The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

philiporeilly

Michael G wrote: »

Could you say every word of the Creed at Mass and mean it?

The definition for being a RC changes with each argument in this thread by those defending the actions of Rome. It's easy to say those those who are appalled by the hierarchy must be anti-catholic....

Some here say the church is as strong as ever based on the amount of people who tick a box on a census, and then if they don't like your comments they question your faith against theirs, question your personal beliefs, ask how many times you attend mass or do you mean every word of the creed.


Anyone know which is it because there would be massive differences in percentages based on some of those definitions?

Sancte Raphael

philiporeilly wrote: »

The definition for being a RC changes with each argument in this thread by those defending the actions of Rome. It's easy to say those those who are appalled by the hierarchy must be anti-catholic....

Some here say the church is as strong as ever based on the amount of people who tick a box on a census, and then if they don't like your comments they question your faith against theirs, question your personal beliefs, ask how many times you attend mass or do you mean every word of the creed.


Anyone know which is it because there would be massive differences in percentages based on some of those definitions?

Nonsense. the Church is not about numbers. It's about souls who are inflamed with the love of God. How many of those souls there are is really only God's knowing. For too long we've satisfied ourselves with stats - how many bums on seats, how many baptisms, marriages etc... None of this really matters if we are not producing the fruits. Anyway, I digress.

This is new for any who have not seen it (sorry if it's been posted b4):

Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures
concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations



The applicable law is the Motu Proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (MP SST) of 30 April 2001 together with the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This is an introductory guide which may be helpful to lay persons and non-canonists.

A: Preliminary Procedures

The local diocese investigates every allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric.

If the allegation has a semblance of truth the case is referred to the CDF. The local bishop transmits all the necessary information to the CDF and expresses his opinion on the procedures to be followed and the measures to be adopted in the short and long term.

Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.

During the preliminary stage and until the case is concluded, the bishop may impose precautionary measures to safeguard the community, including the victims. Indeed, the local bishop always retains power to protect children by restricting the activities of any priest in his diocese. This is part of his ordinary authority, which he is encouraged to exercise to whatever extent is necessary to assure that children do not come to harm, and this power can be exercised at the bishop's discretion before, during and after any canonical proceeding.

B: Procedures authorized by the CDF

The CDF studies the case presented by the local bishop and also asks for supplementary information where necessary.

The CDF has a number of options:

B1 Penal Processes

The CDF may authorize the local bishop to conduct a judicial penal trial before a local Church tribunal. Any appeal in such cases would eventually be lodged to a tribunal of the CDF.

The CDF may authorize the local bishop to conduct an administrative penal process before a delegate of the local bishop assisted by two assessors. The accused priest is called to respond to the accusations and to review the evidence. The accused has a right to present recourse to the CDF against a decree condemning him to a canonical penalty. The decision of the Cardinals members of the CDF is final.

Should the cleric be judged guilty, both judicial and administrative penal processes can condemn a cleric to a number of canonical penalties, the most serious of which is dismissal from the clerical state. The question of damages can also be treated directly during these procedures.

B2 Cases referred directly to the Holy Father

In very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming, the CDF may choose to take the case directly to the Holy Father with the request that the Pope issue a decree of "ex officio" dismissal from the clerical state. There is no canonical remedy against such a papal decree.

The CDF also brings to the Holy Father requests by accused priests who, cognizant of their crimes, ask to be dispensed from the obligation of the priesthood and want to return to the lay state. The Holy Father grants these requests for the good of the Church ("pro bono Ecclesiae").

B3 Disciplinary Measures

In cases where the accused priest has admitted to his crimes and has accepted to live a life of prayer and penance, the CDF authorizes the local bishop to issue a decree prohibiting or restricting the public ministry of such a priest. Such decrees are imposed through a penal precept which would entail a canonical penalty for a violation of the conditions of the decree, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state. Administrative recourse to the CDF is possible against such decrees. The decision of the CDF is final.

C. Revision of MP SST

For some time the CDF has undertaken a revision of some of the articles of Motu Proprio Sacramentorum Sanctitatis tutela, in order to update the said Motu Proprio of 2001 in the light of special faculties granted to the CDF by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The proposed modifications under discussion will not change the above-mentioned procedures (A, B1-B3).

http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_guide-CDF-procedures_en.html

From Zenit:

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 12, 2010 (Zenit.org).- With a 14-paragraph guideline, the Vatican is seeking to clarify the procedures it follows when a priest is accused of sexual abuse.

