Ask the Roman Catholic -- All kinds of qu
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22363
Printed Date: 06-Jun-2024 at 02:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Ask the Roman Catholic -- All kinds of qu
Posted By: hugoestr
Subject: Ask the Roman Catholic -- All kinds of qu
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 20:56
|
Hi,
Do you have some questions about Roman Catholicism? Want to point out some painful inconsistency? Go ahead. I will either directly answer or figure it out the answer. I am sure that other Roman Catholics will join me at some point to answer questions as well. 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 21:10
I'll try and keep any and all questions I may have as relevant and non-trivial as possible.
Bearing in mind my limited knowledge of christian theology and tradition:
why does the pope where such gaudy and ridiculous (would unusual be a more appropriate word?) garments? That and the paraphernalia - hat, sceptre etc. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 22:01
|
Good question, Justinian.
The last I was told, the robes of the priest were clerical robes that Roman officials used. The pope's garment is based, according to my parish priest of my childhood, the robes of a Roman high official. Of course, like all of these things, symbolism has been pushed into it. I ignored what it means, and I don't think that it is that important to look too hard into it. Also, it seems that the garment changes according to who is in office. Our last pope, John Paul II, had remarkably good taste, avoiding to use the flashy stuff unless required by the liturgy. Pope Ratzinger doesn't seem to have the same decorum. He likes the gaudy stuff, even to the point of bringing back a hat which popes from centuries ago used and today looks like Santa Clos's hat. 
Some smartalecks may say hat he his is ho, ho, ho liness, but that is out of line. More on the hat here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4551348.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4551348.stm ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2007 at 00:26
|
Thanks for the information. And I find that joke amusing so, its perfectly in line. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 02:36
|
Okay, here is another one: why is the vatican so secretive with regards to its archives? Should they open up the vault? It seems out of place in this era to have them refuse to discuss anything that might be contained within and only allowing those at the top of the catholic hierarchy to learn of its secrets. Is there information in there that condemns the catholic church or something? DaVinci code and all that, I mean what gives? ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 03:33
Uh.... http://asv.vatican.va/home_en.htm - they're not ?
See the above link.
No no, it's not as crazy as all that. The Vatican has since the nineteenth century allowed scholars, religious and secular access to the Vatican secret archives. In fact the only reason that the archives were closed to the public at all was because in the period of the reformation many works were being ransacked and destroyed by various political opponents, and in an attempt to preserve the works only those most trusted to the Holy See had access to them. In fact the Secret Archives runs along the same lines as any Library with ancient texts (i.e. you can't just waltz into the Library of Congress and take a look at the original Constitution without academic credentials). Also due to sensitive information that might leak out the records are put on a 75 year hold (this is standard just look at the findings of the JFK assassination). The only actual "Secret" documents are held in the Apostolic Penitentiary, and these are kept secret only because they have to deal with Confessionals and as such cannot be made public. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 06:10
|
I was raised Roman-Catholic, myself... that's a church I can do without. I don't dig being told I'm sinful for going about the day-to-day business of life. The Catholic church produced the best minds of the 12th century... no longer relevant in the 21st century. I guess my only question for a still practicing Catholic is this... why'd the priests do all that stuff to those little kids? |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 07:35
For the same reason Camp Counselors, school teachers, doctors, and parents do it. Because they have psychological problems independent of their lifestyle choices. The reason that in the Priesthood before the 90's was a haven for indecent relations was because before then there was no socially acceptable way for homosexuals to "come out". In devout Catholic families you either got married or became a priest. Many homosexuals chose the priesthood over getting married. This became a problem due to the fact that they became attracted to the boys they spent the most time with. And in actuality most of the boys were over 13 years old, which means that the Priests were Ephebophiles rather than pure Paedophiles. So all this talk of "little kids" is mere exageration for the most part. Now for your information though the number of priests involved in these sex scandals is actually quite small. It's just a few predators had oppurtunity with many children. And just to let you know I've had contact with dozens of priests in my lifetime and I've never known one that has ever tried anything on me. (And I was a Lecter for 4 years). ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 07:46
|
So, in effect, you're saying that homosexuals, with no better outlook on life, became priests? Are you equating homosexuals with pederasts now? That doesn't seem fair to homosexuals (whom I support in both a civil and personal movement; I am against all forms of societal repression), to equate them with those who molest children. Ephebophiles, whatever... the kids weren't old enough to make their own decisions; they weren't consenting adults. I believe the term "kids" applies, implying that they weren't adults. Not a difficult concept. To apply dead Greek terms implies a semanticism not unlike the way the Church does. And, for the record, plenty of people weren't scared to come out in the 60's... why are "kids" still being touched in our contemporary era? Unacceptable. I'm not implying that there's anything inherent in Catholic doctrine that promotes pedophilia... but hell, there was a lot of it (one instance being too many)... to be so pervasive seems to me akin to betrayal of the morals of the idyll; an anti-Catholic trend if you will. And they wonder why no one goes to confession anymore. A skeptical "Catholic" BJC |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 07:49
|
PS- small proportions of "incidents" but still numerous occurrences... definitely a couple millions of dollars in Vatican hush money. That said, your outlook on it is your perspective. I can't take that from you. BJC |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 10:13
Yes Catholics who were homosexual became priests because "coming out" wasn't an option at the time they became ordained.
No, not all but due to independent circumstances those accused chose to become pederasts.
I dare say that the governments of Canada, Japan, and Spain as well as the states of Hawaii, Georgia and Indiana disagree with you in that regard. As all of these jurisdictions believe that 14-16 year olds can make their own decisions about sex.
Dead greek term? I was under the impression that was the proper definition for an attraction to post-pubescent juveniles. As opposed to paedophilia which is an attraction to pre-pubescent juveniles. Which if you tell me there's no difference between the two, I and biology must respectfully disagree with you.
Um...AFAIK the cases of priest abuse are in the majority cases over 20 years old. I'm not sure what you mean contemporary era? The problem was mishandled by an organization that wasn't designed with this problem in mind. They've learned from this and tried to correct the mistake as best they can. I have a feeling you'd damn them no matter what they did.
I seriously disagree with the idea that it's "hush" money. The church was liable for the wrongs committed they did the only thing they could do to set it right. Priests accused faced civil courts and damages were paid out to the victims. I don't know what else you think the church could/should have done. It's not like the Pope has a time machine inside of St. Peter's Basilica.
