NationStates Jolt Archive

Like so many Catholics I have spent many years by and large away from the Church, and certain doctrines I find repugnant to my own conscience and sense of morality. Increasingly, I am not alone, as growing congregations of reform-minded Catholics who wish to emphasize the inclusiveness, community, and compassion that our Church was founded on, and finally put an end to the crusader mentality.

These dreams were dashed this month, with the announcement that reformer Father Kennedy has been sacked and that St Mary's (a Church renowned for its inclusiveness, and message that compassion trumps dogma) will become a battleground between traditionalists and the thousands of modern Catholics who came back home.


Former High Court judge Ian Callinan appointed to Father Peter Kennedy case

February 24, 2009
Article from: Australian Associated Press

A FORMER High Court judge has been appointed to mediate in the case of sacked rebel Catholic priest Peter Kennedy.

Father Kennedy is refusing to stand down from St Mary's church in South Brisbane despite being sacked last week for unorthodox practices such as blessing gay couples and selling books that questioned the divinity of Jesus.

More than 1000 people attended a service at St Mary's on Sunday in support of Father Kennedy, who read the opening prayer and sang hymns.

The parish is refusing to hand over the keys to the church to its appointed administrator Father Ken Howell.

Catholic Archbishop John Bathersby said in a statement he had nominated former High Court judge Ian Callinan to be the independent mediator.

Archbishop Bathersby said Mr Callinan has accepted the appointment and he hoped a dignified and peaceful outcome could be achieved.

But Father Kennedy is refusing to come to the party, saying any mediation should involve the parish community.

He said his sacking was unjust and the community did not want him to leave.

Become a new sect

Have you considered atheism?

its my understanding (from the sidelines) that the new generation of priests is extremely conservative. it doesnt bode well for the future of the church.

Become a new sect

We shouldn't have to, it is our Church, and we should be allowed to worship as our conscience dictates

Become a new sect
Well, we'd had a thread similar last month.

The Church owns the church property, and can remove Father Kennedy if they feel his views are not consonant with the true faith.

That doesn't stop him and his congregation from meeting elsewhere and practicing as they see fit. One can hope that if people leave because their conscience tells them so, the lack of congregants and loss of revenue might make an impression.

Have you considered atheism?

I've been agnostic most of my life, which is one of the great tragedies here. Someone can turn back to the Church and seek Catholicism in the darkest hour, only to find a cold and dispassionate Vatican ready to undercut any hope individual priests might seek to dispense

Well, we'd had a thread similar last month.

The Church owns the church property, and can remove Father Kennedy if they feel his views are not consonant with the true faith.

That doesn't stop him and his congregation from meeting elsewhere and practicing as they see fit. One can hope that if people leave because their conscience tells them so, the lack of congregants and loss of revenue might make an impression.

The Catholic Church isn't a business, it is the Communion of Catholics and Body of Christ, congregations have traditionally been treated with far more respect than we are.

It is completely unacceptable for the Church give us the choice between apostasy and communion against our conscience.

Well, we'd had a thread similar last month.

The Church owns the church property, and can remove Father Kennedy if they feel his views are not consonant with the true faith.

That doesn't stop him and his congregation from meeting elsewhere and practicing as they see fit. One can hope that if people leave because their conscience tells them so, the lack of congregants and loss of revenue might make an impression.

This.

The Pope, and Cardinals decide what is right for Catholicism, not the Catholics. This is the reason that I've always felt doctrinal Catholicism was a poor representation of Christianity, in accordance with anything close to what Jesus taught.

Darlin', I agree that it sucks, but they hold all the cards and make all the rules.... and if you think that in part, the Catholic Church is not a business you've ignored vast amounts of the history.

You know, if they picked someone like the aforementioned Peter Kennedy to be the next pope, distaste of the church would likely subside...

Sure, there's be some ultraorthodox people who'd protest, but there are a LOT of people who think it'd start the church on a path to fixing its problems.

Normally, Id say that there is no part of Catholicism that I want to "save", but this priest sounds like a decent fellow.


To bad hes got the law against him.

I think the Catholic Church could use another schism. Its been a few centuries.

You might look into this (http://holycatholicchurch-wr.org/) church.

I've been agnostic most of my life, which is one of the great tragedies here. Someone can turn back to the Church and seek Catholicism in the darkest hour, only to find a cold and dispassionate Vatican ready to undercut any hope individual priests might seek to dispense

What's the procedure for impeaching Popes?

We shouldn't have to, it is our Church, and we should be allowed to worship as our conscience dictates

I hate to point this out, but your post is in direct opposition to Catholic doctrine.

I was never a member of the Catholic Church, but I have read the Catechism and other doctrinal works. According to them, it's NOT your church and never has been. It's god's church, run by his appointed shepherd, the Pope. And you have exactly ZERO input into doctrine or any decision made by the church. Your job is to obey, at peril of your immortal soul.

I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know. But honestly, if you have a problem with Catholic doctrine, leave, and take as many people as you can with you. Find a church youcan live with - or better yet, don't.

What's the procedure for impeaching Popes?

I hope you're joking...

I hope you're joking...

Why?

Popes are mortal, and fallible. Yoink out the current one, and replace him with a better one. No?

Why?

Popes are mortal, and fallible. Yoink out the current one, and replace him with a better one. No?

Popes are mortal, but they're infallible on matters of doctrine (just ask the Church). The only known way to impeach a Pope is to shoot him off the chair (which happened more than once).

Popes are mortal, but they're infallible on matters of doctrine (just ask the Church). The only known way to impeach a Pope is to shoot him off the chair (which happened more than once).

Not strictly true. If you could 'prove' your Pope to be guilty of Heresy, he can be removed from his office, I believe... and there are a couple of other clauses out there (being party to, involved in, or accesory to an abortion, I believe, is one).

It might not be too much of a stretch to find an area where the Pope has acted in such a way that it can be classed as heresy, at least.

Also - aren't Popes only 'infallible' under certain circumstances?

Wow! I am just shocked that no one has mentioned Martin Luther.

Just think another 95 Theses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_95_Theses) the Pope would never see it comming.

I hate to point this out, but your post is in direct opposition to Catholic doctrine.

I was never a member of the Catholic Church, but I have read the Catechism and other doctrinal works. According to them, it's NOT your church and never has been. It's god's church, run by his appointed shepherd, the Pope. And you have exactly ZERO input into doctrine or any decision made by the church. Your job is to obey, at peril of your immortal soul.

I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know. But honestly, if you have a problem with Catholic doctrine, leave, and take as many people as you can with you. Find a church youcan live with - or better yet, don't.
Actually, the Catechism states that human reason is the source of faith

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".

As a Catholic I hate to admit it but the many of catholic church's teachings seem to run contrary to the teachings of the Jesus and bible. Some of these issues are centuries old and sparked the schism the church - and yet never has the church felt the need to address these issues. I think catholics feeling disenfranchised has been the status quo for more than a century in any case. How many Catholics actually believe in the infallibility of the pope anyway?

I can understand the churches problem with Father Peter Kennedy. While blessing gay couples may be unorthodox I see no problem with it ... afterall, everyone could use a good blessing now and then gay sinners or just the regular kind we're all equal in the eyes of the lord. I do see a problem however with a member of the clergy questioning the divinity of Christ. In any-case whatever the roman catholic says is irrelevant in the end we all must answer to the same god whatever we believe.

Not strictly true. If you could 'prove' your Pope to be guilty of Heresy, he can be removed from his office, I believe... and there are a couple of other clauses out there (being party to, involved in, or accesory to an abortion, I believe, is one).

It might not be too much of a stretch to find an area where the Pope has acted in such a way that it can be classed as heresy, at least.

Also - aren't Popes only 'infallible' under certain circumstances?

I belive the methods for removing popes generally fatal. It often involves declaring him the AntiPope and kicking him off Peter's Throne, often with an angry roman mob or some army which is generally followed by throwing his corpse into the Tiber River and an election of an new pope.

What's the procedure for impeaching Popes?
Be God.


We shouldn't have to, it is our Church, and we should be allowed to worship as our conscience dictates
Umm... Protestant Reformation, anyone?

Umm... Protestant Reformation, anyone?

"There is only one Holy Roman and Apostolic Church..."

For the record, no, a Pope cannot be impeached. That doesn't mean a Pope cannot be removed, either by striping him of the Bishop of Rome, or one of the less canonical methods over the years

Be God.



Umm... Protestant Reformation, anyone?

I think I'm happier as a disenfranchised Catholic than I possibly could be as protestant. Besides having an overly complicated religion kinda forces you to think about the subject --

Popes are mortal, but they're infallible on matters of doctrine (just ask the Church).

A power that's only been used once, since it was issued in the first Vatican Council, on the matter of the Assumption of Mary. Not on all issues.

Popes are mortal, but they're infallible on matters of doctrine (just ask the Church). The only known way to impeach a Pope is to shoot him off the chair (which happened more than once).

Popes are only infallible when speaking on matters of faith, and only when expressly doing so "from the seat", and with, or in relation to, divine inspiration. There is an argument papal infallibility does not exist at all, as it is effectively the infallibility of God speaking directly

Become a new sect

We shouldn't have to, it is our Church, and we should be allowed to worship as our conscience dictates

You are definitely allowed to worship as your conscience dictates, but if your conscience and the Catechism conflict.. well.. maybe Catholicism just isn't the route your soul should take to the great blue yonder. I had too many conflicts myself, and ceased practicing a few years ago.. never been happier, or more hopeful about things!

"There is only one Holy Roman and Apostolic Church..."
'The only true authority is Scripture.'

'Each man is his own priest.'

Not being a believer, but being brought up in a Presbyterian church, has engrained a sense that those in the Roman Catholic church who desire change can either bumble along with slooooooooow reformation, or break away all together.

Not that there's been a big schism in some while. Folks just drop out these days.

Like so many Catholics I have spent many years by and large away from the Church, and certain doctrines I find repugnant to my own conscience and sense of morality. Increasingly, I am not alone, as growing congregations of reform-minded Catholics who wish to emphasize the inclusiveness, community, and compassion that our Church was founded on, and finally put an end to the crusader mentality.

These dreams were dashed this month, with the announcement that reformer Father Kennedy has been sacked and that St Mary's (a Church renowned for its inclusiveness, and message that compassion trumps dogma) will become a battleground between traditionalists and the thousands of modern Catholics who came back home.

