.  Why don't I become Catholic? I think the main thing is that I cannot belong to a church that will not ordain women. While I have no wish to be ordained, when I cannot be ordained, I cannot become fully involved in the church. The message I receive is that I am less than. I chose not to accept that message. I do not care if it is a man or a woman in the pulpit in front of me. I just want to know I can be as fully involved in the church as my brother in the seat beside me.

My own sun warrior(god), Apollo the silver bengal is sitting beside me grooming himself in preparation for a good nap......though there are suspicious noises outside he needs to investigate..........

 In response to the title of the thread, I should hope that no one who calls him/herself a Christian would "hate" the Pope. Disagree, yes. 

Benedict is a stopgap pope. He was a deliberate choice as someone who (given his age) would presumably be a short term pope, giving the Cardinals a bit of a chance to reflect on the direction they want tot ake. I would expect that the selection of the next Pope will be a better indication of the drection the Roman Catholic Church wants to move on a number of issues.

Maybe the catholic church should try something more democratic, like giving a vote to every registered member of the church and they can vote at their local parish.  They could open it up to every member and if a woman gets elected, she could be called "The Mome".

So the pope stands in the way of a closer communion with Catholic Christians.

I am Protestant, Queer and living with AIDS, I attend a Catholic University. I `am more welcomed and in closer communion with revisionist Catholics (those who do not reject the authority of the Pope, but believe he is wrong on issues, like prior Popes were wrong on the Slave trade) then I am with liberal Protestants who fear people with AIDS.  Revisionists Catholics are the majority in the Catholic Church.  They do not let the Pope stand in their way, in fact they actually try harder to be Christians to make up for the Popes pronouncements. 

ALex,

It may be more accurate to say that REvisionist Catholics are teh majority in the North American branch of Roman Catholicism.  Well and possibly some areas of Europe.

There are large swaths of the world where Chrisitianity as a whole is far more conservative than is the norm in the developed WEst.

Without reading all the way through the thread I just wonder - is the premise from your title flawed?   Why we hate the pope - do we hate the pope?  what makes you think we do?   I don't hate the pope.  I'm not Roman Catholic, but I don't hate the pope.  I don't think most of us do.

Actually the topic is quiet ironic, because theologically to the pope, if you are not Catholic you are not part of the 'real' church: ergo, doesn't matter what you think 'cuz you/we non-Romans don't exist - he can't help it.

This removes any existential uncertainty for any 'protestant', for in relation to the Holy Father we are ecclesial non-persons.

Signed,

Mr. Nowhere Man

Alex,

Thank you.  Perhaps 'hate' is not the most accurate word for this thread.  Perhaps the fundamental word is 'fear.'  The pope is a symbol of fear, the fear of being under his control, and the whole apparatus that determines whether one gets communion, is excommunicated, and dictates rigid rules, as if he is Peter, guarding the Gates to Heaven.

If fear is involved, then it's not Christian, on our part, or the pope's.

And yet you as a a gay man, with AIDS, finds more spiritual 'truth' with revisionist Catholics 'under the pope' than you do with liberal Protestants who 'tolerate' gays, but don't push the issue any further.  Liberal Protestants who keep the peace, thinking it's love, when under the surface a war is actually raging, so there is no real peace.  And yet the Catholics you experienced live 'with' the 'serpent' without letting the serpent of the pope unfound the Truth of Christ within them.

So you've brought to the surface the hypocrisy of what makes liberal Protestants feel so good, open-minded and free, when actually the truth of the emotions underneath bely the pride of the mind 'keeping it in check.'  They are proud they are not abusive, but the silence in the tolerance is just as abusive, perhaps subversively more so, because it can't be 'touched,' and dealt with.  It is cold.  A kind of Victorian hypocrisy. 

As long as we are 'tolerant' of the pope's existence, at arm's length, we are fine.  But the thought of coming under his regime frightens and angers us.  Keep the anger down by keeping him away.  Then we don't have an emotional issue that we have to deal with.  Revisionist Catholics have the balls to stay in the Church, despite the intolerance.  If we are not upset, then there is peace.  If we are not upset, then the unity of Christianity suffers, divided and conquered, from indifference/fear of papal hegemony, because we are afraid to tell Catholics they did not keep the peace in the Church, but broke it up. 

There is a false peace in Christianity today.  A contemporary conceit in 'tolerance,' that belies a silent anger and rejection of true unity and community underneath.  We'll have an ecumenical service, smile nicely, then go back to the walls of our 'sanctuaries.'  Jesus burst into the Temple, and upset the peace, to show the true colors of piety of those who organize the faithful.