As I said, until the scandals came out (mostly in the Boston archdiocese) I never even imagined that this was a common occurence. I never felt betrayed because my priests actually did what they were supposed to do, and ever other catholic i talked to had a similar experience so I don't know where this "it was rampant" thing comes from. I ask you Brian, since you were raised Catholic did you know of a priest that molesting anyone? ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 13:05
|
Not personally, no, I didn't know of any cases of molestation. Of course, I'm only 21 years old, and the majority of people who were abused didn't come out until their late 20's, up to their 60's. Ergo, my peers, who in all actuality may have been touched (due to he overwhelming "societal standards" that 'forced' homosexuals into becoming priests), have a few years to break their silence yet. Janus, are you American? If not, I doubt you'd have seen how this scandal broke out over here. First one or two forty or fifty yr. old guys came out and said they were touched, then a few dozen others (of various age ranges) came forward, then hundreds of lawsuits flooded Catholic archdiocese all over the country. It all came to a head with the Mark Foley scandal (the Congressman accused of sending sexual emails to underage male interns on Capitol Hill), after which his old priest came forward and admitted to molesting Foley as a boy. So, you see, if you do not have the cultural understanding of the scandal, it will do less damage to your faith. Because it was a huge deal over here. I got no particular beef with the Catholic church, no more than I got with any other religion (all of which I believe to be coercive, selfish, and flat-out misguided). I got no beef with other people believing what they want, but the institutions themselves cause me a fair amount of unease, just because I get the feeling some of these "priests" (of whatever religion) gotta see through the sublime haze, and realize that they're like used car salesmen passing off bum cars as if they were gonna take you all the way to where you want to go, when in actuality you're not even gonna be able to drive it off the lot. I've not seen one recorded case, regardless of faith, of someone actually going to heaven. I know you're supposed to suspend you disbelief, or whatever, if we suspend that... reality can be distorted, to say the least. Back to your last question, though, there were a few recorded cases of priest-molestation in Washington DC; I was raised in the area right outside DC. So you could say that I was close enough to know it actually happened. Nothing first-hand, or close-to-the-action accounts, but when something happens just a few miles away, you get the gist pretty quick. Cheers. |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 14:10
|
Hi, Brian,
I agree with you in some of the key points. The Roman Church should have been reporting to the civil authorities every case that they learned about. Instead they did pay out hush money, and just moved the predator priest to another parish. My wife and I have many conversations about this. Why did they do this? Were they afraid of the social stigma of priests being sexual predators? Or was it that they couldn't afford to lose priests since there is such a strong priest shortage? Whatever the reason, the Church as an institution failed morally to do what was right. At the very least they could have made sure that the predators were not exposed to children by placing them in post where they couldn't be in contact with them. Yes, the modern Catholic Church failed... yet again  I know several Catholics who say that they won't give any money until this situation has been cleared up. I am among them
That said, the religious teachings should be judge apart from their practitioners. There is no religion that I know that has lived up to its the moral precepts (although there are some that seem to do a better job than others.) ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 16:26
|
A question for the Roman Catholic.
When is the Roman Catholic church going to forbid celibacy... It seems to me it doesn't make sense, and is not even a Catholic idea, because other Catholic churches, the Orthodox, the Oriental, the Anglican, etc. don't follow that rule.
Besides, when are you going to allow women to be priests? To stop the "club of Tobby" (monopoly of men)
|
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 18:21
Oh...
 I see I was under the wrong impression that it was still closed. Thanks for the information and link. Guess it didn't take very long for me to break my goal of no stupid questions in this thread did it?  ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: WolfHound
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 20:27
The rule of celibacy has been around since the middle ages to stop family rule of government and church. |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 03:46
Yes as my sig states I'm a proud Cincinnatian.
And of course all of those cases were legitimate and not just random anti-religious people wanting to make a quick buck in the maelstrom (again I agree the vast majority of those cases were legitimate).
From Luke:
It would seem a bit ridiculous for the church to forbid celibacy. Seeing as how the most honored persons in the church were celibate their whole lives for example the Virgin Mary, Jesus and various church fathers. Also the monastic orders still require celibacy. I agree that Celibacy should not be required to receive Holy Orders, but it is put in place as WolfHound said to prevent Nepotism from running rampant in the church. I don't think that this should be a major issue in the modern era but it is what the church sees as most fitting thus catholics are obliged to obey this demand.
Men certainly do not have a monopoly on the church, just see the Marian devotion the massive numbers of women saints and the relaxation on the rules regarding assistants during mass. There is a large tradition in the orthodox churches of priests acting in a role as representatives of Christ. And as God chose to come to earth as a man, and as God chose only male Apostles as his heirs it is probably correct to assume that God has chosen men to be priests. After all a woman can no more be a priest than a man can give birth, human beings were designed to have differentiation between the sexes and to deny this fact of nature is an error. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 04:44
Per the heaven quote, I was referring more to what people what call more reliable secular sources, or something that amounted to actual journalism or scholarly research; as opposed to the big brother of bedtime stories. Roahl Dahl "records" people and giant insects floating around the world in a giant peach in his beloved children's story 'James and the Giant Peach,' yet for some skeptical reason, I'm just not buying the fact that people are floating around in mammoth fruit. See the distinction I'm drawing here? That between generally accepted research, scholarship or journalism, and those of the imagination/ abstract/ fictional. To say that "because the Bible said so, people DO go to Heaven" is taking one very old text very seriously, and neglecting to accept the credibility of a hundred and fifty years of scientific research, philosophical thought, and skeptical human communal experience. Or, to adopt the question of the 60's, maybe you could just ask if god is dead or not. I remember seeing that on an antique cover of TIME magazine, and inside was a furious debate between religious and a-religious scholars. God chose men to be priests, but not women? Haha, sure, just like 'he' made men first and women second of Adam's rib in that mythical garden somewhere in the desert, six thousand years ago, right? Man, I wonder if they're ever going to find that place, to prove that God really is sexist, or if that position is just a tool of oppressive patriarchal systems used to deny women an active share in civil rights, property ownership, and political power based on an unfounded religious claim for 6,000 years. Ridiculous. It's the 21st century. CE. Not only are some of your claims wildly outdated, but also inappropriate in the modern world. To claim women don't have equal "divine" equality, or ability to actively participate in religion, is something the best minds of the 4th century thought up. I'd like to hope we'd have come out of the freakin' Dark Ages by now... Cheers. PS- Go post some of your theories about women and men's respective positions in god's eyes in the women's history forum. I'm sure some of our female members will happily give you a rousing 'wake-up call.' Hopefully some more of more enlightened male members will join the team. |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 08:52
First off, I am not a young earth creationist so you can nix that assumption right there.
Nevermind the fact that for 100,000 prior to that the matriarchal systems put in place by the neolithic peoples denied men equal property rights and political power, as well as possible religious equality.
I'm sorry I was unaware that the Divine and Revealed Truth of the universe had to conform to contemporary and always changing values of a population that can't agree on anything. God does not follow mankind, he leads us towards the right path. And to presume that the "modern world" exists independent of a deity and divine law is blatantly narrow-minded.