If you think this is the biggest and most significant hullabaloo to come out of the Ratzinger popehood, then you have been living under a rock. Ratzinger is fast on his way to causing a new schism and this isn't even a blip on that radar.

I think I'm happier as a disenfranchised Catholic than I possibly could be as protestant.
Even as a Protestant within a denomination that agrees totally with your beliefs?

You are definitely allowed to worship as your conscience dictates, but if your conscience and the Catechism conflict.. well.. maybe Catholicism just isn't the route your soul should take to the great blue yonder. I had too many conflicts myself, and ceased practicing a few years ago.. never been happier, or more hopeful about things!

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".

Even as a Protestant within a denomination that agrees totally with your beliefs?

If the Devil agreed with my beliefs, I would not become a Satanist

'The only true authority is Scripture.'

'Each man is his own priest.'

Not being a believer, but being brought up in a Presbyterian church, has engrained a sense that those in the Roman Catholic church who desire change can either bumble along with slooooooooow reformation, or break away all together.

Not that there's been a big schism in some while. Folks just drop out these days.

I believe the holy communion between god and man, divine revelation, and spiritual tradition of the body of Christ are as valid as a selective collection of incorrectly translated works chosen for compliance with Anglican doctrine

If the Devil agreed with my beliefs, I would not become a Satanist

If the devil DID agree with your beliefs, you'd BE a satanist... surely?

You're not a Catholic, according to the letter of the law. The only question is - what you're going to do about it? Make a liar of yourself to join the main body of the church, or engage in a crusade of conscience?

Questioning the divinity of Christ. And teaching it?

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that means he's not a Catholic, or even a Christian for that matter. This guy's pretty much removed himself from the church.

There's dogma and Dogma in the church. dogma can be disagreed with. This includes things like the Catechism and other rules and regulations. The church may have a specific position, but they're more recommendations. Dogma, on the other hand, includes the divinity of Christ, the Eucharist, and Mary.

I believe, except for a few notable examples, that at the moment the Conservative Church is in more danger than the liberal one. Just read any high school religion text.

If you think this is the biggest and most significant hullabaloo to come out of the Ratzinger popehood, then you have been living under a rock. Ratzinger is fast on his way to causing a new schism and this isn't even a blip on that radar.

A new schism? thats more than an tad overblown, he hasn't done anything nearly that bad and at his age, you don't have to wait to long for him past on to his rewards. Besides its rather known that the Cardinal college tends to choose people who are opposite from the previous people. That being the case think of what the next pope will be like.

I mean Christian in the significant sense, not in the 'he was a good guy' sense.

Questioning the divinity of Christ. And teaching it?

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that means he's not a Catholic, or even a Christian for that matter.

That rather depends on which definitions you'll accept.

If you think a Christian should be someone who 'leads a Christlike life', then belief in the divinity of Christ comes down somewhere between optional and irrelevent.

If the devil DID agree with your beliefs, you'd BE a satanist... surely?

You're not a Catholic, according to the letter of the law. The only question is - what you're going to do about it? Make a liar of yourself to join the main body of the church, or engage in a crusade of conscience?

Firstly, you do not not define my faith. Secondly, according to cannon law, I am. I am baptised, I am confirmed, and I have taken communion.

The only question is whether I invoke my Second Vatican right to freedom of conscience, my catechismic right of human reason, and reform the Mother Church, or join groups I have no spiritual, personal, or moral agreement with.

St Mary's is my home, I am accepted there, loved there, and respected there, I have never felt that in a Protestant church.

Questioning the divinity of Christ. And teaching it?

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that means he's not a Catholic, or even a Christian for that matter. This guy's pretty much removed himself from the church.

There's dogma and Dogma in the church. dogma can be disagreed with. This includes things like the Catechism and other rules and regulations. The church may have a specific position, but they're more recommendations. Dogma, on the other hand, includes the divinity of Christ, the Eucharist, and Mary.

I believe, except for a few notable examples, that at the moment the Conservative Church is in more danger than the liberal one. Just read any high school religion text.

I'll skip the high school religion texts in favor of the actual bible but I agree that a priest ought not to be questioning the divinity of Christ. There are certain issues which are crucial to the faith others less so. I can't say I hold the Catechisms of the church with much regard but the divinity of Christ is pretty much backed up by the bible and is a common thread which runs through other flavors of Christianity as well. In other words it's pretty important.

Questioning the divinity of Christ. And teaching it?

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that means he's not a Catholic, or even a Christian for that matter. This guy's pretty much removed himself from the church.

There's dogma and Dogma in the church. dogma can be disagreed with. This includes things like the Catechism and other rules and regulations. The church may have a specific position, but they're more recommendations. Dogma, on the other hand, includes the divinity of Christ, the Eucharist, and Mary.

I believe, except for a few notable examples, that at the moment the Conservative Church is in more danger than the liberal one. Just read any high school religion text.

There is a difference between distributing books discussing theology and advocating that position. I've lent Ayn Ryand books, it doesn't mean I agree with her. The divinity of Christ is also a subject that the early church spent a significant amount of time debating

If the Devil agreed with my beliefs, I would not become a Satanist
If the Devil agreed with your beliefs, he wouldn't be a Satanist.

I believe the holy communion between god and man, divine revelation, and spiritual tradition of the body of Christ are as valid as a selective collection of incorrectly translated works chosen for compliance with Anglican doctrine
Who said anything about Anglicans? Half-arsed Prods is what they are; they didn't even get rid of bishops.

Ach, you're talking to the wrong person; I can't properly defend the Protestant faith as I no longer believe in it. What I can say, is that an organisation that believes in a limitation on hierarchy, involvement of the congregation in ministry and a direct, personal relationship with God strikes me as a lot better than an organisation dedicated to hierarchical authority, a distance between congregation and priesthood and (what appears to me as) a distancing between God and His people.

EDIT: Not that all Protestant denominations are bastions for light and goodness...

Firstly, you do not not define my faith.


Correct. You do.

And if your beliefs are those of a Satanist, CALLING yourself a Catholic will not make you a Catholic. And if your beliefs are incompatible with the Catholic church, calling yourself a Catholic will not make you a Catholic.


Secondly, according to cannon law, I am. I am baptised, I am confirmed, and I have taken communion.


All of which is irrelevent.

Do you still take communion? That's more important. Can you honestly take communion, in the body of the church. Can all your sins be confessed, and can you be contrite?

If you're pretending beliefs to receive communion, it's meaningless.

I guess it depends how far from the body of the church you feel. If your beliefs mark you as apostate, you can't confess and remain part of the body of the church anyway, so communion would be a non-issue.

If it's more of the 'No, dude - Jesus was black' division...


The only question is whether I invoke my Second Vatican right to freedom of conscience, my catechismic right of human reason, and reform the Mother Church, or join groups I have no spiritual, personal, or moral agreement with.


Which is why I initially made the 'impeach the Pope' comment. If you believe the Pope is wrong, there's something wrong in Catholicism, anyway - either that, or in YOUR Catholicism.

So the question is - is THE Catholic church wrong (in which case, you wouldn't even want to pretend to be in it, would you?), or is it YOUR jibing beliefs that are wrong - in which case, you're only a Catholic in name, no?


St Mary's is my home, I am accepted there, loved there, and respected there, I have never felt that in a Protestant church.

All of which is irrelevent.

That rather depends on which definitions you'll accept.

If you think a Christian should be someone who 'leads a Christlike life', then belief in the divinity of Christ comes down somewhere between optional and irrelevent.

Leading a Christ like life is not what Catholicism is about. It's about accepting god's love, the sacrifice of his son on the cross and forgiveness for our sins. It's also about accepting the teachings of Christ and trying to live a life with him as a role model. Failing to live up to that model is part of being human and where the forgiveness part becomes handy.

If the Devil agreed with your beliefs, he wouldn't be a Satanist.
Well no, the founder of a faith rarely is. My point is, I wouldn't join a faith just because they agreed with me.

Who said anything about Anglicans? Half-arsed Prods is what they are; they didn't even get rid of bishops.

Ach, you're talking to the wrong person; I can't properly defend the Protestant faith as I no longer believe in it. What I can say, is that an organisation that believes in a limitation on hierarchy, involvement of the congregation in ministry and a direct, personal relationship with God strikes me as a lot better than an organisation dedicated to hierarchical authority, a distance between congregation and priesthood and (what appears to me as) a distancing between God and His people.
I don't have an issue with hierarchy, I'm not in rebellion against a two-thousand year old church structure, my issue is with the Church leadership not being open to the views of the faithful. Having left the Church in my teenage years to join a modern protestant church, I can speak from experience that the Catholic Church has far less interest in controlling every aspect of life

The divinity of Christ is also a subject that the early church spent a significant amount of time debating

Yes, and how was that debate resolved?

Leading a Christ like life is not what Catholicism is about.


No, but it's certainly a functional definition of 'Christian'... which is what I posted it as.


It's about accepting god's love, the sacrifice of his son on the cross and forgiveness for our sins. It's also about accepting the teachings of Christ and trying to live a life with him as a role model. Failing to live up to that model is part of being human and where the forgiveness part becomes handy.

Sure - if you're going to talk about the specific belief structure of one sect, then yes - that specific belief structure is best defined by the specific belief structure. On the other hand - not every Christian sect agrees on the specific belief structure - so it's a task to create an inclusive definition of what a 'Christian' should be - and more of a task to defend it.

...my issue is with the Church leadership not being open to the views of the faithful....

Well, in all fairness, why should they be?

The 'views of the faithful' are irrelevent, when you are selling being the messengers of the one true way, as dictated by god.

Well no, the founder of a faith rarely is. My point is, I wouldn't join a faith just because they agreed with me.


I don't have an issue with hierarchy, I'm not in rebellion against a two-thousand year old church structure, my issue is with the Church leadership not being open to the views of the faithful. Having left the Church in my teenage years to join a modern protestant church, I can speak from experience that the Catholic Church has far less interest in controlling every aspect of life

Which group of the faithful would that be? Your talking about an church with around an billion people in it and divided into 23 odd sects with varying beliefs. Just because one group has one set of views doesn't mean it will mesh well with the views of the other parts of the church.

Correct. You do.

And if your beliefs are those of a Satanist, CALLING yourself a Catholic will not make you a Catholic. And if your beliefs are incompatible with the Catholic church, calling yourself a Catholic will not make you a Catholic.
Meeting the requirements of cannon law does, however.

