Benedict XVI

Remove all ads!

Sorry, ellipse, right. My bad.

 

It is actually a Geoid.

 

There are churches which resemble circles of worship made around the members' preferences. Many Christianity denominations have originated on the pick and take what you like from Christianity basis. However, the Catholic Church is not one of those. Grace and faith comes from God. Doctrine is not just a form of worship. But from the later fragments of your post, it occurs you don't include the moral bits and core dogma, so we're about fine here. Where I need to agree is that the Church hierarchy shouldn't stand apart from people. A priest isn't your average Joe, but he shouldn't turn into a denizen of the ivory tower. If the whole hierarchy followed the example of John Paul, things would be better. I don't even mean the carbon copy kind of following, but the openness or at least the concern that he manifested. Don't think I like everything that any bishop or priest says. Some of them are holy, some could use some discipline for their own good and their faithful.

That's probably because of all of them speaking Spanish (except Brasil speaking Portuguese - not like the two are much different, anyway) and the culture. Actually, the North American branch is much more troublesome than they are, even in questions of doctrine, liturgy and moral theology. Some American bishops tend to think they are wiser than the Vatican.

If we consider religious dogma or moral theology, yeah. What point avoiding splits if we would have all to split from the real doctrine to avoid smaller groups falling off?

We believe there won't be any Pope changing the core dogma, morals etc. Policies maybe. Accents, priorities, but that would be it.

The policies of some bishops and cardinals haven't always been the most fortunate, which includes Rome.

If irreligious organisations fighting for some rights or interests can lobby for changes in the law, why not churches?

Written by mortals, but inspired. It's not supposed to be 100% accurate in historical relations, but the theological and moral message isn't really an optional belief. Sometimes it seems strange to me how Protestants first accused the Roman Church of swaying from the Bible and split away on the sola scriptura principle, but now some Protestant denominations claim that the Bible is actually wrong on many things - basing that not even on early Christian tradition (one of RCC's sources of knowledge and practices), but on their own inventions. One example would be the gay episcopalian bishop Gene who now claims that Jesus was an active homosexual.

In Werke, Luther expressed regrets for dividing the Church and problems he had privately with the beliefs he taught officially - including such things as the irrelevance of works and his own theology of sin. Reportedly, he wanted a Catholic priest on his deathbed, but Melanchton didn't let him call one. But we can take this one to another thread, as you suggested.

Yeah, that's correct when we are talking about normal physical facts such as the shape of the earth. Morals don't normally fall in here, although individual churchmen have erred. Only ex cathedra teaching is assumed infallible and unchanging (e.g. papal encynclicals - note that not everything a pope writes is an encyclical).

The times change, the earth changes. The Church, in so far as it's made of men, changes this way as well. What doesn't change is the dogmatic core and the morals.

What she wanted was hardly relevant. The is no ordained female clergy (nuns aren't ordained clerics), so there can't be a female pope. The ordination of women to deacony, priesthood or episcopacy is theologically impossible. The Church doesn't have the power to ordain women.

Cardinals and bishops aren't an army of clones. Some of them have strange views, even up to the point of condoning contraception, fornication... perhaps even abortion. Some believe priestly celibacy should be optional (and it could be, no doctrinal obstacle here, so long as the marriage happens before ordination), some might even believe that women could be ordained (attempts have been recorded). Some have legitimate opinions dissenting from the mainstream, some are plain heretics.

Only an hour?

Come to think about it, Jesus had died, resurrected and gone to heaven. No, not talking about this type of changes. In the place of the Apostles, we have bishops. Not twelve, but it isn't like there were only twelve men called Apostles, anyway. Bishops trace lines of apostolic succession (by imposition of hands) up to the Apostles themselves who were ordained by Jesus Christ. The Pope is the first of them, as was Peter. From the first between equals to practically a monarch, to choose the style of governance is up to him.

It's not normally done in the Latin rite, but it's still possible. In the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, it's still practiced. Pouring water on the person's head is enough and was always done during baptisms by immersion. The minister of the sacrament (doesn't have to be a priest) has always had to pour the water on the persons' head and pronounce the necessary words.