Women do have equal "divine" quality. They are called to have power over the life in this world, by being mothers and taking care of their families. Whereas men have power over life in the next world by acting as Christ's representatives. The roles are not in opposition nor are they necessarily equal, but they are complementary, in that neither can exist without the other. Besides being a Priest isn't a role that one goes into with vanity or delusions of grandeur. A priest is supposed to be the ultimate submission to God's revealed truth. A woman cannot be submissive and demand this role at the same time. Like all of us we must obey the church's laws set down by the heirs of Christ. I have no problems with women requesting that the priesthood be opened to them, but historically they have never had this role, and it would be an artificial construct inside of the most natural evolution of the mother church. Therefore if they request and do research they should discover that they should not demand this role but seek appropriate measures to fulfill God's will.
Just so you know the role of women in the world is something that i find to be a very important subject for research, and I, as you would know had you bothered to check, am very active in the Women's History forum. And I am not afraid to voice my opinions on various topics, as I despise any attempts to advocate androgeny of the sexes or to force the superiority of any gender over the other. I'd like to think that even if the female (and some male) members don't agree with me at least they understand and respect my position on the matter. I hardly believe that being the case I need a "wake-up call" as you mentioned. Oh and just to let you know I am NOT afraid to voice my opinion on this subject in http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22053&PID=407399#407399 - that forum . ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 13:26
|
I've got to run to work, so I'll spar with you again later on this one, but something you said struck me as absurd in the extreme: A practicing Roman Catholic (one of the most dogmatic, rigid, unchanging institutions in world history...) calling a social/religious/political liberal "narrow-minded." Quite so, as one of the most open-minded people I know, I'm definitely "narrow-minded." Having been raised Italian-Mc Catholic myself, and remembering all the 'liberal' discussions in school and how we were definitely encouraged to think outside of pre-ordained parameters, I can surely attest to the "open-mindedness" of the Catholic Church, who, as I have said before, possessed some of the most brilliant minds of the 12th Century. Marinated in sarcasm, Brian J Checco |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 19:52
|
Open-minded or no, Checco, you have displayed a remarkably unscholarly disdain for something you obviously know very little about. To criticize religion--and especially religious institutions--you need not adhere to the faith they expound; you do, however, need to understand that faith, as well as the context in which it is understood by its adherents. If I were Janus, I wouldn't even bother responding to your infantile--and frankly quite dull--attempts to satirize Christianity; after all, proper satire requires some understanding of the subject being discussed. I'm afraid lobbing accusations of medievalism just doesn't cut it. Alas, Janus--as we all know--has more patience than I, so he may keep administering this intellectual drubbing a bit longer.
-Akolouthos Addendum: Here's a thought. Perhaps you could explain, in your own words, the theological underpinnings of the all-male priesthood among traditionalist Christians. If you could do so sans sarcasm, it might prove a profitable exercise. |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 20:20
|
Akolouthos,
I believe that Checco is aiming at Roman Catholicism rather than attacking all Christianity. His arguments are not too sophisticated, but the positions that the Roman Church has adopted are not sophisticated either. That is why they are so easy to target. Today the Roman Church is going through a shortage of priests that is totally self-inflicted. I know that there were times when allowing priest to marry brought negative consequences in the Roman Church, but the conditions today have changed, and there could be mechanisms put in place to avoid nepotism. Let priests marry, and the number of vocations will rise. Let women be priests, and the number of priests will rise as well. The world has changed from the times of Jesus. Maybe there was a practical reason for only having women priests in antiquity when women didn't have power, but the world has changed. The English Church has had women priests, and it hasn't destroyed them. I speak mainly about Roman Catholicism because this is what I know. I ignore what are the conditions of the Eastern Churches. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 21:01
|
hugoestr,
I'm not so sure he is just aiming at Roman Catholicism. After all, he did note that he finds all religions "coercive, selfish, and flat-out misguided." As for the theological foundations of the role of gender in the priesthood, Janus has already briefly addressed the issue, and in lieu of any sophisticated critique of his intitial statement, cannot be expected to explain it any further. We need not fear; I trust that Checco will be able to dazzle us with a full explanation of the Roman position soon enough. For the record, while I feel Roman theological and ecclesiological positions tend to lack subtlety, I do not feel that they lack sophistication. Depending upon the level of depth in which you wish to examine any one point of doctrine, Roman theology is actually quite intricate. With regard to whether or not women should be permitted to enter the priesthood, we must take theological arguments into account before practical arguments; after all, we must seek to conform our lives to the ideal, not to conform the ideal to our lives. The question can certainly be examined in a fresh light, but it is imperative that we do so responsibly. Unfortunately, some of the more radical advocates of the ordination of women to the presbyterate have already given the whole ideological position a bad name. There does need to be a discussion, but we must consider the question in the context of the history of tradition. The perspective of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches on gender are not as simplistic as they are often portrayed. In the East there has been an effort to revive the female diaconate, which, though it never was abolished, fell out sometime around the turn of the first millenium. Oh, and among the many things that have contributed to the destruction of the Anglican Communion, it is hard to pick one that stands out. 
-Akolouthos |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 05:32
|
I'll go about this systematically and in the most scholarly manner possible, since here my credentials have been called into question. As per scholarly references; I've taken quite a few upper level religious studies courses in college; I'm no "Dan Brown" (sarcasm intentional), but I've fairly good grasp of the basic dogmatic tenets of the Catholic faith; Three aspects of god/ divinity as encompassed by the trinity- the father, the son, and the holy ghost- rejection of manicheanistic dualistic/ gnostic understanding of the godhead (no seperation between jesus the man and jesus the son of god)- pope as the vicar of christ on earth- 'catholicism' as latin for 'universal,' hence a 'universal' church of christ (orthodoxes and protestants may not quite agree with this claim)- the sympathetic cannibalism of the eucharist as metaphor for 'ingesting' the true meaning of the sacrifice of christ, both to initiate the kingdom of heaven, as well to open the gates of hell (in contrast with the israelite beliefs of the afterlife as sheol)- need I go on? I get the picture. I'm no uneducated slob with an axe to grind... As per personal experience: I was raised a catholic. I've been in the system. I've sat through the same Masses and Confessions and CCD classes, etc. I've met the priests, visited the seminaries, seen the cathedrals, taken the Eucharist, and all the rest. So, please, O Scholarly Ones, don't address me as if I were some rube on the street who just missed the point; rather than miss it, I disagree with it. I find nothing commendable in an institution that promotes sexual repression, forbids a woman's right to choose, and has only just recently made the concession that "well, I guess non-Catholics can get to heaven too..." I cannot condone the actions of an institution that refuses people in Latin America the right to decide the way in which the church works for them (Liberation theology), one which proselytizes about a truth which it cannot prove (for what is faith other than the suspension of disbelief, and the belief in the unprovable?), and looks down upon those who do not accept their version of truth? Seems to me that I'll pass on renewing my membership to that club. But don't be such a close-minded "academic" as to suppose that because someone does not agree with your beliefs that they know nothing of the subject. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 06:35
|
Brian,
Well, I was more referring to the theological implications of the question of women in the priesthood, but you have demonstrated a good deal of knowledge about the basic doctrinal points of Catholicism. A couple of things come to mind, but none of them are really big problems. I would definitely use the word "persons" instead of "aspects" when speaking of the Trinity; the use of the terms "modes" or "aspects" has a sordid history. Still, I think that you obviously understand it correctly, given the context.
