Habemus Papal

I agree. Church is not and cant be ruled like some kind of buissnes which is better when has more customers. People want catholic church to accept contraconception, abortions, priest and gay marriages. There are so many other institutions which accept it that i belive church doesnt have to be one of them. And being catholic is not compulsory.

First of all, I never said that priests that were married are inderior.  But what I am saying is that they will have less time for the people.  And they have not had the okay of the Pope to do so anyways.  Different religion really.

Secondly, I never said the US can NOT have  a women president but I did say that we are not ready.  Nor are Pakistan, Bangle Desh, or Sri Lanka in reality.  Countries like Afgahinstan just allowed women to go to school and be in pubic freely.

If the Church follows that startegy of not changing just to please people, it will stay what it has always been: a religios institute in honor of God and Jesus Christ.  In many aspects we perform many rites performed in the Middle Ages so I really don't see you point, and perhaps you don't see mine; the Church should not change just because people want it to "modernize" itself.  I can see why governemnts and companies should modernize because they do not have beliefs that they have been based on for thousands of years.  The Church, on the other hand, as had the same beliefs since Jesus' time.  Why change now?

Originally posted by hugoestr The views of conservative Catholics have now been well expressed by you and Mosquito.

well, im as much catholic as you are.

Originally posted by hugoestr You make a very good point here. That is why the changes should only be to on customs, not theological doctrines.

I think it is a fallacy to understand the theological doctrines of the Catholic Church as irrevocable truths. If you analyse how most of these doctrine originated, you will probably find that these doctrines are very much a product of the temporal circumstances, dictated by cultural and political necessities and not possessing of universal and eternal values.
For example, the Nicean Creed that rejected Arianism, was mainly determined by political motives, namely as Constantine's attempt to secure the unity of his Empire and the fact that Arianist belief hasn't become official doctrine of the Church reflects the distribution of political power in Constantine's Empire rather than theological certainty over the nature of Christ.
The same argument applies to the "filioque" debate or the establishment of the supremacy of the Patriarch of Rome.
Thus, the argument that the doctrines of the Church cannot be subjected to "relativism" doesn't really hold, as they are indeed a product of a particular historical and cultural framework and do not possess eternal truths that wouldn't allow for modification.

Originally posted by Komnenos I think it is a fallacy to understand the theological doctrines of the Catholic Church as irrevocable truths. If you analyse how most of these doctrine originated, you will probably find that these doctrines are very much a product of the temporal circumstances, dictated by cultural and political necessities and not possessing of universal and eternal values. For example, the Nicean Creed that rejected Arianism, was mainly determined by political motives, namely as Constantine's attempt to secure the unity of his Empire and the fact that Arianist belief hasn't become official doctrine of the Church reflects the distribution of political power in Constantine's Empire rather than theological certainty over the nature of Christ. The same argument applies to the "filioque" debate or the establishment of the supremacy of the Patriarch of Rome. Thus, the argument that the doctrines of the Church cannot be subjected to "relativism" doesn't really hold, as they are indeed a product of a particular historical and cultural framework and do not possess eternal truths that wouldn't allow for modification.

You made very good point here. Most of the people seems to forget that Constantine gathered together most of the bishops and simply forced them to adopt one doctrine. Those who didnt want were simply forced to agree.

Edited by Mosquito

As for the comdemnation of Liberation Theology, I truthfully do not know what that is. Perhaps you may enlighten me.

The liberation theology is a somewhat leftist branch of Roman Catholicism. It was very popular in Latin America in the 1970's and 1980's. It paid much attention to human rights and liberation from oppression and poverty. Most of its doctrines are taken from the sermon on the mount. It was condemned by the pope in 1979 because it turned Christ into a "revolutionary". Perhaps the most famous liberation theologist was �scar Romero, the pacifist archbisshop of San Salvador who was killed by right wing death squads in 1980. Pres. Aristide of Haiti was also a liberation theologist, as were several Sandinists.

As for the comdemnation of Liberation Theology, I truthfully do not know what that is. Perhaps you may enlighten me.

Liberation Theology:

Thanks for addressing this issues. So far, most of the liberal Catholics had expressed their views. The views of conservative Catholics have now been well expressed by you and Mosquito. Now we have a balanced thread

Now for the moderate Catholic opinion....

The Church needs to recognize her needs of reinvention and adaptation otherwise it will become anachronic and will not be a reflect of today's societity.