The guideline was posted on the Vatican’s (Web site) today.

A report from Vatican Radio explained that the guide is not a new document, but simply a summary of procedures that have already been defined. “It can be an aid for laypeople and those who are not canon lawyers,” Vatican Radio noted.

In the midst of allegations from the media that the Church has sought to cover up these scandals, the document affirms clearly: “Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.”

It also clarifies: “Should the cleric be judged guilty, both judicial and administrative penal processes can condemn a cleric to a number of canonical penalties, the most serious of which is dismissal from the clerical state.”

The document further notes when cases are referred to the Holy Father: “In very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming, the [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] may choose to take the case directly to the Holy Father with the request that the Pope issue a decree of "ex officio" dismissal from the clerical state. There is no canonical remedy against such a papal decree.

“The CDF also brings to the Holy Father requests by accused priests who, cognizant of their crimes, ask to be dispensed from the obligation of the priesthood and want to return to the lay state.”

Exon

There should be no mercy for sex-offenders, they should be summerially executed and burried in mass graves.

If I had it my way, we'd go from house-to-house rounding up sex offenders and hang the lot.

Michael G

For those posters here who have an open mind: an account of the facts behind the weekend "revelations" about the Pope and the American pervert priest: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=632

Michael G

And a piece from ALan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor, ACLU member, liberal, Jewish, defense attorney in many high profile cases): http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/13/in-defense-of-the-pope/

Flamed Diving

Michael G wrote: »

And a piece from ALan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor, ACLU member, liberal, Jewish, defense attorney in many high profile cases): http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/13/in-defense-of-the-pope/

This article just says so little, it's a feeble, whimpering attempt at an apologist position. I felt no better informed about anything, after reading it, just confused as to why this distasteful attempt to list reasons on 'why it is ok to protect child torturers' is somehow understandable. Depressing.

Hitchens (PDN's favourite drunkard) puts it well:

We Can't Let the Pope Decide Who's a Criminal

An Excerpt:

On April 10, the New York Times—the apparent center of this "planned campaign"—reprinted a copy of a letter personally signed by Ratzinger in 1985. The letter urged lenience in the case of the Rev. Stephen Kiesle, who had tied up and sexually tormented two small boys on church property in California. Kiesle's superiors had written to Ratzinger's office in Rome, beseeching him to remove the criminal from the priesthood. The man who is now his holiness the pope was full of urgent moral advice in response. "The good of the Universal Church," he wrote, should be uppermost in the mind. It should be understood that "particularly regarding the young age" of Father Kiesle, there might be great "detriment" caused "within the community of Christ's faithful" if he were to be removed. The good father was then aged 38. His victims—not that their tender ages of 11 and 13 seem to have mattered—were children. In the ensuing decades, Kiesle went on to ruin the lives of several more children and was finally jailed by the secular authorities on a felony molestation charge in 2004. All this might have been avoided if he had been handed over to justice right away and if the Oakland diocese had called the police rather than written to the office in Rome where it was Ratzinger's job to muffle and suppress such distressing questions.

http://www.slate.com/id/2250557/


and some more:

The Pope Is Not Above the Law

http://www.slate.com/id/2249130/

The Great Catholic Cover-Up

http://www.slate.com/id/2247861/

Sancte Raphael

Hitchens and Dawkins are irrelevant.

The Catholic Church has been burying her enemies for the last 2000 years. I think we have little to worry about as regards these buffoons and their silly threats.

On a more serious note, this just in from Fr Z:

Card. Bertone in Chile strikes some sparks, MSM puffs on the fire
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/04/card-bertone-in-chile-strikes-some-sparks-msm-puffs-on-the-fire/

Read this closely. Keep in mind that the present MSM campaign against the Church is about destroying the Church’s authority to teach…

goat2

Sancte Raphael wrote: »

Hitchens and Dawkins are irrelevant.

The Catholic Church has been burying her enemies for the last 2000 years. I think we have little to worry about as regards these buffoons and their silly threats.