As early as Saint Paul and then the councils in the 4th century, especially in Spain, but there were still married clerics and even popes until the 9th century (Hadrian II was the last married pope). In the year 1024, they declared it compulsory, but the problem existed until the council of Trent (1548-1563).

Yeah. The Orthodox still have uncelibate clergy and celibate bishops. This means that married men can be ordained priests but priests can't marry. They can't remarry after the wife dies. Bishops are supposed to separate with wives if at all a married men is appointed.

In the Catholic Eastern Churches, married men can also be ordained. There still are even Latin rite Catholic priests who are married - they were been married prior to ordination. About 33% Catholic priests in the USA are, because they are converted Protestant pastors who wanted to serve as priests after conversion. Also, if an Orthodox priest were to convert, he wouldn't be required to put away his wife, although he would be encouraged to join an Eastern Catholic church - not like he would have many reasons to prefer the Latin rite over the familiar Eastern rites (very similar to Orthodox liturgy).

The problem with science in the middle ages and renaissance was that it was mixed with theology and soaked with it. So, messing up in science could often entail messing with theology, especially if the particular scientist dabbled with theology in his scientific work. Another problem was people coming up with various unfounded claims and spreading disorder. At any rate, the verdicts of inquisition courts are not a part of theological or moral doctrine. They are just verdicts, as good as the judge and the evidence. Hopefully inspired by the Holy Spirit but, apparently, not always so. Controversial verdicts of church tribunals have always been around.

Yeah, and all popes are supposed to do that. They are supposed to be responsible for the whole Christendom and if their authority isn't accepted, it's a sad occurence. They even address their writings to the Christendom rather than the RCC. From time to time, one needs a pope who would focus on the Catholics themselves, bringing them back in line, like Benedict XVI seems to be going to do. He is already valued by not only Catholics and I don't think he's going to be a pope serving exclusively Catholics.

Yeah. Many denominations did that because they wanted to win, and they lost.

[Mark 8, 35]

 

Because I don't think religious organisations should have a political agenda. They should not openly support political parties or openly suggest change in some laws. Religious dogma should never be the base for laws in a modern society. There are christian parties and I'm certainly not saying that they should cease to exist but a Church should never support one openly nor should it strive towards any political agenda, which the Catholic Church unfortunately does through various organisations.

Your use of the pronoun "We" almost indicated that you speak for all Catholics, something you can't really do. There are Catholics you know who believe the core dogma will change.

They are responsible for Catholics. They can think they are responsible for all Christians but they really are not. I find it sad that their soverign authoroty is at all accepted in this world.

EDIT: I answered the part about politics the rest really did not have much to argue about except the thing about Luther and Reformation but I think I'll let it be for now since I really don't have time to talk about it at the moment. Perhaps some time later I'll make a thread about it.

[ April 24, 2005, 00:29: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

One very simple question: what do you expect a liberal pope would change to suit you?

 

So freedom of speech is reserved for those who only say certain things and the rest can shut the **** up? If the Gay rights lobby can protest and lobby for Gay marriage, why shouldn't the Roman Catholic or any other church that believes that homosexuality is a sin have the right to lobby against it? And as the last election in the US showed, the church has more power than the Lobby groups. Not only did George W. get re-elected, but the proposal to alter the definition of marriage went 0 for 11 on the ballots.

I don't think that a church should support a particular candidate, but they should have the right to help shape opinions on various issues. If a religeon's doctorine teaches that something is a sin, they should have the right to ask the people to consider not supporting anyone that wants to legitimize that sin.

 

I did not say that. You're putting words in my mouth or interprenting my writings badly. Individual priests or bishops are entitled to their opinion the Church as an institution should however steer clear of politics.

As I said I don't think religious dogma should be the base for laws, but in a democracy people really have the right to decide how they want their society to look like. Having religious dogma as law often results in discriminating minorities.

I'm not actually sure what I expect to be done, since what I would like to see is such a major reform of Catholic functions that I just don't see it possible to happen in my time. A liberal pope however can influence little things and in time. I don't expect the Catholic Church to ever accept homosexual marriage or abortion but what I hope it will do is to change its attitude towards those who want to practice these things outside the Catholic faith.

 

Change attitude how - they believe that these people are commiting terrible sins, considering abortion to be murder. Should they change their attitude to people who practice murder outside the Catholic faith too?