Do you still take communion? That's more important. Can you honestly take communion, in the body of the church. Can all your sins be confessed, and can you be contrite?

If you're pretending beliefs to receive communion, it's meaningless.

I guess it depends how far from the body of the church you feel. If your beliefs mark you as apostate, you can't confess and remain part of the body of the church anyway, so communion would be a non-issue.

If it's more of the 'No, dude - Jesus was black' division...
On advice of my Confessor, I participate in reconciliation (it is no longer called Communion in my Arch Dioscese)


Which is why I initially made the 'impeach the Pope' comment. If you believe the Pope is wrong, there's something wrong in Catholicism, anyway - either that, or in YOUR Catholicism.

So the question is - is THE Catholic church wrong (in which case, you wouldn't even want to pretend to be in it, would you?), or is it YOUR jibing beliefs that are wrong - in which case, you're only a Catholic in name, no?

What's the procedure for impeaching Popes?

Why?

Popes are mortal, and fallible. Yoink out the current one, and replace him with a better one. No?

Been there, done that. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/495683/the_great_schism_when_there_were_three.html)

Which group of the faithful would that be? Your talking about an church with around an billion people in it and divided into 23 odd sects with varying beliefs. Just because one group has one set of views doesn't mean it will mesh well with the views of the other parts of the church.

The Catholic Church has sects now? And a lack of diversity of opinion is precisely the poblem we have

Well, in all fairness, why should they be?

The 'views of the faithful' are irrelevent, when you are selling being the messengers of the one true way, as dictated by god.

Because the Catechism and canon law recognise personal revelation, and only recognise papal infallibility and very narrow circumstances

Hmm, I should think that the views of the faithful should be very important. The question is defining who are 'the faithful' which runs parallel to the question of how do you define a Christian. Or as GnI put it what a Christian should be.

This is a question which I don't feel I have the knowledge or the authority to answer. However I feel that considering the sordid history of the catholic church they also seem to lack the moral authority to decide this. In the end I suppose it's a question which is up to god, afterall he's (or she) is the one which will judge us.

Yes, and how was that debate resolved?
Less conclusively than you'd think

My point is, I wouldn't join a faith just because they agreed with me.
Why on Earth not?

This just in the pope is dead.
The catholic church has selected a replacement within one day.
the new pope is Mel Gibson

If the Devil agreed with your beliefs, he wouldn't be a Satanist.

Or he'd just be an awfully good fellow named Satan, which isn't his fault, and isn't even really his name. That's name discrimination, right there.

This just in the pope is dead.
Plausible...

The catholic church has selected a replacement within one day.
Not so much.


Or he'd just be an awfully good fellow named Satan, which isn't his fault, and isn't even really his name. That's name discrimination, right there.
Poor ol' Satan McHitler.

I feels for him.

Plausible...


Not so much.




Even so it has happened.
Enjoy the church under Pope Mel Gibson.

Even so it has happened.
Enjoy the church under Pope Mel Gibson.

I don't know about that Pope Mel Gibson.
People say he's a loose cannon
http://www.zuguide.com/image/Lethal-Weapon.jpg

I don't know about that Pope Mel Gibson.
People say he's a loose cannon
http://www.zuguide.com/image/Lethal-Weapon.jpg

that's him demonstrating the new style of giving mass.

The Catholic Church has sects now? And a lack of diversity of opinion is precisely the poblem we have

To be more precise the church is divided into 23 rites each autonomous of the other churches but in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The most wide spread of which is the Latin Rite over with the Pope weilds the most direct authority over. The Latin rite is also why the catholic church is often refered to as the Roman Catholic Church. The remaining 22 Rites are the Eastern catholic churches which have their own distinctive liturgical rites, laws and customs, traditional devotions and theological emphases which vary from the western church.

Meeting the requirements of cannon law does, however.


In name, maybe.

However I feel that considering the sordid history of the catholic church they also seem to lack the moral authority to decide this.

Considering the sordid history of the Abrahamic god, the question of 'moral authority' actually seems to be irrelevent.

The idea of ordering genocides, and then trying the "It's okay, 'cause I said so" routine? Leaves a little to be desired in the 'moral authority' stakes.

To be more precise the church is divided into 23 rites each autonomous of the other churches but in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The most wide spread of which is the Latin Rite over with the Pope weilds the most direct authority over. The Latin rite is also why the catholic church is often refered to as the Roman Catholic Church. The remaining 22 Rites are the Eastern catholic churches which have their own distinctive liturgical rites, laws and customs, traditional devotions and theological emphases which vary from the western church.

I think everyone assumes that when we refer to The Catholic Church, we're referring the Western Latin Rite, and not the broader communion with Rome

In name, maybe.

Now you're just being silly

Why on Earth not?

Anyone can claim to agree with me, but there is only one apostolic Church

Considering the sordid history of the Abrahamic god, the question of 'moral authority' actually seems to be irrelevent.

The idea of ordering genocides, and then trying the "It's okay, 'cause I said so" routine? Leaves a little to be desired in the 'moral authority' stakes.

You realize that your talking to a Catholic and not a 'the bible is the word of god' baptist or someone like that. Since I don't take a literal interpretation of the bible anyway I'm not going to try and defend genocide in the name of god. So you can shove your homophobic levitucus back up the tight little hole where you found it . I've read the bible a half a dozen times by now and am well aware of 'things that make you go Hmmm'. In any-case the bible being wrong doesn't undermine the moral authority of god which is absolute.

I think everyone assumes that when we refer to The Catholic Church, we're referring the Western Latin Rite, and not the broader communion with Rome

I guess though to me, if they are in communion with rome, they are part of the Catholic Church. Besides to assume is the mother of all errors and great engineering disasters. ;)

Anyone can claim to agree with me, but there is only one apostolic Church

Why?

Why adhere to one dogmatic belief, but not others? It seems to me if one followed Catholicism dogmatically, you would not end up in the liberal field at ALL.

Father Kennedy is refusing to stand down from St Mary's church in South Brisbane despite being sacked last week for unorthodox practices such as blessing gay couples and selling books that questioned the divinity of Jesus.


Holy shit. I don't get those catholics who can't understand that a catholic priest shouldn't speak against dogmas. Really.

Blessing gay couples? The Vatican says no because sex not aimed at reproduction is sin.
Selling books questioning the divinity of Jesus can be seen as supporting a heresy (Arianism, iirc, see the Council of Nicaea).

:rolleyes:

And you wonder why this guy has been sacked? He should be glad he's not going into the hands of the spanish Blackfriars. ;)

If you don't like a structured church with rules, dogmas, gerarchy and all... then stop being a catholic. Love it or leave it.

That rather depends on which definitions you'll accept.

If you think a Christian should be someone who 'leads a Christlike life', then belief in the divinity of Christ comes down somewhere between optional and irrelevent.

Mmh. The trinity of God, and the divine essence of Christ, are one of the oldest catholic dogmas (1600 years). One can be a christian without believing it... but is no catholic for sure.

Mmh. The trinity of God, and the divine essence of Christ, are one of the oldest catholic dogmas (1600 years). One can be a christian without believing it... but is no catholic for sure.I agree. If you don't accept some dogmas then you simply aren't Catholic, full stop. You might be christian, but not a Catholic.

I believe in God. I believe in Jesus. But I don't believe in religion, churches or any of that crap. Religion is just being used to feed the masses bullcrap and cause problems in the world, to benefit the leaders of the world. Jesus had a great message, but nowadays the churches seem like they only care about if you're gay or not, or if you want to abort a child. Where does Jesus say anything bad about homosexuals? Or about abortion? Jesus supported respect for all humans, and that's why I'll never believe in what the churches say again as they clearly don't feel the same Jesus did, and clearly didn't understand his message.

Jesus supported respect for all humans

All christian humans at least.

All christian humans at least.

I think that his formulation of the Golden Rule is quite universally-orientered. Also, there were no christians in Christ's times - well, apart from the a score of apostles and some precious few more.
Christianity, as religion, was mostly defined by St.Paul, St.Ambrose and St.Augustin, and by the Council of Nicaea, that is in the 400 years after the death of Jesus.

I don't know about that Pope Mel Gibson.
People say he's a loose cannon


Pope Gibson: there's just a step from canon law to cannon law.

What's the procedure for impeaching Popes?

In previous centuries they have either been forced to resign ad sent to a monastery or they have been killed.

All gentiles and Jew humans at least.

All in other words all humans.

Anyone can claim to agree with me, but there is only one apostolic Church
Forgive me, but that simply seems backwards.

'There is only one true church... but they've got all this shit wrong.
There is another church that isn't 'true', but they get all the shit right.
I should stick with the faulty, yet 'true' church'.

If you'll excuse the niche analogy, it's like going to Cambridge Uni to do philosophy simpy because Russell and Wittgenstein went there also; even though there's much better philosophy departments in the UK today.

Who are you worshipping: the Popes or Christ?

I'd try Atheism personally. No more reason to believe in Catholicism than there is in Neo-Platonism, and frankly, out of the two, I'd chose the latter if forced anyway.

So you're sad because the CATHOLIC CHURCH is being exclusive and bigoted?

Seriously?

Asking the Catholic Church to be more inclusive of gays, feminists, or progressive thought is like asking that the KKK be more inclusive of blacks.

So you're sad because the CATHOLIC CHURCH is being exclusive and bigoted?

Seriously?

Asking the Catholic Church to be more inclusive of gays, feminists, or progressive thought is like asking that the KKK be more inclusive of blacks.

The Catholic church is like any business. They do what makes the customers happy. Since first worlders make up a minority of Catholics they've tailored their dogma for more backward parts of the world. If they go all liberal they risk alienating high population, low education nations. Lose enough tithes and the church goes under, like any business that loses their customers.

The Catholic church is like any business. They do what makes the customers happy.
Sorry, but as an American I just had to crack up at that. To me, if your first sentence is "The Catholic Church is like any business" then your second sentence should be, "They do whatever is in the best interests of their business."

The two are quite different, and I think the Catholic Church has been going with the latter business model for many centuries.

Sorry, but as an American I just had to crack up at that. To me, if your first sentence is "The Catholic Church is like any business" then your second sentence should be, "They do whatever is in the best interests of their business."

The two are quite different, and I think the Catholic Church has been going with the latter business model for many centuries.

True that would of been a better way to phrase it.