On a more serious note, this just in from Fr Z:

Card. Bertone in Chile strikes some sparks, MSM puffs on the fire
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/04/card-bertone-in-chile-strikes-some-sparks-msm-puffs-on-the-fire/

Read this closely. Keep in mind that the present MSM campaign against the Church is about destroying the Church’s authority to teach…

are you for real

Sancte Raphael

goat2 wrote: »

are you for real

Yeah, I am.

Case in point:

"Neither Bertone nor the Vatican has the moral authority to give lessons on sexuality," said Rolando Jimenez, president of the Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation in Chile.

Enough said.

Fanny Cradock

Sancte Raphael wrote: »

Enough said.

Exactly. Read the charter. This is your only warning.

Sancte Raphael

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Exactly. Read the charter. This is your only warning.

Don't be ridiculous. I've stated nothing that isn't demonstrably true. What you are doing is a hint of what is to come in the upcoming persecution of the Holy Church. Another case in point.

Fanny Cradock

What I'm doing is warning you about breaching the charter. Read it.

ISAW

philiporeilly wrote: »

The definition for being a RC changes with each argument in this thread by those defending the actions of Rome. It's easy to say those those who are appalled by the hierarchy must be anti-catholic....

It is just as easy to say those appalled by other mistakes by the hierarchy in the past are pro Roman Catholic. so what?

Some here say the church is as strong as ever based on the amount of people who tick a box on a census,

sorry but you are being quite unfair with this remark. I referred to a "census" in two separate cases. the first was in ralation to ireland, and especially the republic of Ireland being one of most Catholic countries in the World. I supplied the actual statistics of the Irish National census as evidence to back this up. this was in relation to the country being her people and the vast majority of them being catholic and wanting the church to be there. the second instance was in relation to Mass attendance on Sundays. I pointd out that the Whole church has a "census Sunday" on which numbers attending are taken. If you want those figures just get in touch with your local Bishop's office.

and then if they don't like your comments they question your faith against theirs,

This is again unfair and disingenuous. I didn't compare my faith to yours or your lack of it or even comment on whether or not i have faith or if i belong to any denomination. What I did question was the bone fides of people (and I don't necessarily mean you, in fact I would probably suggest you are excluded although if you want to include yourself with them feel free to do so) who come into a discussion on christianity and are 1. Not christian and 2. Not interested in christianity. I suggested they are interested in attacking christianity and promoting atheism as a better way for society. I also stated there is nothing wrong in itself with atheists making contribution to such a debate as there is nothing wrong with believers discussing atheism.
However Bible thumper's evangalising in an atheist group and claiming all athiests would be judged by god would not be tolerated. In fact there is little space for fundamentalists even in a christian forum. So why should christians or others discussing Christianity have to tolerate militant atheists?

question your personal beliefs, ask how many times you attend mass or do you mean every word of the creed.

Again this issue has clearly been addressed. the "rump" of Christianity is Roman Orthodox and Anglican. I also mentioned a few others like syriac etc. They constitute 90 per cent plus of Christians. The creeds they have were set about 1500 years ago. they ALL subscribe to the same creed. If you don't go along with that you are not mainstream christian you are a heretic or an apostate of Christianity. That is a workable definition which keeps a coherent core of dogma and beliefs for the purpose of argument.

Anyone know which is it because there would be massive differences in percentages based on some of those definitions?

The working definition of "mainstream christian" is quite adequate for the purposes of this discussion. You have been given it.

ISAW

Irlandese wrote: »

we dont want to debate clerical child abuse in the christianity forum, thanks anyway !!

well you have let the cat out of the bag there!
You are demonstrating hidden motives and a prior intention to post on off topic issues.

If you don't want to discuss it why are you posting on that thread to a thread about it?

ISAW

kbannon wrote: »

Why? I'm neither Atheist or Agnostic. I'm Roman Catholic - I just don't have faith in the leadership of the RCC.
You are trying to move a discussion about the RCC into a forum which has nothing really to do with the RCC. Do you just find the discussion of child abuse and its subsequent cover ups by members of the RCC to be something that should not be discussed or not discussed when you are around?

It seems quite sensible to me that anyone with an anti christian belief is quite entitled to point out problem with hierarchy as long as they do it with respect for the rules of debate. The point however is that the need to push their anti christian agenda quickly becomes apparent. It isn't reasonable to assume that shallow unsupported and biased or bigoted opinion about Christianity should be tolerated in a discussion about child abuse. Or any other discussion for that matter.