The reason I took issue with your earlier posts was that the sarcasm generally wasn't accompanied by a complimentary demonstration that you understood where we religious "scholars" are coming from. With regard to the gender question vis-a-vis the priesthood, we need to understand that sexism is not the--or even a--primary motivating factor behind Roman and Orthodox doctrine.
As far as condoning things goes, I fear we do not have much common ground. I cannot condone a society that tolerates a degrading disregard for the sacredness of sexuality. Neither can I condone a society that justifies the murder of infants by masking it as an issue of choice. And while I do not think that we can definitively state "extra ecclesiam nulla salus," in the way it was understood by certain Roman theologians in the past, I do feel it necessary for us to affirm that Christ is the sole path to the Father (and we must be very thoughful in our understanding here). As for liberation theology, that is an issue for the Roman Church; I have no stake in it.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 06:49
| Well stated. I think, if the conversation continues, that we may find more common ground than you realize. I don't like to like at things that divide people, but rather, those than can bring us together (in a non-institutionalized fashion, you understand). Alas, it's a conversation for another night. Just because we understand things differently doesn't imply a necessary differences, just a difference of opinion. But I think mature adults can see past those opinions and come to common ground, or a least some sort of mutual understanding. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 06:52
Aye. On that we can definitely agree. Am I to understand by your post that you do not intend to keep me company all night? Poor form. 
...
 God bless.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 07:08
If by sexual repression you mean putting the concept of family above the concept of the individual in regards to sexual matters. The church does not teach sexual repression, it guides us on how to act responsibly on how human sexuality operates. If we were to just act on every single one of our desires then we would be no better than chimpanzees in the wild (of which many anti-religious scholars have no problem comparing humans to). We as humans live in families and the teachings of the church on the matter of sexuality focus on how to create a healthy family. Stipulations against pre-marital sex, adultery and perversions are there to maintain the divinely natural family unit.
You mean the right to choose whether to kill her offspring? You honestly believe that women have a right to kill their own children? Besides abortion is not an unforgivable sin, it's just to commit the act removes you from the church, and penitence is required in order to rejoin God's community.
From what my understanding is is that the ideas featured in Lumen Gentium are just an expansion of previously agreed on Christian teaching amongst the heirarchy of the churches. In fact the "Bosom of Abraham" has been a foremost teaching of the church in regards to salvation since the very earliest church.
Wait you mean that the Catholic church shouldn't fight disunity and heretical beliefs within itself? That would kind of eliminate it as the interpretor of divine revealations. Liberation theology was leaning towards non-theistic marxism and the belief that Christ is there to fight oppression. Whereas traditional christianity teaches that Christ is here to eliminate oppression within his Kingdom. As Augustine stated there is the City of God and the City of Man, Liberation theology is in danger of denying the City of God in favor of the City of Man and the Church decided to correct the errors of those dangerous ideas.
I believe that the Church as a whole believes very strongly that it can prove that they follow God's truth, and that there have been many philosopher's that have attempted using logic to prove that the religion is true. Just look at philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas or Kurt Goedel, who have shown "proof" that religion is true. And they have just as much proof as any scientist who believes they have "evidence" for the Big Bang theory or even evolution, and that being faith guided by logical assumptions.
Because the Roman Catholic church has obviously refused to participate and condemns any sort of Inter-Faith councils, or partnerships or meetings. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 07:57
|
Leaving god out of the discussion... and to adopt a sociological perspective; the family unit is a social convention. Mormons of the time of Joseph Smith saw polygamy as a "divine" convention... is there "divine" the same as yours? Divinity implies subjectivity, from the sociological perspective. Ancient Meso-Americans viewed human sacrifice as divine... does that match up? Not quite. As I persist in stating, "divinity" implies subjectivity. Repressing the natural tendencies does not seperate us from beasts because biologically we are mammals, of the genus primate, of the family mammalia of the kingdom animal. The "seperates us from the beast" argument doesn't quite hold up, in light of the fact we're animals. Likewise, to suggest humanity as only pertaining to individuals living in a "modern" or European-normatized society implies classism, racism, and Euro (Greco-Roman-heirs, specifically)-centrism. There are plenty of non-European societies that didn't practice "divinely" inspired family unions... are they, therefore, sinners? In regards to abortion; a tricky subject in any debate- having had one "myself (obviously, I didn't have it myself, but a girl I impregnated did)," I respect a woman's right to choose whether or not a single night would dictate the rest of her future life. Call it murder if you want. Hell, I'll even call it that too. Call it whatever you'd like; but it wasn't my body that was impregnated, and, ergo, the choice of what to make of that was not mine; I deferred to her. And I fully support her, and any other woman in her position. To call it an "unforgivable sin" is to imply that you can read the mind of a supposedly omniscient being; quite a mighty accomplishment for a single human institution. The Bosom of Abraham (a supposed boon to the non-believers) only makes the concession that followers of Arahamic faiths can gain entrance to heaven, if I recall correctly, and only at 'the end of days' after however many years in Purgatory (good thing they finally got rid of that, btw), and only after embracing christ before the final judgment. Not terribly understanding of non-Catholic beliefs, in my opinion. Thomas Aquinas; wonderful mind. 13th century. etc. I believe I've made my position known here. We don't live in the middle ages. Newer thinkers with more relevant ideas have hopefully stepped forward to pick up the slack. Godel I don't know. Can you give me links or sources so I can research the subject further? I agree, the Big Bang is equally suspect. I don't understand the math behind it (nor can many people fully claim to), and as far as I know, no one was actually there at the beginning of the universe to tell us what actually happened; but it makes Genesis equally suspect of fraud. Recently, the Church has been acting globally in a responsible manner, certain Muhammed-related incendiary comments excepted (or quoting Crusade literature), but the fact of the matter is that the contemporary Church remains a repressive society. What the hell is "heresy" anyway? "Sh*t the Church don't believe in"? The practicers of Liberation theology include Bishops and Deacons and higher... but the pope doesn't like it, and thus it's heresy. How enlightened. Heresy is another of those ideas I'd have hoped we left behind in the medieval period. How dare other people have conflicting viewpoints? better to live free on earth than a slave to heaven, BJC |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 08:59
Not to me divinity implies the laws of nature and following the natural harmony inherent in all things.