Like so many Catholics I have spent many years by and large away from the Church, and certain doctrines I find repugnant to my own conscience and sense of morality. Increasingly, I am not alone, as growing congregations of reform-minded Catholics who wish to emphasize the inclusiveness, community, and compassion that our Church was founded on, and finally put an end to the crusader mentality.

So you consider yourself Catholic but are disappointed in the overly hierarchical structure and "crusader mentality" of the Roman Catholic Church?

...the Anglican Church of Australia welcomes you.

Asking the Catholic Church to be more inclusive of gays, feminists, or progressive thought is like asking that the KKK be more inclusive of blacks.

Well, I wouldn't be so drastical. Vatican Council II was a nice step.

Forgive me, but that simply seems backwards.

'There is only one true church... but they've got all this shit wrong.
There is another church that isn't 'true', but they get all the shit right.
I should stick with the faulty, yet 'true' church'.

If you'll excuse the niche analogy, it's like going to Cambridge Uni to do philosophy simpy because Russell and Wittgenstein went there also; even though there's much better philosophy departments in the UK today.

Who are you worshipping: the Popes or Christ?

I am a Catholic, and I will always be a Catholic. Just because another family may agree with me more, does not mean that I will divorce my parents and seek adoption with the other family

The Catholic church is like any business. They do what makes the customers happy. Since first worlders make up a minority of Catholics they've tailored their dogma for more backward parts of the world. If they go all liberal they risk alienating high population, low education nations. Lose enough tithes and the church goes under, like any business that loses their customers.

Most third-world parishes rely entirely on funding from the west

Suddenly I'm picturing a mob of Latino Catholic swarming the Vatican screaming "VIVA TEOLOGICA LIBERACION!"

Now you're just being silly

I'm not uncomfortable reconciling my personal faith with the teachings of my church.

You realize that your talking to a Catholic and not a 'the bible is the word of god' baptist or someone like that. Since I don't take a literal interpretation of the bible anyway I'm not going to try and defend genocide in the name of god. So you can shove your homophobic levitucus back up the tight little hole where you found it . I've read the bible a half a dozen times by now and am well aware of 'things that make you go Hmmm'. In any-case the bible being wrong doesn't undermine the moral authority of god which is absolute.

The 'moral authority' of god is vouchsafed by nothing but his own admission. If 'god' is lying, then his moral authority is not beyond reproach. If his moral authority is not beyond reproach, then he's lying when he says it is.

As a Catholic I hate to admit it but the many of catholic church's teachings seem to run contrary to the teachings of the Jesus and bible. Some of these issues are centuries old and sparked the schism the church - and yet never has the church felt the need to address these issues. I think catholics feeling disenfranchised has been the status quo for more than a century in any case. How many Catholics actually believe in the infallibility of the pope anyway?

I can understand the churches problem with Father Peter Kennedy. While blessing gay couples may be unorthodox I see no problem with it ... afterall, everyone could use a good blessing now and then gay sinners or just the regular kind we're all equal in the eyes of the lord. I do see a problem however with a member of the clergy questioning the divinity of Christ. In any-case whatever the roman catholic says is irrelevant in the end we all must answer to the same god whatever we believe.

Well said. The infallibility of humans is something I question, any human, whether he is the pope or not. People do make mistakes and the church can in fact suffer because of it.

If there were something that should get you impeached it would be something like this: the sale of indulgences

However our differences are very few even among Protestants. It comes down how you choose to worship and what ritual/ideas you do or do not believe in.

Purgatory for example, does it or does it not exist? Who can say on this side of the veil.

I am a Catholic, and I will always be a Catholic.
Herein lies the problem.

I also want to say that it is not apostasy to choose how you wish to worship. Let's face it the Catholic church was likely the first church but I think the church changed an awful lot since the days of Peter and Paul. Jesus tried to warn us but there can be only one true way. I am not sure I agree with that I think there can be many ways to achive the same goal.

First a Christian and a Catholic second is the way it should be. Same thing for any other denomination.

Well, I wouldn't be so drastical. Vatican Council II was a nice step.

Which the current Pope is working on rolling back.

its my understanding (from the sidelines) that the new generation of priests is extremely conservative. it doesnt bode well for the future of the church.

Actually it's the best possible development for the future of the Church. The Church needs to be purged of apostates masquerading as "liberals" and "reformers". Not to mention sexual deviants of all stripes and their apologists and enablers.

The Church must stand for eternal truths, not trendy PC foolishness and heresy disguised as ecumenism. Those who don't like it are free to form some cult or coven that suits them.

inclusiveness, community, and compassion that our Church was founded on,

Our Church was also founded on "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", and "go and sin no more." Those who advocate "inclusiveness" without repentance can include themselves out.

and finally put an end to the crusader mentality.

The "crusader mentality" is exactly what we need more of.

Our Church was also founded on "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", and "go and sin no more." Those who advocate "inclusiveness" without repentance can include themselves out.
The Church was founded on Matthew 16:18-19, not on Jesus's position on taxation.


The "crusader mentality" is exactly what we need more of.
Not according to every Pope in the last 200 years, or is it ok when you challenge Church doctrine?

Well no, the founder of a faith rarely is. My point is, I wouldn't join a faith just because they agreed with me.


Why ever not? I'm missing your logic here somewhere . . .

If you no longer believe in Cathol and all his teachings then why not become something that you DO believe the teachings of? Anything else seems hypocritical.

Pope Gibson: there's just a step from canon law to cannon law.

his first order of business was to bring back full Latin mass and start the crusade.

Actually it's the best possible development for the future of the Church.


That rather depends on what you want the church to be. The Catholic church isn't likely to die out, any time soon, but a hard swing towards conservatism would make it much reduced.


The Church needs to be purged of apostates masquerading as "liberals" and "reformers". Not to mention sexual deviants of all stripes and their apologists and enablers.


You could argue that those who are the greatest sinners are MOST in need of the church. You could argue that Jesus said judging others was not your job. You could argue that the Christlike thing to do, is to eat with the publicans and the lepers.


The Church must stand for eternal truths,


What a nonsensical thing to say. No 'truth' is any more 'eternal' than any other, because we're a finite species with finite knowledge.


...not trendy PC foolishness and heresy disguised as ecumenism. Those who don't like it are free to form some cult or coven that suits them.

And, ironically, you're willing to reach this state by turning Catholicism into a cult.

Our Church was also founded on "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", and "go and sin no more." Those who advocate "inclusiveness" without repentance can include themselves out.


I suspect you missed the point of both of those... as, unfortunately, has the Catholic church for most of it's existence.


The "crusader mentality" is exactly what we need more of.

Because killing infidels is good?

Because killing infidels is good?

And it would put a stop to the world's problems?

See, this is the kind of assumption from people I truly detest. I am sure no one in their right n=miond wants a "crusader mentality". Particularly because no one knows what that is like. A return of the Inquisition? Heavens no! So New Mitanni, really, don't say this. Crusader mentality be damned. We have enough with the jihad crap.

And it would put a stop to the world's problems?


Eventually, if you kill enough people...


See, this is the kind of assumption from people I truly detest. I am sure no one in their right mind wants a "crusader mentality".


I would tend to agree... but the sort of people we're talking about? To them, perhaps, that is their 'right mind'. Such as it is.


Particularly because no one knows what that is like. A return of the Inquisition? Heavens no! So New Mitanni, really, don't say this. Crusader mentality be damned. We have enough with the jihad crap.

Some people are okay with genocide - so long as they get to chose who.

Why ever not? I'm missing your logic here somewhere . . .

If you no longer believe in Cathol and all his teachings then why not become something that you DO believe the teachings of? Anything else seems hypocritical.

Like the one I attend?

Like the one I attend?

What you attend now, from your description, is (or was before the priest was sacked for not following the rules of his own religion) a church that was a heretical schism of Catholicism not a Catholic church.

The very definition of a Catholic church would seem to be a church that follows the doctrines of Catholicism. The very doctrines you profess to find "repugnant to your own conscience and sense of morality".

Now don't get me wrong, I feel the same way about those doctrines, which is why I don't call myself Catholic. Just as I don't call myself Buddhist but refuse to follow the eight fold path.

Call it "Catholic reformed" and meet with the old priest if it makes you feel better. Hell, elect him the Pope of this new religion if you feel it still needs one. However it is disrespectful to claim to be a member of a religion who's beliefs you don't share.

What you attend now, from your description, is (or was before the priest was sacked for not following the rules of his own religion) a church that was a heretical schism of Catholicism not a Catholic church.

The very definition of a Catholic church would seem to be a church that follows the doctrines of Catholicism. The very doctrines you profess to find "repugnant to your own conscience and sense of morality".

Now don't get me wrong, I feel the same way about those doctrines, which is why I don't call myself Catholic. Just as I don't call myself Buddhist but refuse to follow the eight fold path.

Call it "Catholic reformed" and meet with the old priest if it makes you feel better. Hell, elect him the Pope of this new religion if you feel it still needs one. However it is disrespectful to claim to be a member of a religion who's beliefs you don't share.
Um, no. That's all you get because I've covered the rest ad nauseum

Like the one I attend?
And which has sacked the priest because he was not teaching what the Vatican deems correct.

You can follow your priest to a new congregation, or stay in St. Mary's with a festering resentment of not worshiping as you please, or suck it up and be the Catholic that the Vatican defines, or leave the church entirely.

Them's the only choices open to you. And if you feel that it's been covered ad nauseum, it's because you opened up a discussion but refuse to accept any views but your own, which people of every background (atheist, other Christian, Catholic, lapsed, etc.) are telling you that your priest's teachings were not consonant with Rome, and therefore not Catholic.

And which has sacked the priest because he was not teaching what the Vatican deems correct.

You can follow your priest to a new congregation, or stay in St. Mary's with a festering resentment of not worshiping as you please, or suck it up and be the Catholic that the Vatican defines, or leave the church entirely.

Them's the only choices open to you. And if you feel that it's been covered ad nauseum, it's because you opened up a discussion but refuse to accept any views but your own, which people of every background (atheist, other Christian, Catholic, lapsed, etc.) are telling you that your priest's teachings were not consonant with Rome, and therefore not Catholic.

This^^

I was thinking it was just me, not getting it.

From what I could see, Rotty was complaining that his/her church was being somehow adversely impacted by a conflict of interests with the mother church... but also defending the mother church against any variant of that being said in response.

The way I see it - either Rotty's church IS conforming, or it's not - and Rotty either like that, or doesn't. It SOUNDS like the church wasn't conforming, and now it will, and that Rotty doesn't like that - but any attempt I make to discuss that is getting shut down.