It only seems likely that bigots will go where their bigoted opinion will be tolerated or promoted. They can go discuss such opinions about Catholics (who constitute the one percent of child abusers the other 99 per cent not being clergy) at their local KKK meeting for all I care. They can lump them in with Jews Blacks Gypsies or any other group they secretly hate. They just can't realistically expect an anti Christian agenda to be trumpeted in a discussion on a Christianity group.

wolfsbane

Michael G wrote: »

Yes but I don't agree with the idea of a "Biblical Church". When Christ left this world, he left behind a group of people that he had taught both explicitly and implicitly. They had to reflect on what he had taught them implicitly, and develop it under the guidance of his Holy Spirit which he had promised to send them. He told Peter that "on this rock", he would found his church. Then he promised to be with his church until the end.

So the Church has grown and developed, and is where it is. Protestant reformers, and neo-Lutherans since they tried to catch a ride on Vatican II, suggest that the Church was in some way misdirected and that they can
put it back on the right road, but I have seen nothing in their arguments that is convincing or even persuasive. I am still convinced that the Church of Rome is the real thing.

Michael, I won't follow-up on the nature of the biblical Church on this thread, to respect PDN's moderator's note. I'm sure we'll pick it up in another thread, DV.

Michael G

wolfsbane wrote: »

Michael, I won't follow-up on the nature of the biblical Church on this thread, to respect PDN's moderator's note. I'm sure we'll pick it up in another thread, DV.

OK, thanks.

Michael G

ISAW wrote: »

It is just as easy to say those appalled by other mistakes by the hierarchy in the past are pro Roman Catholic. so what?



sorry but you are being quite unfair with this remark. I referred to a "census" in two separate cases. the first was in ralation to ireland, and especially the republic of Ireland being one of most Catholic countries in the World. I supplied the actual statistics of the Irish National census as evidence to back this up. this was in relation to the country being her people and the vast majority of them being catholic and wanting the church to be there. the second instance was in relation to Mass attendance on Sundays. I pointd out that the Whole church has a "census Sunday" on which numbers attending are taken. If you want those figures just get in touch with your local Bishop's office.


This is again unfair and disingenuous. I didn't compare my faith to yours or your lack of it or even comment on whether or not i have faith or if i belong to any denomination. What I did question was the bone fides of people (and I don't necessarily mean you, in fact I would probably suggest you are excluded although if you want to include yourself with them feel free to do so) who come into a discussion on christianity and are 1. Not christian and 2. Not interested in christianity. I suggested they are interested in attacking christianity and promoting atheism as a better way for society. I also stated there is nothing wrong in itself with atheists making contribution to such a debate as there is nothing wrong with believers discussing atheism.
However Bible thumper's evangalising in an atheist group and claiming all athiests would be judged by god would not be tolerated. In fact there is little space for fundamentalists even in a christian forum. So why should christians or others discussing Christianity have to tolerate militant atheists?





Again this issue has clearly been addressed. the "rump" of Christianity is Roman Orthodox and Anglican. I also mentioned a few others like syriac etc. They constitute 90 per cent plus of Christians. The creeds they have were set about 1500 years ago. they ALL subscribe to the same creed. If you don't go along with that you are not mainstream christian you are a heretic or an apostate of Christianity. That is a workable definition which keeps a coherent core of dogma and beliefs for the purpose of argument.



The working definition of "mainstream christian" is quite adequate for the purposes of this discussion. You have been given it.

I support that post 100% – and more if that were possible. Straight talking about which all Christians can agree.

Blueboyd

I must say that I am 45 yeas old and from a lutheran country and if not Lutheran at least Christian by culture - and my beliefs - well I don't care what label they would have - but if I had to pic one and not think of it as just "my religion" it probably would be Christian-Budhist-Indian - even if Budhism is not a religion IMO. Don't belong to a church - cos I am the church myself in away. The problem that I have with priests and preachers is that it is bit like if God were your girlfriend and you wanted to have sex with her and you would - but instead of you having sex with her there would be this "priest" person having sex with her - and then he would come to you and tell you what it is like to have sex with your girlfriend. In the same manner my relationship with God is very intimate and I do not want mediators there between me and God.