I don't want to nitpick but just for correction. We are of the genus Homo of the family Hominidae. Primate is the Order we belong to and Mammalia is the Class we belong to.
First off when did I promote a euro-centric bias, or even suggest that non-europeans were somehow inferior?
Quote me then on my opinions of what a divinely inspired family union consists of and I'll explain to you in detail who I believe are practicing it incorrectly.
True I do believe that a woman who robs a bank shouldn't have that affect the rest of her life. After all it just happened that one night.
I wouldn't call it that, necessarily.
.....
Um....no, the concept of Purgatory still remains strong in the Catholic faith. It's all right there are many misconceptions of the state of Purgatory and not everyone understands what it truly is.
I wasn't using that as the sole example I was just using it as one of many example. Point to me a passage in Church Canon or in the Catholic Catechism where it says that non-Catholics automatically go to hell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Goedel - Certainly.
Again as I stated earlier I am not a young earth creationist. Genesis states the moral truth not necessarily a historical record.
If you bothered to understand the context of that incident instead of taking it out of context you'd understand that it wasn't inappropriate at the time.
Historically heresies in the Church have begun with Bishops, see Arianism, Donatism, Nestorianism, etc. And the Pope's opinion of a topic of Christianity is irrelevant. It's whether the idea is contrary to the Church's core values and dogma that makes it heresy. Heresy is objective not subjective.
Heresy isn't like that. It would be like the US banning teaching Creationism in schools, isn't that condemning people for having conflicting viewpoints. Your right those secularists are expressing views that I thought we left behind in the medieval period.
But better to be free with God, than a slave to ourselves. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 14:37
|
Hi all,
I was writing my last post with toddlers jumping on my lap yesterday so I was not able to explain myself as much as I wanted. When I said that the argument of Checco wasn't sophisticated, what was I trying to get at was that the Roman Church has a series of easy targets and all what critics have to do is to point at them. If the Roman Church didn't insist on making bad arguments, it it wouldn't be so easy o make an effective attack on them with so little effort. The Roman Church may have some elaborate theological argument to support what are unsupportable positions, but my feeling is that the theological arguments dress up what were in fact just custom or pragmatic decisions from the past. So the biggest enemy of the Roman Church is the Roman Church itself. And it mostly comes from an institutional inability to change a position once it has been made. Reams and reams of apologetics are created to support unsupportable positions. And it isn't eve that the Roman Church won't change their positions; they do it all the time. It is that they insist on defending really bad ones with little strong arguments of evidence. Pope infallibility anyone? Again, my criticism is that the Roman Church adopts bad policies that makes it easy to defeat. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 14:59
Liberation theology was not, as far as I know, single theory. It was basically motivated by the idea that one must work to create bring the justice promised in the Gospels to our world. Some people relied more on Christianity; some people relied on marxism. If there was a fault with the idea, it was its blessing of violence to change things from the more Marxists incline people. But then again, the Roman Church already had had a Just War theory to justify violence for self-defense, so doing it for revolutionary purposes seems natural. That is the like a violence original sin: if you permit holy wars, a holy war can be justified for almost everything. The reasons why it was condemned had more to do with world politics at the time than with theology. The links to Marxist ideas from some of its members were the main objection from a pope that came from a communist country. The violent wing of liberation theology deserved to be condemned and to die because of its support of war, which is thoroughly unchristian. But the idea that we must work to help other and bring social justice through Christian methods falls within the core of Christian thinking. Augustine, as much as I love him, was not a Gospel writer, and this City of God is not dogma. It is just one of the many ideas that fall within the Roman Church, and a nonviolent liberation theology should have its place there as well. Moreover, with Church blessing or not, liberation theology is a reality in Latin America, and even conservative cities and conservative priests will give sermons about how it is noble to work for social justice.
This is not fully correct. There has been forces within the church that work on ecumenical union. In fact, Vatican II was an ecumenical meeting if I remember correctly. And I recently learned that a wing of the Lutheran Church and the Roman Church made a statement where they reached a theological agreement, making Lutherans and Roman Catholics share a unified theological belief. ------------- |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 16:31
|
I must admit, it seems you all have more theological training, and more of a grasp of the specifics of individual Vatican councils and what not, but I'm beginning to wonder whether this is more about the certain semantics behind isolated policies, or the overwhelmingly stagnant way in which the Church dogma presents itself to the non-Catholic world... Most of these things take place, but are not particularly noted by anybody other than hardcore Catholics; wile it reinforces their belief that the 'true faith (as they see it)' is adapting itself and coming into line with the modern world- however, I'm half convinced that if this were in fact the case, and the Church was indeed the institution that it portrays itself to be to Catholics, that people of other faiths would be more apt to noticing this as well. As it stands, it seems doctrinal changes come few and far between, and are generally not alluring enough to lure people (ex-Catholics, and the non-practicing 'Catholic' demographic) back into the Church, let alone convince and convert non-Catholic members. Overwhelmingly, Church attendance in America has been on a downhill slope for 50 years or so, and those numbers are even more dramatic worldwide, with many Europeans adopting secularism as their 'religion,' and the Churches isolation of a million or so Catholic practitioners of Liberation Theology in Brazil (country home to the most Catholics worldwide; sorta like Indonesia is for Islam). In effect, to agree with hugoestr, the Roman Churches greatest enemy is its own unwillingness to change and adapt, and this may well lead it to being a thing of the past after a few more centuries; and I agree that if this is the case, and that it refuses to change some of it's more dogmatic ideals, that it will largely be the instrument of it's own demise. Just one more of those ancient, extinct sects, that people will argue semantics about in a 24th century incarnation of AllEmpires. Cheers. |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 19:03
Give examples of these "bad" policies and I'll show you that these arguements are not so easily defeated as you think.
Which is why the Popes made statements saying that this was the acceptable form of Liberation theology. They never condemned it wholesale, they just censored their representatives so that others would not take the ideas on a wrong path.
And it does, however one must take into account the fact that we as humans do not know the exact ramifications of our actions, so it may be better to survive under a corrupt dictatorship than have to live in a chaotic anarchy ruled over by ever shifting alliances of warlords.
Wait hugo. The bold highlighted statement was made by Brian whereas the non-bolded one was made by me. I can't speak for brian but mine was sarcasm, made to point to the fact that the Church does try to work with other theologies and find common ground between them.
This doesn't explain though why Catholicism is still one of the leading faiths in attracting converts to this day. Second only to Islam IIRC.
Church attendance doesn't necessarily correlate to Church affiliation....
See Vaticans I and II and you'll see that this is incorrect.