Is that about the deal, Rotty? Anyone else?

And which has sacked the priest because he was not teaching what the Vatican deems correct.

You can follow your priest to a new congregation, or stay in St. Mary's with a festering resentment of not worshiping as you please, or suck it up and be the Catholic that the Vatican defines, or leave the church entirely.

Them's the only choices open to you. And if you feel that it's been covered ad nauseum, it's because you opened up a discussion but refuse to accept any views but your own, which people of every background (atheist, other Christian, Catholic, lapsed, etc.) are telling you that your priest's teachings were not consonant with Rome, and therefore not Catholic.

No, I'm simply stating that as far as canon law is concerned, I am Catholic, we can debate whether or not Father Kennedy's practice is consistent with orthodox Catholicism, but I'm going to continue to defend myself on this point

No, I'm simply stating that as far as canon law is concerned, I am Catholic, we can debate whether or not Father Kennedy's practice is consistent with orthodox Catholicism, but I'm going to continue to defend myself on this point

Don't you think cannon law can go fuck itself? Start a revolution bebbay!

There's a profound and disturbing sign of the times when the most trustworthy priests are all trapped on Craggy Isle.

Actually it's the best possible development for the future of the Church. The Church needs to be purged of apostates masquerading as "liberals" and "reformers". Not to mention sexual deviants of all stripes and their apologists and enablers.

The Church must stand for eternal truths, not trendy PC foolishness and heresy disguised as ecumenism. Those who don't like it are free to form some cult or coven that suits them.

Ah, New Mitanni, the pleasure I'll derive from the downfall of your twisted dreams that is sure to happen within my lifetime...

It'll be a thing to see. Just like the one I am currently deriving from the GOP's downfall.

The "crusader mentality" is exactly what we need more of.

You ain't getting it. And I'm enjoying it that you ain't getting it.

No, I'm simply stating that as far as canon law is concerned, I am Catholic, we can debate whether or not Father Kennedy's practice is consistent with orthodox Catholicism, but I'm going to continue to defend myself on this pointWhat canon law specifically? I'm looking here and all I see are things like:


Can. 204 §1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.

§2. This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.

Can. 205 Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

Can. 214 The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church and to follow their own form of spiritual life so long as it is consonant with the doctrine of the Church.

Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 218 Those engaged in the sacred disciplines have a just freedom of inquiry and of expressing their opinion prudently on those matters in which they possess expertise, while observing the submission due to the magisterium of the Church.

Etc. They're pretty specific about the whole "to be catholic you'd better be taking Rome's orders" thing.

Our Church was also founded on "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"


Considering both your church's and your arguements about gay marriage and abortion, plus the church's rather consistant history, Id say this hasnt been working out.

Those who advocate "inclusiveness" without repentance can include themselves out.

Always the good Christian. "Fuck the sinner, this is about me feeling superior!"

The "crusader mentality" is exactly what we need more of.

Such comments show staggering historical ignorance.

What canon law specifically? I'm looking here and all I see are things like:


Can. 204 §1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.
I was baptised, confirmed, and receive the sacraments.


Can. 205 Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.

I submit to my confessor, and profess the Nicene creed.

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
I submit to my confessor on matters of faith

Can. 214 The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church and to follow their own form of spiritual life so long as it is consonant with the doctrine of the Church.
I attend Mass, in manner prescribed by my confessor, and a manner prescribed by Rome

Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.
Will the Archbishop of Brisbane do?

Can. 218 Those engaged in the sacred disciplines have a just freedom of inquiry and of expressing their opinion prudently on those matters in which they possess expertise, while observing the submission due to the magisterium of the Church.

And I certainly enjoy exercising it

I was baptised, confirmed, and receive the sacraments.

I was too, Rotie. Doesn't mean I have an easy time with my creed. Sometimes I despise it.

I submit to my confessor, and profess the Nicene creed.

I did too. I haven't been to confession though for the last 11 to 15 years.

I submit to my confessor on matters of faith

I wonder if I must do that when and if I go back to the bossom of my church.

I attend Mass, in manner prescribed by my confessor, and a manner prescribed by Rome

This, however, doesn't imply people fall out of grace or get disgusted with what their church officials do. But please, do not take this as me dissing your religiousness. I am, although too lax nowadays, a Catholic, same as you.

I was too, Rotie. Doesn't mean I have an easy time with my creed. Sometimes I despise it.



I did too. I haven't been to confession though for the last 11 to 15 years.



I wonder if I must do that when and if I go back to the bossom of my church.



This, however, doesn't imply people fall out of grace or get disgusted with what their church officials do. But please, do not take this as me dissing your religiousness. I am, although too lax nowadays, a Catholic, same as you.
I think you and probably fall on the same side on many issue (if memory serves me correctly) but I just cannot divorce myself from the Church I have always been drawn to, even today. I may disagree with certain doctrines, I may even worship with an unorthodox priest, but I cannot bring myself to deny my Catholic faith.

I can't explain why, particularly as many on this forum will recall I have little tolerance for religious fundamentalism, or decisions being made on faith, but I am a Catholic, I always have been, and I just cannot imagine ever leaving the Mother Church

I think you and probably fall on the same side on many issue (if memory serves me correctly) but I just cannot divorce myself from the Church I have always been drawn to, even today. I may disagree with certain doctrines, I may even worship with an unorthodox priest, but I cannot bring myself to deny my Catholic faith.

Yes, we seem to be on the same side on many issues. As for denying, I don't think I have been able to, as much as I pride myself in saying I am an agnostic. Deep down, I know there's a divine being. My main disgust stems from following doctrine, a doctrine I see as man's design, not of a God.

I can't explain why, particularly as many on this forum will recall I have little tolerance for religious fundamentalism, or decisions being made on faith, but I am a Catholic, I always have been, and I just cannot imagine ever leaving the Mother Church

For that, Rotovia-, I commend you. It took me years of loving and one instant to dash the faith.

Yes, we seem to be on the same side on many issues. As for denying, I don't think I have been able to, as much as I pride myself in saying I am an agnostic. Deep down, I know there's a divine being. My main disgust stems from following doctrine, a doctrine I see as man's design, not of a God.This is the same problem I have, and it is hard to explain to someone who isn't Catholic



For that, Rotovia-, I commend you. It took me years of loving and one instant to dash the faith.
I rail against religiosity so much in this forum, and much of that stems from a very rough ride I had with religion when I was younger, but I'm yet to miss a midnight mass: even when I was sure there was no God

This is the same problem I have, and it is hard to explain to someone who isn't Catholic

Yes, it is.

I rail against religiosity so much in this forum, and much of that stems from a very rough ride I had with religion when I was younger, but I'm yet to miss a midnight mass: even when I was sure there was no God

I wonder if us attending church, be that midnight mass or Ash Wednesday mass, the very act of entering the vault, sitting at the benches, staring up at the Host, smelling the incense, fills something up in us...

Yes, it is.



I wonder if us attending church, be that midnight mass or Ash Wednesday mass, the very act of entering the vault, sitting at the benches, staring up at the Host, smelling the incense, fills something up in us...
I have theory that it is "something in the incense" that gets us

I have theory that it is "something in the incense" that gets us

:tongue:
Probably.

So you're sad because the CATHOLIC CHURCH is being exclusive and bigoted?

Seriously?

Asking the Catholic Church to be more inclusive of gays, feminists, or progressive thought is like asking that the KKK be more inclusive of blacks.

Ooh! Nice disrespectful generalisation about Catholics!

The Catholic church is like any business. They do what makes the customers happy. Since first worlders make up a minority of Catholics they've tailored their dogma for more backward parts of the world. If they go all liberal they risk alienating high population, low education nations. Lose enough tithes and the church goes under, like any business that loses their customers.

And we follow it up with one about people from the Third World!

Both of you: Who are the founders and proponents of liberation theology? Where are they from?

The answer is that liberation theology comes from Catholic priests in developing nations.

.....

You can follow your priest to a new congregation, or stay in St. Mary's with a festering resentment of not worshiping as you please, or suck it up and be the Catholic that the Vatican defines, or leave the church entirely.

Them's the only choices open to you. .....

No. Rotovia and the rest of the parish can stay and continue the debate that has been going on in the RC Church for centuries. They can be part of the tradition of people who have made changes to Catholicism.

Canon is not set in stone. Nor is the catechism, nor is dogma or doctrine. Some people like to believe it is, because they are in power and keeping things the same keeps them in power. Others like to believe these things are unchanging because it makes it easier to put everything in cubbyholes.

Rotovia, how about organising and networking with other Catholic parishes that have similar beliefs?

The "crusader mentality" is exactly what we need more of.

Yay, let's invade Palestine. Oh wait, it's full of deicide J00z already invading it. Let's kill them too... God will sort out His own ones! And while we're at it, let's kill the haeretic Orthodox, the haeretic Protestants and Hussites, the unbelievers etc etc.

Your Honourship, where do I place this iron maiden you ordered?

:rolleyes:

Yay, let's invade Palestine. Oh wait, it's full of deicide J00z already invading it. Let's kill them too... God will sort out His own ones! And while we're at it, let's kill the haeretic Orthodox, the haeretic Protestants and Hussites, the unbelievers etc etc.

Your Honourship, where do I place this iron maiden you ordered?

:rolleyes:

Amico, grazie per farmi ridere.:D

Amico, grazie per farmi ridere.:D

El problema és que suele a NM le gustar de las idéas que Risottia colocó en sarcasmo...

El problema és que suele a NM le gustar de las idéas que Risottia colocó en sarcasmo...

Macho, que ya me di cuenta. Claro, que no deja de darme gracia, ves?:tongue:

Me pregunto qué responderá NM.

Macho, que ya me di cuenta. Claro, que no deja de darme gracia, ves?:tongue:

Me pregunto qué responderá NM.

O nada, o alguna cosa parva...

O nada, o alguna cosa parva...