I read a funny news headline that is oh-so true today - 'Heavens! The Pope's a Catholic!' A lot of people seem to be having trouble with this - that the Pope should intend to uphold the Catholic beliefs and traditions...

 

Yes, individual gays are entitled to their opinion, but the 'gay movement' or 'gay lobby' should be prohibited from expressing their opinion

How about murder. Let's say the Church is against it, and you say that murder should be legal. OK, so Church can prohibit its members from murdering, but with those people that practice murder outside of the Catholic faith, the Church should not interfere.
If something is considered a sin, an abomination or an atrocity, it doesn't change its face once it's about someone else. That's relativism.

 

I heard the pope regards rock&roll as a tool of anti religeon, almost satanic. What a joke. If rock&roll was really the devil's work, then how come Bono and U2 have done much more for Africa in their relative short existance than all the moldy old fossiles that inhabited the vatican in their entire history ?

 

Where and when did you hear that? Isn't rock & roll dead for 20 years now?

That's wishful thinking unsubstantiated by any proof.

About political parties, I agree. But with laws it's different. The Church has teachings for the laity, for people in various roles in the society, from janitors to royals. Demanding politicians and politics to be put outside of it is demanding to make politics a "free zone" in which everything is allowed.

If you believe that organisations and movements should be allowed a say except for religious ones because you don't think they should have one, it's a sentiment that I don't share. As it was said before, you cannot expect a religion to shut up on things it considers to be murder or otherwise evil. It's not like laws for the whole world are made in the Vatican. What you demand is not that the Vatican stay away from making up laws for non-believers. What you demand is basically that the Catholic Church should shut up and stop bothering people's conscience. That isn't going to happen.

Another problem with that logic is that, according to you, because not everyone agrees with the Church, the Church shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion. However, not everyone agrees with abortion or gay lobbies and, according to you, they should still be allowed a say. So, ultimately, the only difference seems to be that secular moral stances are better than religious ones, which is absurd.

1. Why? If a moral rule is present in a religion, therefore it should be tossed away? Let's steal, kill and rape then.
2. What dogma? Such as thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, testify false? Somehow, people worldwide aren't forced to profess faith in immaculate conception or stay away from meat on Fridays, you know.

I speak from observation of the official teaching of the Church. Catholics who believe the core dogma will change believe contrary to their faith and shouldn't call themselves Catholics as they don't believe what the Church believes.

And who says that? Is that some new form of enlightment?

I couldn't say that better myself.

No, he's not even interpreting. He's quoting you verbatim. You said churches shouldn't be allowed an opinion and it was protested. Now you say that Aikanaro said invidual bishops or priests were to be denied opinion as citizens, which is not what he said. He addressed directly your statement that the Church should stay away from politics and laws, and nothing else. The point about individual priests and bishops is not relevant.

If a minority believes that wives should be burnt on their husbands' burial stakes, that weak children should have heels pierced and be left for wolves and that lethal fight is the way of selecting leaders, do you still think the modern society should allow them to continue the practice? If not, then on what do you base the non-allowance? And how is the base for your non-allowance better than the Church's base for opposition to abortion, gay adoption etc practised by whomever? If you're simply going to say that secular is inherently better than religious because one is secular and the other is religious, then don't bother.

Something concrete, please? Or are we just pursuing change for its own sake?

To that what Aikanaro said:

Why, if both abortion and gun murder are terrible sins against human life in the eyes of the Church, should we make an exception for abortion but not for gun murder? The Church has always been against abortion and will be. If, in the future, there comes a civilisation which believes that gun murder is morally indifferent, should we adjust our moral teachings accordingly, as well?

[ April 24, 2005, 14:09: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Chev - If I understand you correctly you believe that homosexuality for example is a sin because the Bible says so. Do you also believe that it is morally right to kill e.g. muslims? If I'm not mistaken the Bible says it is the right thing to do. (If I am totally mistaken on this subject, please let me know.)

 

???...where Bible says so ?....

Yes, you are totally mistaken... ...

 

Homosexuality is not a sin per se. The Bible says that it's a sin to commit sexual acts with persons of the same gender, not to be homosexual. You don't have to be homosexual to sin in that manner and being homosexual doesn't automatically make you sin.