We reject the pope because of his dictatorship.  Yet we acknowledge him in our rejection of him, instead of confronting and dealing with the logic that sustains him.  Revisionist Catholics live in community with the pope, much like Jesus lived with the rabbis, not breaking communicty with them, but showing the truth underneath them, and calling it out.  Jewish unity wasn't broken, merely exposed as being broken for the actual separation from God through its hypocrisy.

Peter was the Rock of the Church.  The pope claims the Apostle's authority.  Don't reject the logic, go into that temple.  Peter was the bishop of everywhere he set up a church, be it Snotnose, just outside of Antioch, Hicksville, beside Corinth, or Pimple-on-the-Butt, a suburb of Byzantium.  He was bishop of those churches too, and so his successors there have every right, according to papal logic, of claiming to be of Peter's authority.  Don't reject Jesus' words in the Bible, reject the logic that WE created from it.  Especially if the current vogue of getting 'Empire' out of Christianity is serious.

Peter's heart made him the Rock, not his logic.  That was Paul's domain.  And Peter chose the truth of Jesus' heart, not mind, to establish one church, unity, among followers of Christ. 

The pope's relationship to Protestants defines Protestantism.  Do Protestants, whether they want to admit it or not, like the pope still defining them, because Christ wanted one Church in reality, not just 'symbolism.' 

And who knows what Protestants might find in Catholicism that the Reform Church's founders threw out, without our knowledge or consent.  We just silently bought Calvin and Knox's story, so they are the silent popes of Protestantism that guide us without our true consent.  We are proud to be individuals, not under anyone's power.  Oh really?  The false nature of our 'freedom,' that we buy so easily in modern times.

And, like Alex experiences, true peace and unity suffers on a real human level, as the Victorians smile in their conceit of tolerance.  Gays exist in Christianity today to upset the moneychangers tables in the Temple.  They are suffering for it, exposing the hypocrisy of heterosexuals afraid to ask God why they despise His Creation.  Jesus loved everyone, but He was intolerant of hypocrisy, that kills the spirit in humans.  And silent hypocrisy is the worst.  That's why we reject our Victorian past.

Alex, to make your point a little more clear, the easiest way to expose the hypocrisy is to argue that Jesus was gay.  It's very easy to do.  I've done it, simply by using the Bible and the off-the-shelf intellectual tools our Vatican, academia, uses to pontificate on the efficacy of the Scriptures.  Then you will see the truth that underlies the tolerance we are so proud of.  I brought it up here, on Wondercafe a few years ago, and it was hysterical the reaction.  Just by using the logic of those who control our Church, the academics.

Just like the indifference/fear of the pope, that divides all Christianity, not just Protestants, but from the Orthodox as well.  Division everywhere.  When Christ wanted one Church under Him, through Peter's heart. 

And it is being done to Protestants as well.  People run from it, just like Protestants run from the pope.  The impression of dictatorship, when the devout experience something completely different, outside of Church politics.  The actual Spirit of Christ.  Division is the cancer that is killing Christianity, as the status quo drifts into the future in academic reflection.

No one wants to become Catholic?  Chicken.

Peter got that lesson from the cock, three times.  So he got the message to save himself, despite the courage to save Jesus, and 'erected' one Church, as Christ commanded. 

Perhaps we should be sowing the 'seed' of unity a little more than we want to admit.

The issue of Christian unity is far more serious than the overlords of every church care to admit.  If we are so smart, why isn't anything real being done?  In the United Church, the logic goes, we are just ordinary people living ordinary lives in Christ.  And the congregation goes to sleep in the pews.  Don't disturb the peace.  Sword of Christ indeed.

Where is John Wesley when we need him?  Let's stop tearing the Bible apart and start taking it seriously.  Jesus said Peter was to set up one Church.  How would we know what that means until we try it experientially?  Who knows what Great Awakening may occur.  Who knows how much God we may experience, by simply taking Jesus seriously, instead of trying to debate the logic of Jesus.

Complacency is killing the Church.  Our Vatican, academia, is guiding our priests in their diminishing parishes, taking care of the flock.  But who is taking care of Jesus and Peter's Universal Church?

We can debate the minutiae of unity til the cows come home.  Minutiae is our greatest enemy in theology today.  Jesus is Spirit, not logic.  One Church, in every town, and let the chips fall where they may.  Trust the Spirit in this one.  It ain't logical.  It's only a simple Truth.  A uniting Church.

Why are we avoiding the pope?  He is dividing the Church in us.  Only the Spirit can unite through healing.  Only God can make the ugly meaning beautiful.