Jope! Me has hecho escupir el zumo de naranja que estaba tratando de tragar. NM y cosas parvas! Ostia, increíble que te ha quedao eso, tío.:p

Jope! Me has hecho escupir el zumo de naranja que estaba tratando de tragar. NM y cosas parvas! Ostia, increíble que te ha quedao eso, tío.:p

Hehe. :D

Hehe. :D

Vale vale, es que está decidido. Me tienes que enseñar a lidiar con las alimañas de NSG, que son muchas. Todo en bromilla, faltaba más.:tongue:

Just to add this:

The Vatican is not out of touch with whats happening at the local level of the Church. Instead they have a differing view. Clearly, the Bishop, Archbishop, even pastor of a church/diocese is concerned mainly with what is happening within his own diocese. However, before the Vatican can make a decision, it must consider how it will affect the WHOLE church worldwide. So if a decision is negative for your diocese, the Vatican knows full well that it is and has opted otherwise for the sake of the entire Church worldwide.

In addition, i don't know what you consider "liberal" and "conservative" but by abstaining from Church or other activities in the Church, you will have little affect on the Vatican. Its simply the truth that a church of 1000 will not have a significant affect on the whole of 1.6 billion.

Finally, although you clearly have the right to voice disagreements with the Church and its teaching, it all comes down to this: do you accept its doctorine? If you do, you're a Catholic, if you don't, you are not. Its that simple. The Vatican has a reason for every action and for every decision so instead of complaining about its misunderstanding of your local situation, I would respectfully advise you to research further the reasoning behind its decision. In this way, you can either come to accept its decision or pose a more educated arguement against it.

Respectfully,
Hierphil

Uds. están hablando español?
Hablo un poco...

Finally, although you clearly have the right to voice disagreements with the Church and its teaching, it all comes down to this: do you accept its doctorine? If you do, you're a Catholic, if you don't, you are not. Its that simple. The Vatican has a reason for every action and for every decision so instead of complaining about its misunderstanding of your local situation, I would respectfully advise you to research further the reasoning behind its decision. In this way, you can either come to accept its decision or pose a more educated arguement against it.

You fail to realize that Jesus, even him, disagreed with his creed. Just because a Catholic doesn't accept all doctrines does not, immediately, make him/her not a Catholic.

Uds. están hablando español?
Hablo un poco...

Obviamente. Heikoku es linguista y yo soy española. Así que sí, estamos, en la mejor de las medidas, hablando en español.

Very good point though I'm refering to its main doctorine. Something such as (for example) the doctorine of the Holy Trinity. I am not refering to whether or not women should be permitted as priests.

Vale vale, es que está decidido. Me tienes que enseñar a lidiar con las alimañas de NSG, que son muchas. Todo en bromilla, faltaba más.:tongue:
Thethe thththththththth Chris Waddle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctaszjeaDK0).

Scorchio!

Interesante. Estás en España ahora o no?

Very good point though I'm refering to its main doctorine. Something such as (for example) the doctorine of the Holy Trinity. I am not refering to whether or not women should be permitted as priests.

Now... who, esteemed Hierphil, is talking about that? Specifically? Doctrinal aspects of the Catholic Church that can cause disagreement? Go to confession. I, for example, disagree with this heatedly. I don't see why I must go and confess my sins to a man, who is as much a sinner as I am. Does that make me less of a Catholic?

Of course, this is just about me. Rotovia has already clarified his/her views and I see nothing wrong with the poster posing this.

When you're too afraid of the Father, you go to the Son. If you're afraid of the Son, you go to the Mother. But what happens when you're too afraid of the Mother?

Thethe thththththththth Chris Waddle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctaszjeaDK0).

Scorchio!

Aaaaaand, here's Daffy Duck!:tongue:

Interesante. Estás en España ahora o no?

Por el momento no. Ando en fuga, lejos de la Madre Patria.:wink:
De dónde eres?

No one I was simply giving an example. (and whats with the "esteemed"? I'm allowed to give my view as much as you are!)

In confession, you are not confessing to a man, but to Jesus himself through the authority granted the priest in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Jesus gave the authority himself when he said, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" and again when he said that whoevers sins they (the apostles, first catholic bishops) forgive, will be forgiven in heaven. If you disagree out of fear (and im not saying you do, just IF you do) then you haven't a problem with the authority of the priest but rather with admitting out loud your sins. Its not fun. But its necessary.

When you're too afraid of the Father, you go to the Son. If you're afraid of the Son, you go to the Mother. But what happens when you're too afraid of the Mother? Why are you afraid? Jesus specifically said Do not be Afraid. Trust in his mercy and you will not see his justice. You should always go to the Son because "No one comes to the Father except through Me" says Jesus. And the Blessed Mother is not on the same level as God, of course, and therefore does not punish for sins nor award virtues. You turn to her for prayers. Ultimately, you're going to Jesus who will bring you to the Father.

No one I was simply giving an example. (and whats with the "esteemed"? I'm allowed to give my view as much as you are!)

If you took my post as an attack to you, let me assure you it wasn't. I tend to refer to posters like that.

In confession, you are not confessing to a man, but to Jesus himself through theIf you disagree out of fear (and im not saying you do, just IF you do) then you haven't a problem with the authority of the priest but rather with admitting out loud your sins. Its not fun. But its necessary.

Why is it necessary?

Why are you afraid? Jesus specifically said Do not be Afraid. Trust in his mercy and you will not see his justice. You should always go to the Son because "No one comes to the Father except through Me" says Jesus. And the Blessed Mother is not on the same level as God, of course, and therefore does not punish for sins nor award virtues. You turn to her for prayers. Ultimately, you're going to Jesus who will bring you to the Father.

Ponder my post a bit more.

If you're afraid of the Father, for through the Son. If you're afraid of the Son, go through the Mother...

Soy de los E.E.U.U. Pero quiero aprender muchas idiomas y visitar muchos países.

Soy de los E.E.U.U. Pero quiero aprender muchas idiomas y visitar muchos países.

Es que te expresas muy bien escribiendo en español. No me lo esperaba de un norteamericano, y me disculpas.:wink:

If you took my post as an attack to you, let me assure you it wasn't. I tend to refer to posters like that.
My apologizes, I didn't know how to read it. I misread it as sarcastic scorn. Forgive me.

Confession is necessary because it offers us more graces than we would normally receive otherwise. As you know, sacraments tend to do that. Additionally, it offers the services of a confessor who may have advice that will help you over your habitual sin or addiction to sin or any sin for that matter. He may also offer a prayer you have never considered before that will help you on your spiritual quest. Anyone who's ever been to confession knows how humiliating it is to voice your sins aloud. This lets you see how humiliating your sins are in the eys of God. Imagine how Jesus must've felt on the Cross, how humiliated he was for our sins. Confession is a small price to pay.

Ponder my post a bit more.
Perhaps I'm missing your point or am to phylosophically ignorant to understand what you're implying by this sentence. Why would you fear the Mother?

My apologizes, I didn't know how to read it. I misread it as sarcastic scorn. Forgive me.

No problem. It's difficult to messure how someone feels or what the person's trying to convey by reading pixels and fonts online. It's understandable if you misread me.

Confession is necessary because it offers us more graces than we would normally receive otherwise. As you know, sacraments tend to do that. Additionally, it offers the services of a confessor who may have advice that will help you over your habitual sin or addiction to sin or any sin for that matter. He may also offer a prayer you have never considered before that will help you on your spiritual quest. Anyone who's ever been to confession knows how humiliating it is to voice your sins aloud. This lets you see how humiliating your sins are in the eys of God. Imagine how Jesus must've felt on the Cross, how humiliated he was for our sins. Confession is a small price to pay.

Ah, I see your point. Recreation of the act of giving His life for the cleansing of our sins. I still think, and I know I blaspheme by saying this, that it was so pointless to put Jesus through that. And yet... for Lent, whenever I see a statue of Him carrying the cross over his shoulder, I feel something rising in my throat. And I want to sleep.

Perhaps I'm missing your point or am to phylosophically ignorant to understand what you're implying by this sentence. Why would you fear the Mother?

I don't think its a philosophical problem. You understand me, perhaps better than what you think right now. You don't need to understand this instant. Not even later. Just read the phrases. Ponder them. And one day, tell me what you think.

Es que te expresas muy bien escribiendo en español
Gracias. Yo pratico mucho porque quiero ser fluido.

No me lo esperaba de un norteamericano, y me disculpas
Ahhhh. Puedes reformular este? No hablo bien...

Gracias. Yo pratico mucho porque quiero ser fluido.

Continúa, que lo estás haciendo muy bien.

Ahhhh. Puedes reformular este? No hablo bien...

I said that I didn't expect this fluidity from an American. I also apologize if that statement sounds patronizing in any way.

No problem. It's difficult to messure how someone feels or what the person's trying to convey by reading pixels and fonts online. It's understandable if you misread me.
Ah, I know what you mean. I've seen many misunderstandings errupt into fights because of trying to speak online. It sucks.

Ah, I see your point. Recreation of the act of giving His life for the cleansing of our sins. I still think, and I know I blaspheme by saying this, that it was so pointless to put Jesus through that. And yet... for Lent, whenever I see a statue of Him carrying the cross over his shoulder, I feel something rising in my throat. And I want to sleep.
It was certainly pointless in the sense that we choose to put him through that every day through our sins. You'd think that after 2000 years of pondering his death we'd learn. Yeah, I know what you mean (about the cross). I think its important though because we all need to step back every once and a while and realize exactly what we do through our sin.

Continuá, que lo estás haciendo muy bien.
Muchas Gracias! :D

I said that I didn't expect this fluidity from an American. I also apologize if that statement sounds patronizing in any way.
Haha I thought it was something along the lines of that but I wasn't sure. I got I didn't _________ from a north american. And please excuse me :D But anyway thank you, I try. And hahaha no apology necessary, I know how we appear in the eyes of the world ;D

It was certainly pointless in the sense that we choose to put him through that every day through our sins. You'd think that after 2000 years of pondering his death we'd learn.

And 3000 years will pass and we won't understand. I don't think we're capable of understanding the very act. Jesus's act, the altruism, the very love contained there has passed, sadly, way under our collective soul's radar.

Yeah, I know what you mean (about the cross). I think its important though because we all need to step back every once and a while and realize exactly what we do through our sin.

And you have, perhaps unwittingly, answered the question I posed. If you stand in front of the Mater Dolorosa, stare into her eyes, see that she bore witness to His death, can one truly possess the moral stamina, the love, to stand back, like she did, and understand what He went through without fearing? That's why I fear them, the Father, the Son and the Mother. Because they could. I don't think I can.

And hahaha no apology necessary, I know how we appear in the eyes of the world ;D

Hopefully you'll change that in the near future.;)

And 3000 years will pass and we won't understand. I don't think we're capable of understanding the very act. Jesus's act, the altruism, the very love contained there has passed, sadly, way under our collective soul's radar.
Sadly, true. And we're certainly not headed in the right direction to a fuller understanding. If anything, the human race is moving away...

