Announcement

Collapse

Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.

World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.

This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.

And as usual, the forum rules apply.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Catholic Problems

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Also? Clerical Error? Isn't that an autobiography? Sorry, but I'm not sure the unsupported testimony of a single man, literal decades after the events transpired, would be enough to warrant a conviction in any courtroom.
    Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

    -Thomas Aquinas

    I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

    -Hernando Cortez

    What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

    -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

    Comment


    • #17
      What I said was not specifically about papal infallibility, in the sense of ex cathedra, but about when Catholic popes and councils change their opinion on something. The only example I had in mind was the contortions that some Catholics resort to when trying to claim that Vatican II did not really change the way that most in the church had come to understand ex ecclesiam nulla salus or, conversely, how others in the Church can never accept that ex ecclesiam nulla salus should have been changed and, ironically, even leave the church because of it, claiming that recent popes are heretics, or worse. I could think of more examples if I thought back on my seminary training.
      Well, I don't really see any "contortions" there. While I don't doubt that there were a lot of radicals that held to the view that, literally everyone, no matter if they were ignorant, or unable, or whatever, outside the Church were damned, no excuses, no exceptions, throughout history. However I also have no doubt that there were plenty of people that saw it our way as well. If you can present some proof that, in an official sense, the Church most definitely believed the opposite, then please present it.
      Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

      -Thomas Aquinas

      I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

      -Hernando Cortez

      What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

      -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        It was regarded by some of the sources I read as a loophole; that is, it may not have been intentional on the part of those who composed canon law that women might be appointed cardinals.
        What was the source? Not The Davinci Code, I hope. I don't think it was ever the intention to have women cardinals, but it has been intentional that Cardinals need not be priests.

        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        And yet it's a tendency that must be overcome. Instead of challenging the laity to live out their faith in the world, clerics have been inviting the laity up on the altar. No one has a right to Holy Orders-- no man and no woman.
        I agree. But that has nothing to do with women's ordination unless someone says they have a right to ordination. But communities do have a right to leadership and priestly ministry.

        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        Except that the first bishops were clearly men, this would be true.
        Different time, different place. We live in the Catholic church; it should be more universal, in my opinion.

        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        It does women either individually or collectively no harm to say that they cannot be ordained, but this statement can be understood (perhaps paradoxically) as a testimony to the universal call to holiness.
        I don't see the paradox. Can you explain?

        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        We all know that addressing issues directly went out with the reforms of Vatican II That said, is there such a thing as a simplistic explanation that doesn't directly (though perhaps inadequately) address the issue?
        Sure. I think it's very possible to be very simple and very direct at the same time. Simplicity is very good sometimes.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #19
          I have not formally been anulled, therefore I have not been back to receive communion. However, I could neither afford an anullment, and the entire issue has brought me to raise questions about whether or not the Church has carried the issue "too far" Along with the issue of Papal infallibility, and a few other things which I feel have been given either an all or nothing stance, that do the Church no good. And here just to throw this out there. One is considered to have committed a mortal against chastity if the person has masturbated. The soul is now in jeopardy (with some minor exceptions) Granted of course few actually take the vow of chastity exceptions being the Papacy. Clergy and the Clerics, for this its probably a true sin. Now the Church has so greatly interfered in even marriage that its a sin between a man and a woman if the pleasure themselves in the confines of sex. A mortal sin. But the act is in the sexual context. I cannot believe the Church has this correct by any means. Given precisely how a male body and a female body work, and the circumstances, I firmly believe that the Church has overstretched something she doesn't understand. Especially to claim the soul is in danger with God. I can buy this for murder, for many other things, but not this. Neither could I buy it for many other things the Church has claimed are sins. And the "seal" of all this is supposed papal infallibility. Again, I am unable to believe that this is true. Now the Church has stepped on the seed of potential pride. And she takes hundreds of years to admit when she is wrong. This doesn't mean I'm angry or harbor ill will. I'm just convinced, that like every other Church there are incorrect things. And to be honest and conclude I do believe the RCC has more right beliefs than wrong beliefs, but for the sake of the promise that I had to believe everything, I cannot in good conscience attend.
          A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
          George Bernard Shaw