Hi SunWarrior

I'm a bit confused re your chosen topic. I sure don't hate the pope but I don't think I'm very interested in him one way or the other. I had Catholics in my family, mostly passed away by now. My father was Catholic, one aunt was a nun, and I'm christened Catholic. I suppose I don't believe in the doctrines of the Catholic church but I can share the spirit of Christ. I share the Christ Consciousness with all religions to the best of my ability. I don't believe I have any fixed black and white beliefs/doctrines  or fixed biblical interpretations such as those found in the Caholic church.

I watch mass on TV at noon sometimes:

Hi Sun Warrior:

I'm all in favour of a Uniting Church, and have resolved to speak to the local Catholic bishop about this. I know him to be very open minded. Alas, the local Catholic parish priest is less so.

Last Sunday there was an ecumenical Christmas service in our Catholic church. Instead of having three half- or quarter-full Christian churches in our village, we suddenly had one that was full. And it was a splendid service.

Perhaps SunWarrior's thread name is indicative of the "Christian love" I keep hearing about...  as I seem to have heard the word "hate" uttered by Christians in a hateful or negative way far more frequently than from any other identifiable segment.  Though to be fair, most of this was from a site frequented by American Christians (they seemed to just love the word "hater", too).

I like the splits as they have contributed to completely new thoughts, interpretations and beliefs within Christianity. Diversity in Protestantism is a gift and I actually oppose the ecumenical movement.

1 Corinthians 12

"¹²The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. ¹³For we were all baptized by^[c] one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. " --Although it refers to the inner structure of a cogregation, I like to apply this paragraph to Christendom which is also the body of Christ.

We do not need to be united to feel together, we are united through Jesus, the father and the holy spirit. I support a decentralized church and the last thing I would do is to reunite with the Catholic church and I think most Protestants (evangelicals, pentecostals and members of the charismatic movement) will agree with me. I go to a conference and meet tens of thousands of Protestant Christians from different denominations and it doesn't matter.

I think the deep problem lies in the RC church itself.

Hi Ichthys:

The ecumenical movement is not about uniformity; there is diversity of thought within the ecumenical movement.

Essentially, every one of us is a unique thinker and experiencer. If this uniqueness is acknowledged, then the ecumenical movement could become a powerful agent for change, and usher in a post-denominational, spiritual age.

After all, the original movement arount Jesus and John the Baptist was a spiritual movement, not a religious denomination. A "pre-denominational, spiritual movement," if you will.

We need to really get over this hatred of the pope.  At least half of the Catholics don't really care about him anyway.

 I don't hate the Pope.

I disagree with some of the theology of the Roman Catholic church... but, then, I also disagree with some of the theology of my own denomination. :)

Christ's peace - r

I don't hate the Pope either,

I don't agree with alot of things in alot of denominations & religious thought in genral.

To delve on the problem has never been a solution, at least this is something I've learned a great deal in my life.

The solution is the relational aspect of our relation to God, our Father.

The Holy Spirit that unifies all in this relationship is greaved, as this has been evident that all that unifies, will never cross the threshold of "free will".

In a Kingdom of absolutes, "free will" that is corrupt, & has failed in enlightenment, will never be able to cross the threshold of these absolutes.

God made a way to be able to set a standard in which He will be held beyond reproach when the absolute of judgement comes.

This standard was fulfilled in Jesus the Christ.

He is the Door, & He holds the Keys.

Bolt

Only some?????

Give him points at least for understanding that the UCC has a theology.  We do don't we?

I did hear something about that.

 Definition:

"some": http://www.answers.com/topic/some

I didn't define exactly what percentage. 

Christ's peace - r

Finally! A perfect description! I, indeed, 'click' with religion. Have for 70 years, really clicked 30 years ago...

Disapointed with division, emity, discord, hypocracy...

Delighted with the bible, theology, diversity

Amazed by  life, Consciousness, Science

...And just begining to think that at 82, I should be heading for some sort of conclusion

Sooo...

I have joined a church of one, a church that seeks no money or additional members...and

I thought that talking about it here would be impolite and perhaps my ego rude...

The Church of Variable Likelihood.

Doctrines: 1. Men lie. 2. Relationships change. 3. It's best to be kind.

Theology: Two Gods. One; the God most religions now have, and the other The Goddess of curiosity. She likes everything we have learned, and when we die, She will Share.

I am coming to believe this. Until I insist that this is true, I find it a pleasent way to approach all religions...

Really enjoyin' yer posts...