If you stand in front of the Mater Dolorosa, stare into her eyes, see that she bore witness to His death, can one truly possess the moral stamina, the love, to stand back, like she did, and understand what He went through without fearing? That's why I fear them, the Father, the Son and the Mother. Because they could. I don't think I can.
Absolutely, we cannot. But I realize that Jesus died EVEN KNOWING that we would never, as long as we walk the earth, realize what he's done, making his act far greater than we can imagine. But he did it anyway. So I think its important that, regardless of our fear, we strive to understand the best of our ability, exactly what he's done, knowing we'll never understand completely. That's all he's asking of us. If we do this, everything from loving our neighbor to obeying His Vicar on earth (no matter how wrong we think he is) will become far easier and positively simple.

Hopefully you'll change that in the near future.

Agreed! Haha that'd be one of my main priorities if I ever became a politician or someone with world influence. Haha but I hope to influence the world as a priest instead.

You fail to realize that Jesus, even him, disagreed with his creed. Just because a Catholic doesn't accept all doctrines does not, immediately, make him/her not a Catholic.

The problem with this, nana-chan, is that Catholicism is defined not by it's god, or by it's scripture - but by it's traditions. And if you don't accept the doctrines, you can still call yourself Christian - but the church doesn't have any necessity to recognise you as Catholic.

Sadly, true. And we're certainly not headed in the right direction to a fuller understanding. If anything, the human race is moving away...

Yes, we are.

Absolutely, we cannot. But I realize that Jesus died EVEN KNOWING that we would never, as long as we walk the earth, realize what he's done, making his act far greater than we can imagine. But he did it anyway. So I think its important that, regardless of our fear, we strive to understand the best of our ability, exactly what he's done, knowing we'll never understand completely. That's all he's asking of us. If we do this, everything from loving our neighbor to obeying His Vicar on earth (no matter how wrong we think he is) will become far easier and positively simple.

I hope simplicity is the rule, some day, and not the exception.

The problem with this, nana-chan, is that Catholicism is defined not by it's god, or by it's scripture - but by it's traditions. And if you don't accept the doctrines, you can still call yourself Christian - but the church doesn't have any necessity to recognise you as Catholic.

If that is the Church's prerogative, it is rather sad. I know you're right. It just makes me wonder if it's fair. It just makes me wonder why must it be like that. It disturbs me.

Now... who, esteemed Hierphil, is talking about that? Specifically? Doctrinal aspects of the Catholic Church that can cause disagreement? Go to confession. I, for example, disagree with this heatedly. I don't see why I must go and confess my sins to a man, who is as much a sinner as I am. Does that make me less of a Catholic?

Of course, this is just about me. Rotovia has already clarified his/her views and I see nothing wrong with the poster posing this.

When you're too afraid of the Father, you go to the Son. If you're afraid of the Son, you go to the Mother. But what happens when you're too afraid of the Mother?

Go to a more welcoming family?

If that is the Church's prerogative, it is rather sad. I know you're right. It just makes me wonder if it's fair. It just makes me wonder why must it be like that. It disturbs me.

Because those are the rules of Catholic church. If you want to pick the ball up, dribble it, and throw it through a hoop you don't go play soccer; so why would you go to a Catholic church and try to play by the rules of a different creed?

The problem with this, nana-chan, is that Catholicism is defined not by it's god, or by it's scripture - but by it's traditions. And if you don't accept the doctrines, you can still call yourself Christian - but the church doesn't have any necessity to recognise you as Catholic.

Same for all other Christian sects. You can call yourself Christian but not Lutheran if you don't accept Lutheran practices. Welcome to a divded Christian world. Sad? Yes. But thats how it is.

Because those are the rules of Catholic church. If you want to pick the ball up, dribble it, and throw it through a hoop you don't go play soccer; so why would you go to a Catholic church and try to play by the rules of a different creed?

Catholicism is all I know. I'm well aware of other creeds, but Catholicism is what I grew up with, it's what I am familiar with. Vamos, it's the masochism I was fed when growing up. And I cannot concieve of a Church where the Mother is absent from prayers.

Catholicism is all I know. I'm well aware of other creeds, but Catholicism is what I grew up with, it's what I am familiar with. Vamos, it's the masochism I was fed when growing up. And I cannot concieve of a Church where the Mother is absent from prayers.

Is a church necessary? What of a personal relationship with the Mother and the rest of Her Family? A personal faith where you can follow the rules you feel are imposed upon you by your deity not those imposed merely by men.

Is a church necessary?

It is. It's the dwelling abode of the deity. Plus, it's such a gorgeous and peaceful place to be, to drift, to sleep, to just let go.

What of a personal relationship with the Mother and the rest of Her Family? A personal faith where you can follow the rules you feel are imposed upon you by your deity not those imposed merely by men.

Where else can I feel in true community with the Mother? Where else can I feel that I am communing with the Father and the Son through the Mother?

Why do I feel this sinking sensation as I write this?

It is. It's the dwelling abode of the deity. Plus, it's such a gorgeous and peaceful place to be, to drift, to sleep, to just let go.



Where else can I feel in true community with the Mother? Where else can I feel that I am communing with the Father and the Son through the Mother?

Is God not everywhere?

If that is the Church's prerogative, it is rather sad. I know you're right. It just makes me wonder if it's fair. It just makes me wonder why must it be like that. It disturbs me.

It's not fair - but there's no reason why it needs to be. After all, these people are selling the 'one true way'.

It's not fair - but there's no reason why it needs to be. After all, these people are selling the 'one true way'.

Selling being the problem.

NSG is not the place for this. No. And I don't know why, as I write in this thread, my eyes blur.

Selling being the problem.

NSG is not the place for this. No. And I don't know why, as I write in this thread, my eyes blur.

Selling is, indeed, the problem. If I were a religious man, I wouldn't be a religious man in one of the organised churches, because I don't want a version of religion interpreted by someone else. I don't want a truth that has to be packaged and product-placed.

NSG isn't a bad place for this, because you know what to expect here - a wide variety of different perspectives, and a degree of open skepticism you'd probably never find in your own backyard. NSG may not always be right, but it has a kind of democratic honesty about it.

Because those are the rules of Catholic church. If you want to pick the ball up, dribble it, and throw it through a hoop you don't go play soccer; so why would you go to a Catholic church and try to play by the rules of a different creed?

So that you can change the Catholic Church.

Is God not everywhere?

Yes, but the community made up of human beings that come together to worship are not. And it is among those people that we can create the change we want to see in the world.

Yes, but the community made up of human beings that come together to worship are not. And it is among those people that we can create the change we want to see in the world.
True, but that speaks to communion with the people rather than with God. If God to Nantsu lives in the building down the block....then I can understand the draw to there rather than to another group of people who see things more like she does.....however, if God is everywhere, then presumably she can port Him to whatever group she is comfortable with.

NSG isn't a bad place for this, because you know what to expect here - a wide variety of different perspectives, and a degree of open skepticism you'd probably never find in your own backyard. NSG may not always be right, but it has a kind of democratic honesty about it.

Yes, you're right. But this searching has plunge me back into darkness. NSG is an open plce, it may offer a lot insight, but it won't help me get out of this one.:wink:

True, but that speaks to communion with the people rather than with God.

And isn't God reflected in your fellow people?

If God to Nantsu lives in the building down the block....then I can understand the draw to there rather than to another group of people who see things more like she does.....

God is indeed everywhere. It's just that when I walk into a cathedral... I realize I am so small and that in those structures, indeed, one can believe a god resides.

however, if God is everywhere, then presumably she can port Him to whatever group she is comfortable with.

I grew up Catholic. I don't feel comfortable with groups of any other creed, although I respect them.

Yes, you're right. But this searching has plunge me back into darkness. NSG is an open plce, it may offer a lot insight, but it won't help me get out of this one.:wink:

Two thoughts:

One - NSGers will be glad for you, if you find a truth that works for you. (Well, most of them probably will, anyway). And that is regardless of which truth you find. If Catholicism works for you, then more power to you.

On the other hand - like an abusive ex boyfriend, there are reasons that you fell away from your church in the first place, and romanticizing it later doesn't remove those reasons, even if you forget them.

Two thoughts:

One - NSGers will be glad for you, if you find a truth that works for you. (Well, most of them probably will, anyway). And that is regardless of which truth you find. If Catholicism works for you, then more power to you.

But once again, this is not about NSG. I do thank you for the encouragement, though.

On the other hand - like an abusive ex boyfriend, there are reasons that you fell away from your church in the first place, and romanticizing it later doesn't remove those reasons, even if you forget them.

I am guilty of that. Romanticizing it all.

I just need to ponder, quietly. Time to turn off the mobile phone and the music. Perhaps it's also time to sleep as early as a bird. *shrugs*

I can empathize Nana. I too grew up Catholic. I disagree with some of the doctrines and yet find myself hard pressed to fully leave Her. To tell the truth I don't quite know where I fit in. Most of the time I just refer to myself as a cradle Catholic...

No sé que voy hacer.

Very good point though I'm refering to its main doctorine. Something such as (for example) the doctorine of the Holy Trinity. I am not refering to whether or not women should be permitted as priests.

This is a major problem I'm having here, people who do not understand Catholic doctrine, referring vague to "the main doctrine" to claim I am not Catholic, despite the half dozen times I have quoted the exact canonical requirements for being a Catholic, and my compliance with all

I can empathize Nana. I too grew up Catholic. I disagree with some of the doctrines and yet find myself hard pressed to fully leave Her. To tell the truth I don't quite know where I fit in. Most of the time I just refer to myself as a cradle Catholic...

No sé que voy hacer.

I understand exactly this feeling, so imagine my suprise when I discovered a Catholic parish which shared my views

If you're afraid of the Father, for through the Son. If you're afraid of the Son, go through the Mother...
My grandmother used to say something like this

No. Rotovia and the rest of the parish can stay and continue the debate that has been going on in the RC Church for centuries. They can be part of the tradition of people who have made changes to Catholicism.
That's all very fine and good, except that their priest's been fired. If they want to follow him specifically, then they need to go where he is. If they want to remain Catholics in that church, they have that choice too.

I doubt they can force his rehiring. So, all philosophical feel-good speeches aside, the practical choices are: stay, or go.