If it can survive the roman era, I doubt that the modern era can kill it with laziness. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 17:27
|
Hi, Janus,
Before going on, let me make a public statement that you have done a great job representing what is more or less the official positions of the Church in this thread. Furthermore, I like reading your posts on any topic, and I was very happy that you were able to come back I say this because these kinds of conversations often end up hurting friendly interactions even when they weren't meant to do so. These shouldn't be taken personally, but they often do, inadvertently. I want to let you know that at least from my part I don't have any ill feelings or malice towards you or your position. To me most of the discussion is purely intellectual .
Also, sorry for missing your sarcasm. I haven't slept right recently, so I missed it Mea culpa.
I read a few years ago the document that condemned liberation theology. It seemed that they condemned the whole thing, on the basis that one shouldn't be using Marxisism as theology. It was written by Pope Ratzinger. By this I am not saying that the Roman Church gave up on social justice. The document made it clear that social justice was a keen interest of the church. But liberation theology, as a movement, was condemned, as far as I understand it. I could be wrong though. I do disagree with your position on living under dictatorships. Having lived through one real one and living through a quasi one right now, I will add that it is not easy or pleasant. Furthermore, if the church refuses to take the side of the poor, the church ends up endorsing the terrible regimes. Unfortunately the Roman church seems to have had a bad track record on this in Latin America. To be fair, many of the leading human rights champions have been priest in Latin America as well. Most of them happened to be the liberation theology crowd.
As for the points that they refuse to change, here is the list of the most important ones: * Married priests * Female priests * Allowing contraception * inflexible position on abortion Of all these, the position on abortion is the most legitimate since it is a truly complex issue. I believe that the church as taken a rather simplistic scientific position, but it is a fair one. Contraception has been a fiasco for the church. The doctrine of life beginning on conception followed by the idea that any prevention is wrong has lead to many people to leave the church. It is nice for childless men to say that we should have as many children as possible, but as many devout Catholics have told me, the Vatican won't pay the bill on raising them. But these positions are not as bad for the church as the priests ones. The church doesn't have enough priests, so Latin America has become an easy target for evangelicals, who often have small intimate churches. Evangelicals have done a steady job at converting people, a few of them at a time. They need more people. However, the celibacy requirement and the no females allowed rule reduces the number of potential priests. The theological underpinnings for the priest arguments are very weak. The reality is that they are not comfortable with the changes. Either one of the changes would rescue the Church big time. I know several Catholics who were seminarians who didn't become priests because they fell in love and got married before becoming priests. They tend to be active in the church nevertheless. Make them priests, and you suddenly have more religious pastors. The same with women. If the Eastern Church can have female deacons, why not the Roman Church? They wouldn't be full blown priests, but they could take care of many of the parish ministries. Deacons in general would be great for the Church, but I ignore why they don't use them as much as they could. From what I understand they currently can be married if they are male, but I haven't met one in real life.
P.S. Let's focus on the priests issues rather than abortion and conception since they have been discussed before in other threads. ------------- |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 17:29
|
What's more important... Church "affiliation" or people actually actively practicing the faith. I'm sure in demographic surveys, I would end up listed as Catholic because of my family's background and purported religion- do I seem like an actively practicing Catholic to you? A large number doesn't make one religion better than another... unless you're ok with the idea of Roman Catholicism being a "second tier" behind Islam and the combined Protestant Sects. Look, if everything said by the Church was so easily defensible and so obviously divinely inspired, then how come "heresies" have been popping up since the day after jesus died? One of his own Apostles even found the time to write a "heretical" gospel (Gospel of Thomas, Q & T Scrolls), and doubted the fellow's resurrection until he was presented with the physical proof, in the form of the unhealed wounds of the Stigmata (version told in the Canon, anyway; I actually doubt that "doubting Thomas" was actually convinced, as evidenced by his own writings in the Gospel attributed to him). If the "universal" Church's doctrine was so "universal" I am sure a lot fewer people (heretical movements easily number into the thousands) would have found grounds to disagree with them. If their doctrine was so divinely inspired, wouldn't that stand to reason that everyone would follow it, seeing the obvious hand of god as being behind it? Or are all the non-catholics just poor, misguided, ignorant souls incapable of grasping the subtle nuance and divine perfection of the True Faith? It seems to me that you're coming from an objectivist standpoint; that the Church doctrine is the truth, the natural order, etc. and the proper interpretation of the random chaos of reality. This was an acceptable viewpoint 600 years ago; however, it had it's problems in grappling with change. The names Martin Luther and Gallileo Gallilei bring to mind some of this trouble in dealing with differing perspectives. Coming from a subjectivist standpoint myself, I believe that people are all going to interpret reality differently and grasp on to whatever theory (the truly brave will come up with their own private theories) that satisfies them, and then wait to die- hoping, as it were, for vindication (which I highly doubt they'll ever get). Catholics, in my view, are the people who have latched on, or been born into, a particular theory- just as Jews are people who have latched on, or been born into, another, and Muslims people born into, etc.- and the problem that I find with these dogmatic, messianic religions is that they declare it a sin to question the dogma; how is one to decided a 'faith' is working for one if one is called a sinner or a heretic for questioning it!? Seems like most religions seem to have written their 'rules' to ensure that once you got 'em, you don't let 'em go- 'til death do they part from the fold, so to speak. To me, this does not sound like the path to enlightenment. You ever question your faith, JR? I'm interested to hear your response. Questioning, etc. BJC |
Posted By: Crystall
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 18:05
|
Catholic church does not support and condemns the use of birth control, in any form.
Does this Catholic Church believe that Jesus would rather us have many STD's without protected sex? Yes I believe their stance is "no sex before marrage, then you wouldn't have STD's" but I still don't see why they are so against protection from unwanted births and Sexually transmitted diseases
|
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 19:16
Whether it is easy or pleasant is a moot point, realistically all the church cares about is an individuals salvation (isn't that the point of a church?). Social justice is important because it is meant to save the souls of the oppressors, since the souls of the poor all ready have a leg up on them in regards to salvation.
We actually all ready have female "deacons" just not in name. How many times has a woman given you communion in a large church, right there they are performing the role of the deaconesses of antiquity. Females can "assist" the priests in performing their role, just as males can "assist" women in giving childbirth.
There are legitimate birth control methods the church does endorse, the major one being tracking a woman's cycle and only having relations when the chance for pregnancy is minimal. There is also a method that uses body temperature as an indicator of when a woman is less/more fertile. These are acceptable because it doesn't deny the possibility of a child but lessens the odds of conceiving. Also as in abortion, using a condom does not condemn one to hell, that is why we have Reconciliation. Basically the only issue I would argue for that you brought up is married priests. Because it has a basis in antiquity and because as the church has become less of a political organ nepotism is less likely to cause disorder in the church.