Anyways - and I guess my point is - I had never heard the word "militant-atheist" in my entire life used before I joined this forum some months ago. Makes me to think how different cultures can be and sometimes even the bitching conversations on this forum makes me to think of Iran and the non-dialog there between the mullahs and the opposition. Even if calling names to discredit someone is widley used in the world - for intance calling someone "liberal" in US politics to dicredit him/her is sort of really weird thing for me. But name calling happens even there on both sides.

I have no problems with anyones beliefs as long as those beliefs do not harm anyone or try to claim this is the only truth (except for the person him/herself maybe) I do have problem with persons who show disrespect towards others who have other beliefs - this goes for both sides again.

I have also made an observation that here on the Christian forum there is much more want for unify what Christianity is and means than I have seen elsewhere. The lack of disrespect for other interpretations is conspicuous. I could be wrong of course but I have started little bit to think this is a RCC cultural-thing and springs from the huge desire to take the position as the only true Church and the worship of a hierarchy. Sort of disrespect built in the religion. Or maybe I don't know enough of RCC - but I do remember when Pope John Paul II visited my country and when he got out of the plane and kissed the runway - and mumbled something like "God pardon the people in this pagan land" (can not remeber the exact words - but something like that). Jurnos at the airport was a bit shocked of if of course - cos that isn't quite polite thing to say when you come to a country which considers it to be Christian. So they wrote about it. Then the Vatican denied the pope had said anything like that. Except it was on tape and everyone could hear it on TV so it became sort of joke up here. And if I remember correctly even one TV-series got its name from that cos they called it quite funnily "The map of the pagan land"

So the thing is that Pope did have very little respect towards peoples believes up here. At least for me every religion is like a language of a country. There are many languages in the world and some are more related to each others than others. But to claim my language is the only true langauge is just way too self-righteous.

ISAW

Blueboyd wrote: »

I must say that I am ...probably would be Christian-Budhist-Indian - even if Budhism is not a religion IMO.
Don't belong to a church - cos I am the church myself in a way.

If you claim to belong to mainstream christianity you must believe in god and Christ and the trinity. "A la carte" christianity is not mainstream!

You cant just make up anything at all and say you are a mainstream Christian!

I have no problems with anyones beliefs as long as those beliefs do not harm anyone or try to claim this is the only truth (except for the person him/herself maybe) I do have problem with persons who show disrespect towards others who have other beliefs - this goes for both sides again.

Is personally attacking someone in an argument -ad hominem- harming them?

I could be wrong of course but I have started little bit to think this is a RCC cultural-thing and springs from the huge desire to take the position as the only true Church and the worship of a hierarchy.

Romans Lutherans Anglicans Orthodox and all other mainstream christians believe there is one true church. the Roman church believes Christianity subsists in the roman Catholic church. That don't say others are not true Christians! Clergy - Deacons Priests and Bishops are based on tradition and biblical precedent.

I do remember when Pope John Paul II visited my country and when he got out of the plane and kissed the runway - and mumbled something like "God pardon the people in this pagan land" (can not remeber the exact words - but something like that).

I don't believe you . where is your evidence?

Then the Vatican denied the pope had said anything like that. Except it was on tape and everyone could hear it on TV so it became sort of joke up here. And if I remember correctly even one TV-series got its name from that cos they called it quite funnily "The map of the pagan land"

I don't believe you. Care to Prove it?

So the thing is that Pope did have very little respect towards peoples believes up here. At least for me every religion is like a language of a country. There are many languages in the world and some are more related to each others than others. But to claim my language is the only true langauge is just way too self-righteous.

Belief A - the earth goes round the Sun
Belief B - the Sun goes round the Earth


A- fossil fuels will last forever
B- they wont

A- 1+1 equals 2
B- 1+1 does not equal 2

It isn't a case of accepting equal viewpoints when only one is true and the options are mutually exclusive.

Darkginger

"The problem that I have with priests and preachers is that it is bit like if God were your girlfriend and you wanted to have sex with her and you would - but instead of you having sex with her there would be this "priest" person having sex with her - and then he would come to you and tell you what it is like to have sex with your girlfriend."

Absolutely epic win.

Seth Brundle

Are you on drugs?

Darkginger

No.