Just musin' while reading this Topic here and thinking about the necessity of the church...any church...who is 'going to the ends of the earth preaching the Good News...'? The internet! It's a matter of a few small parts of a second for Google or Bing, Wikipedia or  10,000 other free sources to provide; every great sermon ever preached, a thouand references to study every verse of the bible, (Every  holy Book, every language...) and dozens of other wonders...everyone has a library that is beyond the dreams of Emperors past...and bumped  right into a kindred thought:

Ah. Total rejection. Divorced from the past. Unhindered by Tradition.

Wait! No! :

Yes! The internet! Solves a hundred problems! It ALSO is hastening the destruction/abandonment of 24,000 monumental edifces with their attendent costs/ priests ...(And ruination to thousands of candle-makers...)

Well, sort of, kind of, relatively speaking.

Sun, be specific if you will please and  identify "Christ's Church!" Thanks!

I guess all those straight guys can project their own adoration as loathing when they see all those RC men at ease wearing those beautiful gowns :3

Just a Self-writing poem,

Inannawhimsey

Sorry, folks.  Been away for a few days.

Panentheist, what do you think Christ's Church is?  And what are your differences with others' ideas doing to keep you from worshipping with them?  Was Jesus just talking 'symbolism' about it, the 'Spirit,' or was there something more tangible in our actions?  Do we worship with R.C.'s, Orthodox and Coptic Christians in the same service, or acknowledge the need for tolerance and acknowledgment of other traditions, but stay in our own church, because that's where we're comfortable?  Where two or more are gathered, Christ is Present.

Arminius, yes, the modern vogue of getting 'Empire' out of theology is good, especially toward ecumenism.  But the Jesus Movement was far more spiritual than the modern Church.  Many will protest that, which comes from our ignorance of how and why we think like we do.  But back in those times, it wasn't a problem of convincing people that one spirit even existed, God, but sorting out actual spiritual reality that everyone had always known, but got screwed up in the mind of the city. 

Protestants could learn a lot from Catholic spirituality that we left behind 500 years ago, but it has to be experienced, and so too the Catholics from us.  And we both could learn a lot from Orthodoxy, the Copts, etc.  Imagine a service that incorporated everyone's traditions.  Imagine the awe.  God and Christ wouldn't just be Present in that service, they would be on Fire with Joy!  And the pews would feel it, not conceptually, but actually!  "They aren't dividing and paying lip service!  They are actually coming together as One!  Humans CAN do miracles!"

I admire your openess, Armenius, to visit your local bishop.

Thanks everyone, for your posts!

Innana, yes, fashion jealousy is another thing that is dividing the Church.  One haute couture designer for all denominations to prevent envy!

Bravo!  ;-)

......hmmm...."hate the pope" ......seems like someone has trouble expressing their thoughts like I do LOL.    Hate .... such a tired little word made to dress up for all sorts of occasions ....poor little hate....      I hate the cold ....not quite the same as I hate bigots (and I hate neither though there is a lot of dislike for certain things).       Ok .... if I had to choose something to "hate" it would be pettiness dressed up in hubris and wearing the high heels of arrogance.    Maybe even that is too closely related to the "other" hate practiced by those "other" people so I shall carefully back away from that as well.    I have enough trouble trying to clean the yuckies out of my life without going out to find an industrial sized thing that I can safely loath from a distance (as if that could possibly work).    The present pope's pronouncements have hurt me and my kind and yet he is a person just like me.   Hating him, to me, is allowing thoughts to pile up that builds and strengthens the wall between us.  A wall to insulate and dehumanize ...a wall that allows them to become "them" ...somehow lesser then loathsome beings that we then have a moral right (obligation) to do something about.    Is there not the seeds of war in there somewhere?       Unite! ...what a wonderful goal! ...and it seems somewhat beyound my abilities most days.     What I can do is just this ....to love .... Rita kind of love.....     How does that work? ....... well ....that is hard to explain ..... I just sort of give out what I would appreciate getting were I in their shoes.     So they are wrong ....and of course I am always right (LOL).      Maybe it starts with being able to sit down, share a coffee, and being big enough to disagree.    Coffee ...the great uniter!! ..... yep the Canadian way!    Seriously , for a moment, thank you for helping me again examine the glasses I use to look at others ....seems they were in need of a cleaning yet again!        
Rita

Wow. I like that.

Thanks for your thoughts Rita.

Rita, I think you're making a convincing argument against the institution of religion.  Who really cares anymore?  Institutions divide, not unite.  Who can get worked up about any institution these days?  We know where we stand with them.