I made that statement because converts are usually much much more orthodox and strict in their beliefs than next generation religious, simply because the faith has turned the hearts of the converts whereas those who grow up in the faith take a more half-hearted look at it normally. And visiting church isn't necessarily a requirement for being a faithful practitioner of a religion, so it goes beyond mere "affiliation".
Because due to the complex nature of the theological assertions it is easy to make incorrect judgements in regards to the faith. These incorrect judgements are heresy and are in error. The church exists to correct these errors and lead people on the right path.
And if aliens existed it would stand to reason that they would have visited earth by now. It is a matter of time, God has eternity to be revealed fully to mankind and so does his faith.
All good christians MUST test their faith everyday, and questioning dogma is not a sin unless you refuse to try to understand it.
They aren't against them per se, but they recognize that those actions can be a detriment to the family and thus they do not fit within christian teaching. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 19:23
I noticed you don't have divorce listed on your list, perhaps by oversight or for lack of stringency.
Therefore, my question is:
Is the Catholic perspective felexible with divorce or is the church still dogmatic and stern in this regard? I was under the impression that a marriage, in Catholic eyes, is a covenant for life which cannot (should not?) be severed.
Annulments appear to be a way out of a marriage though. Am I nit picking or is there really a moral difference between divorce and annulments? ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 19:44
|
Thanks, Seko, I forgot that one
The changes on women helping and having an active role in the church has been a change that came from Vatican II. However, I must stress that the level of participation of women varies from parish to parish. This is a actually a sensible policy since some communities are better prepared than others for the shift. Furthermore, if we already have them assist, why not grant them a formal role as deacons? And it can be the same thing: it can start in those places that are better prepared to deal with the change first. As of the married priests, the most absurd situation is that the Roman Church will allow married Anglican priests to convert as priest into the Roman rite, wife include. So we already have living married priests!
By the way, natural rhythm as contraception only works for some women who ovulate regularly, and it is quite tricky to pull off. It is high risk, and it is like playing baby lottery. Not great if you are poor to begin with and want to keep a family small. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 20:17
|
The catholic church moves against a powerful tide of changing social attitudes and a double spear Islamic-fundamentalist protestant agressive missionary attacks and the church cannot find an answer. I will not talk about Islam since the copmpetetion is obvious, what I will discuss is aggressive fundamentalist evangelical missionaries namely the pentacostals. These people base their beliefs on the primacy of the bible over any "human" interpretation or judgement which is similar to what the catholic church says, but here is the catch, the catolics maintain that only trained priests have the authority to interpret the bible while the pentacostals stress on personal connection between God and man.
The Ordinary catholic will find NOTHING in the bible that support the chuch hierarchy, the powers of the pope, the ban of marriage for priests or even the ban of divorce. On the contrary, he will find support in the bible for the counter arguments and no matter how you spin it, since the bible is the word of God then why the controls of the church. People nowadays are not what they were a century ago. Literacy even in the poorest catholic nation, outside Africa, is in the 90s%. Bibles are every where and missionaries of other religions are also everywhere. Yes, the rate of conversion is not that much now but in the future, many south american countries will become fully or partly protestant. Already monasteries are half full and the abstinance from taking the order is rising sharpley. Ireland which not so long ago exported clergy is now importing them from Nigeria and other african countries.
Once apon a time the church was nearly engulfed by the protestant movement and only military might gave the church more time to impose counter-reformation which actually led to many who abandoned the church earlier, mostly out of nationalism, to return to it again. The church has to reform or else.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 23:27
|
Hi, Al-Jassas,
The argument of the Church that you need someone to interpret scripture is not actually totally bad. They claim that not everyone knows enough about scripture to make an intelligent interpretation of it. This is a valid argument. They also claim that they have preserved the correct interpretation via oral transmission, which is a valid argument as well. That being said, most people can pretty much figure out which parts they need help with interpretation. And reading the Bible was one of the areas where the Roman church changed their point of view and began encouraging its reading starting at least with Vatican II if not earlier. ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2007 at 06:53
Yes it is a Sacrament of the Church, and thus it is done to unite man and woman into one flesh, they become a union rather than retain themselves as individuals.
There is a huge difference, in a divorce a marriage is dissolved, in an annulment the prior marriage is considered to have been invalid. The children of an annulment are still considered legitimate since a legitimate marriage took place but it wasn't right. To give an example lets say I cheat on a test and get found out. I still took the test but it wasn't a legitimate score therefore it won't count for my grade. Also annulment is far more stringent than divorce. The only reasons an annulment can take place are as follows. Due to consanguinty, due to insanity of one of the members (lack of consent), not intending to remain faithful to the spouse, deceiving by one partner, being held (kidnapped) in a marriage against one's will, failure to follow canon law, and murder of a married person's spouse to allow remarriage. Mind you dispensations can be made to allow marriages that fall under these requirements to remain valid.
If they are all ready doing God's work why do they need a title? Should these women who lack humility and obedience really represent the church's heirarchy. You become a minister to obey and serve, not to demand and command. However I wouldn't be against granting the title of deaconess' to these women, however this title would preclude any of the sacramental abilities that a deacon can take part in.
This has always bothered me and is the reason I believe that the Roman church will allow married priests in my lifetime. I mean it would seem as if there is a loophole but in retrospect that wouldn't be the appropriate way to become a priest. And if you have to use treachery to misappropriate the office then you have no business being a priest anyway. The granting of dispensations to former Anglican priests though is fully within Catholic teaching, since in a valid marriage a man and a woman become one, it would be utterly contradictory to not allow a priest to continue his mission while denying that same role to his now united wife.
Thank you I couldn't remember what that method was called, lol. Whether it is high risk or not doesn't matter if a couple wants to remain Catholic they must understand that these rules are in place for a reason. As God's name is "I am Who am", so his organ on earth the Church "is what it is". The Church does not conform to humanity's lifestyle, to do so would belittle and offend God. People must conform to God's will in order to gain access to his Kingdom.
I believe the church has found an answer, else it would not retain it's popularity amongst a growing devout youth movement, or a steady stream of converts and reverts.
Obvious in what way? Apparently it isn't so because I can't think of this "competition" between Catholics and Muslims.
See that is where you are incorrect here, ANYONE is free to interpret the Bible as they wish, except for the Dogma of the church. What exactly are the dogmatic statements of the church well the Nicene creed, the decisions of the Ecumenical councils and the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception. Anything else is open to debate. Catholics also stress the personal experiences that God has on our lives, it's just the Church understands that human beings are fallible and thus make errors in judgement in regards to faith. That is why the Church exists so that these errors may be corrected under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Bible is after all a dated document and thus it takes a living Church to fully bring together the faith.