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
            Well, I don't really see any "contortions" there. While I don't doubt that there were a lot of radicals that held to the view that, literally everyone, no matter if they were ignorant, or unable, or whatever, outside the Church were damned, no excuses, no exceptions, throughout history. However I also have no doubt that there were plenty of people that saw it our way as well. If you can present some proof that, in an official sense, the Church most definitely believed the opposite, then please present it.
            Too tired right now. Besides, I have to get back to a discussion about this with Shuny when I do have more time for extended discussion. This is mainly just my personal experience of some of the books I read in college and a few professors in seminary and some super traditionalist wackjobs on the Internet or that I've heard about but never met. It is absolutely true that both opinions were common prior to Vatican II, but the official position was generally rigorist and that changed with Vatican II. I'm sure you can find some reading material on this, probably sooner than I could dig it up for you.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #21
              One was a pedophile who was never held accountable. One was into the black arts. One was a nice guy, but was mostly concerned with money, and the fourth was severely depressed and never sought help, nor was he ever encouraged to do so. Do you know much about the church in Europe?
              Oh....well you probably should've mentioned THAT first. As for the Church of Europe...well, I don't live in Europe so, I suppose I don't have any "hands on" knowledge, however....I'm not even sure which one you're talking about. Are you talking about the Church of England, or just 'a' Church in general?
              Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

              -Thomas Aquinas

              I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

              -Hernando Cortez

              What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

              -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                What was the source? Not The Davinci Code, I hope. I don't think it was ever the intention to have women cardinals, but it has been intentional that Cardinals need not be priests.
                Nah, I just remember reading a couple blogs a while before the pope was asked. The question had been brewing for a little while.

                I agree. But that has nothing to do with women's ordination unless someone says they have a right to ordination. But communities do have a right to leadership and priestly ministry.
                Leadership and priestly ministry are not the same thing.

                Different time, different place. We live in the Catholic church; it should be more universal, in my opinion.
                The ordained priesthood should be more universal, you mean?

                I don't see the paradox. Can you explain?
                In denying people access to the clerical state, which was once seen as the only true path to holiness, the Church makes it clear that the call to holiness is in fact universal. Maybe it's not as paradoxical as my addled mind first thought.

                Sure. I think it's very possible to be very simple and very direct at the same time. Simplicity is very good sometimes.
                The question was whether an answer can be both simplistic and non-direct.
                Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                  I have not formally been anulled, therefore I have not been back to receive communion. However, I could neither afford an anullment, and the entire issue has brought me to raise questions about whether or not the Church has carried the issue "too far" Along with the issue of Papal infallibility, and a few other things which I feel have been given either an all or nothing stance, that do the Church no good. And here just to throw this out there. One is considered to have committed a mortal against chastity if the person has masturbated. The soul is now in jeopardy (with some minor exceptions) Granted of course few actually take the vow of chastity exceptions being the Papacy. Clergy and the Clerics, for this its probably a true sin. Now the Church has so greatly interfered in even marriage that its a sin between a man and a woman if the pleasure themselves in the confines of sex. A mortal sin. But the act is in the sexual context. I cannot believe the Church has this correct by any means. Given precisely how a male body and a female body work, and the circumstances, I firmly believe that the Church has overstretched something she doesn't understand. Especially to claim the soul is in danger with God. I can buy this for murder, for many other things, but not this. Neither could I buy it for many other things the Church has claimed are sins. And the "seal" of all this is supposed papal infallibility. Again, I am unable to believe that this is true. Now the Church has stepped on the seed of potential pride. And she takes hundreds of years to admit when she is wrong. This doesn't mean I'm angry or harbor ill will. I'm just convinced, that like every other Church there are incorrect things. And to be honest and conclude I do believe the RCC has more right beliefs than wrong beliefs, but for the sake of the promise that I had to believe everything, I cannot in good conscience attend.
                  Well, okay, first I need to know what you mean by "pleasure themselves in the confides of sex". Are you talking about mutual masturbation?

                  Secondly, on the subject of papal infallibility...well, I really can't answer that, as you didn't list a specific problem? However, the fact that it was generally accepted, albeit not officially declared, throughout Church history is well attested to.
                  Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                  -Thomas Aquinas

                  I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                  -Hernando Cortez

                  What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                  -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    As fashionable as it is to hit the church on this topic, I am floored by how the church handled a local news story where I live last year. It turned out a priest was making child pornography by taking photos of girls in the parish, and the local bishop didn't report it. He ended up getting convicted of failure to report child sex abuse, yet he is still the local bishop. If the church is taking the issue seriously, how can he still be there?
                    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      As fashionable as it is to hit the church on this topic, I am floored by how the church handled a local news story where I live last year. It turned out a priest was making child pornography by taking photos of girls in the parish, and the local bishop didn't report it. He ended up getting convicted of failure to report child sex abuse, yet he is still the local bishop. If the church is taking the issue seriously, how can he still be there?
                      Can I have a source, please?
                      Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                      -Thomas Aquinas

                      I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                      -Hernando Cortez

