Posted on 07/18/2009 9:27:36 PM PDT by bronxville
Two thirds of Christians in Britain do not think the Pope is a true Christian leader, according to a new poll.
The poll, conducted by ComRes, found that only 38 per cent of Christians surveyed agreed that "Catholic popes are true ambassadors of the Christian faith".
The figure dropped to 16 per cent among Baptists.
They said that even Protestants who work with Catholics at a grassroots level are still likely to find the idea of papal authority "particularly difficult".
The poll, which surveyed over 500 British Christians, found that 39 per cent of Methodists and 36 per cent of Anglicans who were polled believed that the Pope was a true Christian representative.
[...]
He said: "We still have denominations in membership [of the Free Churches Group] because they don't join the Churches Together in England because of the membership of the Roman Catholic Church."
A Baptist minister, who preferred to be quoted anonymously, agreed that the figures were not surprising.
He said: "Some Baptists would not want to give the Pope any credence as a representative of the Christian faith. Others who are very open to working with the Catholic Church would not want to necessarily see the Pope as a representative with any kind of authority... The position of the Pope is a particularly difficult issue in working with local Catholics."
But he said relations had improved. "At one time Baptists would not want anything to do with the Pope," he said.
The Rev Jeremy Brooks, the director of ministry at the Protestant Truth Society, said: "All true Protestants believe the papacy to be unbiblical, unnecessary and unhelpful. Churches governed by scripture alone rather than the traditions of men or the fashions of the moment are what broken Britain so desperately needs."
Mr Brooks said the poll suggested that "despite a serious lack of clear moral and spiritual leadership emanating from Canterbury it would seem that Rome is not an attractive alternative" for many Christians in Britain.
"All true Protestants believe the papacy to be unbiblical, unnecessary and unhelpful. Churches governed by scripture alone rather than the traditions of men....
And there are no shortage of them. Dozens and dozens and dozens. So unhelpful.
Laughable. Where did their Bibles come from?
That is probably the most myopic response I have ever seen in a religion thread.
Exactly!
There would be no Bible with out the Catholic Church.
And, besides, Martin Luther even told King Henry the XIII that he had NO moral right to rebel against Papal authority, simply to get a divorce and remarry.
The story seems flawed.
The headline says “not a true Christian leader,” but it seems the question is more like “the” Christian leader.
I can hardly fault them for saying the latter (they ARE protesting, right?), but that’s not the same at all as the former.
This is the result of a drop in literacy. One may as well poll a bunch of New Age loons or Hari Krishnas. The Church of England is in tatters and other religious denominations have a vested interest in attacking the Pope lest they lose their source of income. T
he leading intellectuals and pre-eminent pastors of the protestant movement both in England and in the US from Cardinal Henry Newman to the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Editor of First Things, all converted to Catholicism.
This is the result of a drop in literacy. One may as well poll a bunch of New Age loons or Hari Krishnas. The Church of England is in tatters and other religious denominations have a vested interest in attacking the Pope lest they lose their source of income. T
he leading intellectuals and pre-eminent pastors of the protestant movement both in England and in the US from Cardinal Henry Newman to the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Editor of First Things, all converted to Catholicism.
LOL
Protestants should stick to the very real fact that the Catholic Church DID make some mistakes through out history.
Name another 2,000 year old institution that hasn’t?
Oh, yeah, the Catholic Church is the ONLY institution that has been around for 2000 years!
The Bible was created by the Roman Catholic Church while the Eastern Orthodox were still in full union with Rome.
There is really no significant difference between the Orthodox translation of the Bible and the Roman Catholic translation of the Bible.
The Protestants went to the Orthodox, for their original texts for several reasons:
1.) Political difficulty obtaining original manuscripts in the possession of Rome.
2.) Pride and hostility towards Rome, to the point that Protestants did not want any shred of “help” from Rome.
3.) The fact that the Orthodox had the Greek translations, never really seeing the need for the Greeks to translate their manuscripts into Latin.
“Where we got the Bible” is an old book written by a Presbyterian Bishop who converted to the Catholic Church:
http://www.geocities.com/catholic_profide/wbible.htm
James is, IMO, _the_ book to read concerning [Christian] religion, organized or otherwise.
And this is from a country whose head of the church got that position by being the 29xGreat-granddaughter of William the Conquerer. Or else the 13xGreat-grandniece of the man who formed the church so he could divorce his wife rather than behead her.
Cute. But you aren't even good at parroting Olbermann, kiddo.
“Oh, yeah, the Catholic Church is the ONLY institution that has been around for 2000 years!” [excerpt]Stand up on that thar pedestal, sonny.
“The Bible was created by the Roman Catholic Church while the Eastern Orthodox were still in full union with Rome.” [excerpt]Oh my!
“The Protestants went to the Orthodox, for their original texts for several reasons:” [excerpt]And this Evangelical goes to the original texts because, well, I like to know what the authors actually wrote.
Actually, I did not make that last point you referenced very clear.
The Catholic Church had NO PROBLEM with the Orthodox Greek text, as that text was IDENTICAL to the translated Latin text, in meaning.
Very very few differences in meaning and translation existed between the manuscripts of the two faiths, before or after the split.
Now, “original text” is a bad phrase for me to use ——
BECAUSE NO ORIGINAL TEXTS EXIST!
Every single shred of existing parchment or manuscript was, at one time, produced by a CATHOLIC Monk or a Catholic Priest.
Even in the case of the Orthodox, all of the manuscripts and parchments in their possession only survived the ages due to the hard work of Catholic (UNIVERSAL) Monks and Priests.
If you are attempting to be wittily insulting you only half succeeded.
The Old Testament was not a BIBLE until the Catholic Church, in union with the Orthodox, combined the Old Testament, including ALL OF THE BOOKS in the Temple at the time of Jesus, with the Books that the ONLY Christian faith at the time, the UNIVERAL Catholic Church, Canonized as the official Bible.
Prior to that time, the Bible did not exist.
Calling a stack of bricks and a barrel of wet mortar a “chimney” would make just about as much sense as calling the teachings of Moses a “Bible” prior to the Catholic Councils which approved the first translated, edited, bound and official text of the Bible. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2286074/posts I suggest you educate yourself by reading the above FR thread on the history of the Catholic Church and the History of the Bible, prior to exposing your ignorance again. And, for the record, the first person in HISTORY to ever refer to the current books of the New Testament, in their current form were Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and Pope Damasus : 367 The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D.. 382 Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.
Gentlemen, show a little respect. I am a Baptist and don't go around beating you up over your beliefs.
And as far as the Bible is concerned, I think there was a thing call the Torah that came from the Jews.
We have enough battles to fight without dividing the community, lets not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.