That may be true, luckily I am not an ordinary Catholic. As to the Church heirarchy:
As to the Pope:
As to divorce:
As to the ban on marriage of priests that is a doctrinal issue brought about by politics in the Roman church, many other devotions of the Catholic church allow priests to marry and are completely in union with the Holy See.
Ha, that I see is highly unlikely, as the Latin churches are some of the most devout. Catholicism is heavily entrenched in Latin American culture and culture is the last thing to change in a population. I think it's far more likely that Latin America will become non-religious and secular before it abandons Catholicism for Evangelicalism.
A lack of clergy does not equal a lack of faith amongst the faithful, God calls as many as he deems necessary for the task at hand.
I agree good thing the Church has been constantly reforming itself into a greater vision of God's revealations on earth. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2007 at 09:06
|
This thread, "Ask the Roman Catholic," along with several others, has been moved from "Intellectual Discussions" to the more appropriate "Philosophy and Theology" subforum. Sorry for any inconvenience. -Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2007 at 09:15
Wow, I didn't see that one until you quoted it, Janus. What a gem.
 -Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2007 at 14:08
Good job Ako. The thought did cross my mind but not enough to take action. Btw, I also moved the Atheism thread to this subforum. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2007 at 15:02
|
Hello Janus
Since I am Muslim and no bible expert, I have always been perplexed by the existance inside the bible's new testament of works other than the gospels, namely the Acts, the epistles etc. If they are not the word of Jesus Christ (Peace be Upon Him) then why are they included and by which authority. Only the word of God should be accepted in the bible and as far as I'm concerned, these are definitly not the word of God.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2007 at 15:27
|
Being a novice and certainly no scholar on Christianity either, other than a historical interest, I think Paul's influence is immense. He did not meet or really understand the living Jesus. Paul had ambivalence towards his Jewish roots. Also of interest is that Paul would not have read the gospels. His letters to various churches came before the written gospels and later canons. Ideas like the , Second coming, were Jewish traditions even though his other ideas were new.
Paul still had problems with some of the apostles and the Jerusalem Christians, especially over the requirements of entry into the Christian community. The basic Jewish teachings of the Law would come in contrast to Paul's community. Paul and Peter also did not see eye to eye. Paul attemted to supersede the teachings of Peter. Mathew says that Peter was told by Jesus that, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." Mathew, in Jesus words, also writes that, "I have not come to abolish but to complete (the Law and the prophets) them." These writings are in contrast to Paul's eucharistic rights and superceeding of previous Laws, for example. I think that Paul had a vision of Christianity that differed from that of the Apostles and the early Jewish Christian sects. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2007 at 15:52
|
Janus,
As far as I know, if you annul a marriage, you make those children illegitimate. The reason for this is that an annulment claims that a marriage never took place. Therefore, those children were born out of wedlock. And as for not letting female deacons perform some sacraments, I will remind you that deacons under the Roman rite can't perform the two most important sacraments: confession or consecration. They can lead religious ceremonies, but these must lack the consecration of the host, so they are called something like "celebration of the word." So making them deacons should be safe for the most conservatives, but very practical for ministry work. I know that you say that lack of priest is not a threat to the faith, but the church doesn't see it that way. They have been worried about the waning number of priest for at least 30 years that I know from first hand. And this is the Latin American church that I grew up in. This is coming from the diocesis that produce one of the highest numbers of priest. The threat of evangelical taking Catholics away is a constant worry Mexico, one of the most Catholic countries in the world. It has been addressed in many ways. Let me tell you two of them. The first one is that is brought a strong bible study movement, which organizes intense bible study seminars that trains people to debate missionaries with bible verses. I took that one :) They also embraced the Catholic Pentecostal-styled revivals, where people can safely speak in tongues, have visions, and have seizures within the bussom of the Catholic Church. The weird think about this is that both practices, bible study and revivals, were considered thoroughly protestant before. And these practices actually were the cause why people left the church in Mexico. So they are offering these new products to keep people there.
------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2007 at 19:09
No offense hugo but this is incorrect. The marriage did take place it just wasn't a sanctified one.
Individually parishes worry but the Church as a whole does not.
I never liked Catholic Church's that become "more protestant". If I wanted that I wouldn't be Catholic, I prefer a more conservative church personally. Also, I'll get to the topic of the validity of the New Testament later tonight. As I don't have enough time right now. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 20:57
|
Hi,
This is the third time I try to send this post. It got erased twice before. :) 1. I checked the site on the American Chatholic about the children issue, and they elegantly sidestepped the issue claiming that legally the marriage did exist in civil law. Their sidestepping seems to indicate that they are indeed bastards under the eyes of the Catholic Church
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1002.asp - http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1002.asp 2. The whole Church in Mexico worries about vocations and priest shortages, not only parishes. 3. The fact that the Mexican Church adapts to the challenges of evangelicals means that they are worried and working against the competition. 4. The Roman Church has allowed many forms of worship for a long time. I believe that it works very well. An old crack said that if the world turned Communist tomorrow, the Catholic Church would state that they were always communist from the beginning
5. There are no true "conservative" churches. Each nation has their own unique liturgies at this point, and each nation had their own Roman Catholicism that incorporated local traditions. Even Latin mass is not truly conservative since for many years these were people challenging Vatican II and going against the Church in this respect. On November 1 I went to a politically conservative Catholic Church. American and Vatican flags adorned the main nave (I had never seen this). The homily was a screed about how conservative Catholic bigots, presumably as the priest himself, are persecuted. Well, in this service two things happened that ran against what I see as traditional "conservative" services. There was no shaking of hands after the peace prayer. And almost everyone went to take communion. I know that most people didn't confess before mass because the mass was at noon on Thursday, and many there were taking their lunch hour. To me this was a church-wide desecration of the communion, which one is supposed to take in state of grace, unless they changed something in the last 15 years. ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 23:41
Taken directly from your link Hugo:
I thought Latin America, Ireland and Poland where the only places without a priest shortage, I guess from the comments here my sources are a bit dated.
I was always under the assumption that the Church is a Communistic Theocracy?
Oh I agree, I much prefer the Vatican II mass to the Tridentine Mass. I guess when I say I prefer conservative churches I meant I prefer liberal churches but not "radical-liberal" churches.
It's ok, the one time I went to a Baptist church and everytime I talk to a Mormon I get the same thing. Some people just have a complex that's all.
Only those with mortal sins are to be denied of the sacrament. Those with venial sins have not harmed their relationship with God to a dangerous degree and thus are freely permitted to take part in the Mass. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2007 at 14:19
|
Hi, Janus,
Here is the complete answer for our enjoyment :)
Well, in Latin America there is a shortage. There shouldn't be, but there is. :) And, come on, the whole parish hadn't committed a mortal sin? ------------- |