                      What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                      -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                        Please substantiate. What is the problem?
                        Christ is the head of the Church. He doesn't need another one down here.
                        I know exactly what you're talking about, and the answer is: Sorry, but you're wrong. Pope Honorius did not actually teach Monothelitism, he simply didn't make a decision on it either way.
                        Per the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agatho himself condemned Honorius as a heretic. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full acts of the council, but it seems that Pope Honorius wrote to Sergius with the phrase "we confess" one will - which can hardly be passed off as private opinion. Pope Leo II accepted the acts of the council and condemned Honorius as a heretic, and so did popes for the next three hundred years.
                        I...uh, don't see what you mean? Can you give me some specifics?
                        The Spiritual Exercises, from what I recall, seem to be a kind of brute force approach to spirituality rather than submission to the will of God. Robert Kaiser describes being told to use imagination to focus on various scenes in the mind during meditation, which is fraught with peril, and the students were cooking and eating full course meals - it's no wonder they were struggling with passions!
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                          Can I have a source, please?
                          http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/15...urge-pope.html
                          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                            Also? Clerical Error? Isn't that an autobiography? Sorry, but I'm not sure the unsupported testimony of a single man, literal decades after the events transpired, would be enough to warrant a conviction in any courtroom.
                            He wasn't castigating the Jesuits; he was explaining his time in seminary. Have you even read it? At any rate, it's not my sole source of angst with the Jesuits, as my earlier post indicated.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                              Nah, I just remember reading a couple blogs a while before the pope was asked. The question had been brewing for a little while.

                              Leadership and priestly ministry are not the same thing.
                              Of course not, which is why you do not need to be a priest (or bishop) to be a cardinal. But the reality is that most leadership (or lack thereof) is done by priests.

                              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                              The ordained priesthood should be more universal, you mean?
                              That's true too, but not really what I was saying. The first bishops and most bishops were men and lived in societies were this was perfectly normal. Officially, the church applauds the progress that women have made in secular society, and today it is perfectly normal for women to exercise leadership in science, medicine, academia, politics, the military, etc. The church changes with culture, sometimes in good ways, sometimes in bad ways. The church is universal and should be able to incarnate itself in all cultures of the world, including modern Western culture where it is normal and healthy for women to perform all of the same roles as men in society. In my opinion.

                              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                              In denying people access to the clerical state, which was once seen as the only true path to holiness, the Church makes it clear that the call to holiness is in fact universal. Maybe it's not as paradoxical as my addled mind first thought.
                              This was largely true until just prior to Vatican II with the writings of Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, Jacques Maritain, and Dorothy Day. But it was always true that lay brothers, sisters, and nuns were called to live lives of holiness without being ordained. For example, St Francis was not a priest. There were also third order Franciscan lay people living in society as well as Beguines and Beghards in Northern Europe for centur

                              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                              The question was whether an answer can be both simplistic and non-direct.
                              Sorry, I misunderstood. Too tired to think straight. Give me a couple of days to recover from my travels. But, yes, I think so. If you were to ask me a question a complicated question about genetics and evolution, and I was to say that the Bible is right, your wrong, God created the world in 6-days and formed Adam out of the dust of the ground, so there's no reason for me to learn or even try to understand the evolutionary nonsense your talking about. Did that answer the question?
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Christ is the head of the Church. He doesn't need another one down here.
                                Well that's... not right. By that logic, God didn't need Moses as a mediator because he was already the head of Israel. That said, he's simply the earthly representative of Christ, not actually Christ himself, or something of the such, 'that' would be dumb.

                                Per the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agatho himself condemned Honorius as a heretic. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full acts of the council, but it seems that Pope Honorius wrote to Sergius with the phrase "we confess" one will - which can hardly be passed off as private opinion. Pope Leo II accepted the acts of the council and condemned Honorius as a heretic, and so did popes for the next three hundred years.
                                Well....I'd be lying if I said that I didn't think an article by James White would show up in this debate. I'll have to get back to you on this, as it'll take me a while to sift through his typical brand of arrogant jackassery. However, he was already floored on these topics in his debates with Tim Staples and Robert Sungenis, so maybe try those....you know, without the spin White puts on them.

                                Robert Kaiser describes being told to use imagination to focus on various scenes in the mind during meditation, which is fraught with peril, and the students were cooking and eating full course meals - it's no wonder they were struggling with passions!
                                I uh....really still don't see what you're getting, especially the "fraught with peril" part.
                                Last edited by TimelessTheist; 04-01-2014, 10:24 PM.
                                Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                                -Thomas Aquinas

                                I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                                -Hernando Cortez

                                What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                                -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X