Jalisco, the church does evolve, just not in our lifetimes, they ARE on the cutting edge, the cutting edge of fifty years ago, and have been since their creation. I think that this is a good thing. If we change the church to suit our fickle human needs then we aren't doing God's will. Perhaps, in fifty years issues brought up now will alter the church, like priests being married. I hope so, but we can't truly know the fall out until we as a church reflect on the issue.

Women seem to be really into religion, and many would make wonderful priests. There is no dogmatic doctrine that says they cannot be priests. It is just a custom.

To that I respond with this I found here (i know a poor source but it sounds right): http://www.cin.org/archives/apolo/200007/0118.html

Also the Church has not proclaimed as a dogma that she cannot ordain women
priests according to the opinion of most people, including I believe
Cardinal Ratzinger who issued a statement about the matter, saying it was
not a dogma, but rather an exercise of the ordinary magisterium. However,
since it does seem based not only on the teaching of the pope, but also on
the history of the Church, that it is part of the faith of the Church that
she does not have the authority to ordain women priests, I think we would
do well to believe in this truth.

I personally think that the pope did proclaim as a dogma that the Church
does not have the authority to ordain women priests. However, note the
exact nature of what was proclaimed dogma. The pope did not declare as a
dogma that women couldn't become priests or that Jesus could not make a
woman a priest -- he only declared as a dogma that the Church cannot or
does not have the authority to make women priests. Just because the
Church does not have the authority to make women priests, does not mean
that God or Jesus does not have that authority. There are many things the
Church on earth has no authority to do, but which God does have the
authority to do -- for example the Church does not have the authority to
judge the soul of a person, but Jesus does have that authority.

It appears tradition plays a role in that and as all Catholics are aware the living tradition of the church is just as important as the scriptures.

 

...which will make gay marraiges legal and allow adoption of children by such "couples" maybe Opus Dei is right.

I'm with Mosquito in banning gay marriage, but then again I'm for banning all forms of civil marriage and making it a totally religious experience, but that's just me.

But Mosquito, you must understand that God made gays and that he loves them and that a gay man or woman can lead a good pure catholic life, they just must proscribe to the fact that they can't have sex before marriage and they can't marry someone of their own gender. Therefore I say that any good person should be allowed to adopt a child. There's a shortage of parents for these kids as it is.

As for the comdemnation of Liberation Theology, I truthfully do not know what that is. Perhaps you may enlighten me.

The Liberation Theology is basically this, rather than focusing on a personal salvation through one's own suffering and trials the church should make it it's goal to aid the impoverished from oppression by using force against the oppressors (since the oppressors are obviously not living up to the words of Christ.) However there is a problem in this. We are a universal church, not a church for the poor. If we take the stance of the poor always (who can also be wrong at times) then we are biased against the rich, and a universal church can have no biases.

Here's a link: http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Liberation.html

If you analyse how most of these doctrine originated, you will probably find that these doctrines are very much a product of the temporal circumstances, dictated by cultural and political necessities and not possessing of universal and eternal values.

How do you know these circumstances were not dictated by God? Likewise I can't prove that they were, but the Lord works in mysterious ways, why could this not be one of them.

Apart from the fact that that bunch of septuagenerians in Rome don't want it.

Actually the Catholic church has many married priests right now. Eastern Rite Catholics have been allowed to observe doctrines not outside of Catholic Orthodoxy and Anglican priests that later converted to catholicism have been allowed to keep their wives...

Sorry if you can't find your reply right away I went in chronological order.

I need to become a trained theologian, my amateur findings leave much wanting.

The general,

Your statement about the Church being strongly for peace does not stand historical scrutiny. The Crusades were blessed by the Church, the Church supported Catholic nations against non-Catholic nations, and the Church supported the conquest of the Americas. During the reconquest of Spain, there were Bishops that lead troops in battle against the Moors.

You may say that this changed in the 20th century. In Mexico the Church supported a religious revolt in the 1920s. And as far as I know, the Church didn't seem that upset about Franco in Spain either.

The Church could have censured the execesses of the movement, but not all of it wholesale.

Also, your statement about the Pope bringing down the Soviet empire is an exageration. The Soviet Union crumbled for having a bad economy and spending the little money that they had in the arm's race.

JanusRook,

As always, you have great posts on the subject. I will just comment on your source

If the church holds a doctrine to be dogma, this has to be stated as such by the pope or the council of bishops. This has been the case of every dogma that is not included in the creed. So far, there has been no such statement. The person you are quoting is wrong when he says that a prohibition against women priests is dogma.

This means that it is possible, although unlikely with the current pope. I think that allowing priests to marry is the most probable solution. If this doesn't help the shortage, then they will move to ordaining women.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl actually you forgot something:

So did you!