But don't think heterosexuals have it lighter. Human sexuality is meant to be expressed in marriage and fornication or adultery is a sin.

As for Muslims, the Bible was already compiled by the 4th century, if not earlier. Islam started in 622 AD with Muhammad's Hidschra. It's hardly possible to find a single word about Muslims in the Bible. What you can find in the Bible, though, is "thou shalt not kill", which refers to all human beings from conception to natural death.

Killing a person, for example an assailant or enemy soldier in a war, is a sad necessity. God desires charity, not bloody sacrifice and the Church doesn't crave blood. Fighting for your faith, your values, your homeland, is noble, but this doesn't mean you get brownie points with God for each enemy killed. You are supposed to fight your enemies if you have to, but you are also supposed to love them. This means you have to love them when you fight them.

[Matt 5, 44]

 

Well then, sorry for my mistake. I think that I confused it with one of the Crusades, where the Pope promised that all those who went out and fought against the muslims would go to heaven. If I'm mistaken about this too, then I'll just go hide in a corner in shame.

 

Boeing—Muslims were threatening Europe, and the Constantinople emperor beseeched the Pope for help, who agreed only very reluctantly. This was much more a defensive war for the Holy Land, as well as against armies threatening Europe. Don't forget that Muslim conquests until that point were able to take 2/3 of the Christendom, including the entire North Africa, Iberia, Middle East and part of Asia Minor.
Don't think that the Europeans gladly went to that war, which cost them much more than they could ever hope to regain in several centuries. The knights, who were nobles' first sons, required their squires to go with them, and there was a number of them (starting with five up), then he required escorts, some twenty or thirty armed men, and horses, depending on the size of his consort, from three (battle horse, riding horse and pack horse) up to hundreds (two-three battle horses, riding horses for the entire consort and pack horses for the entire party's supplies). Only the wealthiest nobles were able to afford even a mid-sized party, and the poorest ones had to go themselves and place under servitude to pay for the war. This was the price of not yet having regular armies.

 

Serves them right for conquering those places to begin with and forcing the peoples of those areas at sword point to abandon their own religious beliefs and adopt Christianity. Christinas were not some goodly people just defending some land they had inherited from God. Charlemagne and his ilk embarked on a bloody, murderous rampage wherein he offered "Convert or DIE!".

The church(es) fully endorsed this and THAT(the sword-point conversions + the non-opposition by the Church) is why we have close to two billion Christians today. Christianity jumped out of the gate on their monotheistic horse with swords drawn whil everyone else was still sitting around working on 'enlightenment' and difficult philosophical questions.

I think Christians/Catholics should have the same rights to expressing opinions as everyone else...HOWEVER, we must recognise that this is not fair or just for non-Christians/non-Catholics and we should work towards correcting that in some way. The reason it is not just is that the organized religion(s) that dominate our political landscape have had 2,000 years or so worth of experience in doing so and until the "great experiement" of American secularism, theocracy was the be-all and end-all of government.
Like with the civil rights movement, it is fine to oppose Affirmative Action on the grounds that everyone should get the same oppurtunities regardless of race but you have to recognise where the "starting line" is and the fact that blacks(and American indians and others) were forced to start from 100 miles behind everyone else.
Likewise, when it comes to influencing the political landscape in Americ, non-Catholics are starting from a different "line" than Catholics/conservative Christians. A line that is some two millenia and a bucketful of genocide behind the Catholic Church.

 

Rock&roll dead ??? Only if you regard rock&roll as the type of music made by Elvis, or the Beatles. What a dumb statement, rock&roll covers all sorts of music, just like Christianity covers all sorts of different interpretations of the bible.

Where did i hear that ? On the news here in the Netherlands just after the man was instated as the new representative of god.

And what proof do you want Chev ? Haven't you been keeping track of what some rockstars were doing to keep entire starving populations alive ? Ignoring that, or even claiming that it's all rubbish, and ask for substantial proof, sounds the same to me as "i'm sorry, i've been asleep for the past 30 years, so forgive my ignorance".

Do you have any substantial proof that the Vatican did a better job perhaps ? I'm definitely looking forward to any info you can share about that issue.

 

Hey Hey My My. It's not dead. It'll never die. Rock and roll isn't satanic. What a crazy generalisation.