PDN

Darkginger wrote: »

No.

That's a pity, because drugs would have been a mitigating factor.

As it is please stop posting nonsense in this forum.

wolfsbane

ISAW said:

I could be wrong of course but I have started little bit to think this is a RCC cultural-thing and springs from the huge desire to take the position as the only true Church and the worship of a hierarchy.
Romans Lutherans Anglicans Orthodox and all other mainstream christians believe there is one true church. the Roman church believes Christianity subsists in the roman Catholic church. That don't say others are not true Christians! Clergy - Deacons Priests and Bishops are based on tradition and biblical precedent.

But Blueboyd's objection was not that the RCC said the others weren't true Christians - it was that the RCC says the other Churches are not true Churches.

Also, some of the mainstream churches - the Presbyterian and the Baptists - do not have the office of priest, as it is not found in the NT Church.

Hebrews 13:12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate. 13 Therefore let us go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach. 14 For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come.

Blueboyd

Thanks wolf.

And ISAW I'd argue that mainstram christianity is what you label a la carte Christianity cos main stream of people like to think for themselves. I think "Taliban-chrisitianity" - if we continue with labels - is a minority.

And what it comes to pope's visit and his sayings - I don't really care what you think if it is true or not. I only care what I think about it. And what I think about it is based of what I heard myself. And read about later of the denial.

I think in most religions there is a tendency that the clergy starts thinking too much of themselves- Maybe because they love God so much - full time - that they somehow start to think that they are more "anointed" than anyone else. Still, even the clergy can get into arguments amongst themselves - like up here currently when some small group of conservative clergy still don't approve women as priests or blessing of gays and lesbians - even if the official church has okayed it.

One can interpret scriptures in many ways - and people do that - even clergy. And even bible was compiled by men. There are other scriptures that didn't make it to the bible and through out the history there has been a tendency for men to underscore that their interpretation is the only true one and everything else is heretic. Clergy very often like to see themselves as some sort of gatekeepers but when Jaysus talked about the difficulty of getting into Kingdom of Heaven I don't think he meant it as a gatekeeper but spoke of the difficulty for men to understand how you do that.

Anyways - what bothers me maybe most in the official doctrines is that all of it seems very much to concentrate on the past or the future - but what happens now this very minute is the thing that counts. If you don't get it now - you probably won't later either.

Michael G

Blueboyd wrote: »

It if I had to pick one and not think of it as just "my religion" it probably would be Christian-Budhist-Indian - even if Budhism is not a religion IMO. Don't belong to a church - cos I am the church myself in away.

With all respect, that is entirely meaningless.

ISAW

wolfsbane wrote: »

ISAW said:

But Blueboyd's objection was not that the RCC said the others weren't true Christians - it was that the RCC says the other Churches are not true Churches.

I was quite clear about it! ALL of then agree ther is only ONE Church. they don't think that all the other s are the wrong one and they are the only true one. They recognise a common baptism!

Also, some of the mainstream churches - the Presbyterian and the Baptists - do not have the office of priest, as it is not found in the NT Church.

If you recognist that someone baptised is baptised then you recognise they are a christian! the Free Presbyterians ( Ian Paisley's bunch) for example don't recognise this.

Hebrews 13:12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate. 13 Therefore let us go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach. 14 For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come.

Unitatis Redintegratio

While the unity of the Church “subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose”, it is also true that “the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to her” . Thus the Council expresses the hope that the unity proper to the Church “will continue to increase until the end of time” .
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitatis_Redintegratio

Blueboyd

Michael G wrote: »

With all respect, that is entirely meaningless.

Not to me.

I am as holy as any freaking pope or clergy man.

ISAW

Blueboyd wrote: »

Not to me.

I am as holy as any freaking pope or clergy man.

That isnt the point. you may believe Jesus was not God, you may believe the Trinity is bunkum. You may believe the resurrection never happened. But if you believe these you are not mainstream christian. You are a heretic or an apostate.

By my recogning Jehovas witnessess and probably Latter day saints are not mainstream. Nor are Branch Davidians, Esoteric christians and all the other fringe elements like them.

What you believe is up to you . the "mainstream" definition is given and adaquate for this discussion.

look here for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Main_grouping_of_Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_polity

But let us not go of topic.