This is a major problem I'm having here, people who do not understand Catholic doctrine, referring vague to "the main doctrine" to claim I am not Catholic, despite the half dozen times I have quoted the exact canonical requirements for being a Catholic, and my compliance with all
I am not saying you're not Catholic, or that you don't identify yourself as Catholic. I'm saying your priest was fired for non-Catholic teachings. If you choose to follow him , then the teachings you are receiving are not Catholic teachings.

That's all very fine and good, except that their priest's been fired. If they want to follow him specifically, then they need to go where he is. If they want to remain Catholics in that church, they have that choice too.
Or we can move to St Stephen's in the City which teaches Christ is "the light we all share inside us, manifest in acts of goodness, and kindness". If the Church wants to shut down progressive parishes, they're in for a rude awakening in Brisbane.

I doubt they can force his rehiring. So, all philosophical feel-good speeches aside, the practical choices are: stay, or go.
I wouldn't be so sure, a legal argument is being mounted the congregation has de facto ownership as the church building, the land, and ongoing maintenance are all at the expense of the congregation.

I am not saying you're not Catholic, or that you don't identify yourself as Catholic. I'm saying your priest was fired for non-Catholic teachings. If you choose to follow him , then the teachings you are receiving are not Catholic teachings.
With all respect, that wasn't the argument most people are making. Leaving communion with the Church severs your right to claim the Catholic faith, but I have not done so, as long as the Archdiocese allows Father Kennedy to perform mass in lieu of the official parish priest, I will continue to remain in communion at St Mary's. If the Archdiocese will not relent, then I will return to St Stephens rather than submit to a conservative pastor

If the Church wants to shut down progressive parishes, they're in for a rude awakening in Brisbane.


I guess you haven't been paying attention to the overall trend in the Catholic body, of late, then.

Shutting out progressive parishes is not going to bring the church a rude awakening, it's going to relieve the central church of what it now considers apostate churches. It's conform or die, I'm afraid.

I can empathize Nana. I too grew up Catholic. I disagree with some of the doctrines and yet find myself hard pressed to fully leave Her. To tell the truth I don't quite know where I fit in. Most of the time I just refer to myself as a cradle Catholic...

No sé que voy hacer.

Es que no hay nada que hacer...

Perhaps wait and see.

I wonder, can doctrine undergo revisionism, much like history? Can the Church sit down and, without having to call on a Council, revise the doctrines and, in accordance with our times, do something about apostacy?

I mean, Rotovia, same as me, wishes to remain in the bossom of Catholicism. Disagreement, on our level, shouldn't account for being called a heretic or a non-Catholic. (Don't shoot me yet, GnI:tongue:)

I guess you haven't been paying attention to the overall trend in the Catholic body, of late, then.

Shutting out progressive parishes is not going to bring the church a rude awakening, it's going to relieve the central church of what it now considers apostate churches. It's conform or die, I'm afraid.

I've seen no evidence of other Churches being shut down, and I just do not see the largest Cathedral in Queensland being shuttered: not a Church attended by judges, politicians, and attorneys at every level public and private authority.

If progressive Catholics could survive JP2, we can survive this

This is a major problem I'm having here, people who do not understand Catholic doctrine, referring vague to "the main doctrine" to claim I am not Catholic, despite the half dozen times I have quoted the exact canonical requirements for being a Catholic, and my compliance with all
You're right. I was being quite vague. Though there comes a point where the disagreements with the church outweigh the agreements at which point one has to consider, not by definition, but in their hearts whether or not they are Catholic. I'm not saying this is your case, simply that it happens.

With all respect, that wasn't the argument most people are making. Leaving communion with the Church severs your right to claim the Catholic faith, but I have not done so, as long as the Archdiocese allows Father Kennedy to perform mass in lieu of the official parish priest, I will continue to remain in communion at St Mary's. If the Archdiocese will not relent, then I will return to St Stephens rather than submit to a conservative pastor
I very well may be wrong, and correct me if I am, but this sounds more like you don't have a problem with Catholicism, as may have been misinterpreted, but instead with some conservative policies in which case its the parish you attend as opposed to the religion you practice.

I wonder, can doctrine undergo revisionism, much like history? Can the Church sit down and, without having to call on a Council, revise the doctrines and, in accordance with our times, do something about apostacy?
The Church doesn't revise doctorine, it revises practices. Small detail, yet significant.

You're right. I was being quite vague. Though there comes a point where the disagreements with the church outweigh the agreements at which point one has to consider, not by definition, but in their hearts whether or not they are Catholic. I'm not saying this is your case, simply that it happens.


I very well may be wrong, and correct me if I am, but this sounds more like you don't have a problem with Catholicism, as may have been misinterpreted, but instead with some conservative policies in which case its the parish you attend as opposed to the religion you practice.

Correct, I should have been clearer from the onset

I mean, Rotovia, same as me, wishes to remain in the bossom of Catholicism. Disagreement, on our level, shouldn't account for being called a heretic or a non-Catholic. (Don't shoot me yet, GnI:tongue:)

Why would I, nana-chan? If I can help someone to find a truth, I will.

The problem is - you're right. Disagreement on your level shouldn't account for you being called a heretic or a non-Catholic.

Unfortunately, a casual look at how the Catholic church has dealt with disagreement suggests that - for the church - it does.

Unfortunately, a casual look at how the Catholic church has dealt with disagreement suggests that - for the church - it does
With all due respect, I don't think that a single casual look at the Catholic Church can make an type of conclusion you've formed. There have been points of view from both sides. A 2000 year old institution with 1.6 billion people cannot possible be summed up into one point of view.

With all due respect, I don't think that a single casual look at the Catholic Church can make an type of conclusion you've formed. There have been points of view from both sides. A 2000 year old institution with 1.6 billion people cannot possible be summed up into one point of view.

It can when it's defined by that point of view, and has a history of removing those who disagreed with that point of view.

It can when it's defined by that point of view, and has a history of removing those who disagreed with that point of view.
I am not refering to doctorine or practices. I'm refering to inclusion. Ideas about inclusion, unlike doctorine, does not fully group the entire faith.

Why would I, nana-chan? If I can help someone to find a truth, I will.

The problem is - you're right. Disagreement on your level shouldn't account for you being called a heretic or a non-Catholic.

Unfortunately, a casual look at how the Catholic church has dealt with disagreement suggests that - for the church - it does.

Then perhaps a deeper look should be given to matters pertaining this disagreement. I don't think it's too much to ask.

It is in us to disagree, and the Church consists of the human element. A line must be drawn. Dialogue is possible.

I am not refering to doctorine or practices. I'm refering to inclusion. Ideas about inclusion, unlike doctorine, does not fully group the entire faith.

And the doctrines and practices of the Catholic church, as defined by the current Pope and Cardinals, are ANTI inclusion when it comes to those the OP wants included.

And the doctrines and practices of the Catholic church, as defined by the current Pope and Cardinals, are ANTI inclusion when it comes to those the OP wants included
Again, a generalization. The current Pope and Cardinals cannot be grouped together based on ideas of inclusion. Each person thinks more or less differently than everyone else. Everyone comes from very different backgrounds with very different approaches on things. As such, disagreements as to who is "inclusive" for lack of a better phrase are absolutely human.
Now when you say the DOCTORINE is not inclusive then you have someone who disagrees the the Catholic teaching.
However, when you say PRACTICES are not inclusive, that is something that can be changed, though not by pressure from a single parish. As we have seen throughout history, practices (such as views on capitol punishment) have changed with the ages (however doctorine has stayed the same). So its not as if there is no hope for progressives. But it also doesn't mean they need to form a new sect in order to follow their beliefs. Patience.

Then perhaps a deeper look should be given to matters pertaining this disagreement. I don't think it's too much to ask.

It is in us to disagree, and the Church consists of the human element. A line must be drawn. Dialogue is possible.

I agree with you that it is in us to disagree. However, the Catholic church has no need to meet parishioners halfway - because they (claim to) have the direct line to god - so the church literally can't be wrong (by it's own estimations)

Personally, even if I were religious, I couldn't be Catholic (even though my father was) because I can't believe that the Biblical god can be reconciled to 'traditions'... when the New Testament so heavily opposes that exact approach, and preaches 'discernment'

I agree with you that it is in us to disagree. However, the Catholic church has no need to meet parishioners halfway - because they (claim to) have the direct line to god - so the church literally can't be wrong (by it's own estimations)
...'

That only makes sense if we believe that the Catholic Church considers all its doctrines to be infallible, which is obviously not the case. As the Church has made changes in its history, we must assume that they did so because the previous doctrine was not perfect and they realised it.

That only makes sense if we believe that the Catholic Church considers all its doctrines to be infallible, which is obviously not the case. As the Church has made changes in its history, we must assume that they did so because the previous doctrine was not perfect and they realised it.

Exactly, that's why councils like the Council of Trent, the II Vatican Council and others have been called throughout history. These have examined and, accordingly if it's the case, they have amended matters of doctrine.

Exactly, that's why councils like the Council of Trent, the II Vatican Council and others have been called throughout history. These have examined and, accordingly if it's the case, they have amended matters of doctrine usually for political reasons.


Fixed;)

Exactly, that's why councils like the Council of Trent, the II Vatican Council and others have been called throughout history. These have examined and, accordingly if it's the case, they have amended matters of doctrine.
This is not the case. It ammends its PRACTICES. It's vitally important to understand the difference between DOCTORINE and PRACTICE.

Exactly, that's why councils like the Council of Trent, the II Vatican Council and others have been called throughout history. These have examined and, accordingly if it's the case, they have amended matters of doctrine usually for political reasons.
Incorrect. It would be wise to research the mindset of the Vatican instead of making assumptions or observations from a western point of view. A biased opinion is uneducated.

I agree with you that it is in us to disagree. However, the Catholic church has no need to meet parishioners halfway - because they (claim to) have the direct line to god - so the church literally can't be wrong (by it's own estimations)
There are numerous Biblical references to the authority of the Pope. However, thats another matter. You're right PARTIALLY. It's doctorine remains guided by the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean that 1) its practices are or are not completely in union with God's will or 2) that the Holy Spirit doesn't alter his will based on the situation of the era. In a matter of inclusion to the Church, it is a matter of communion with the doctorine partly but also partly human opinion.

Personally, even if I were religious, I couldn't be Catholic (even though my father was) because I can't believe that the Biblical god can be reconciled to 'traditions'... when the New Testament so heavily opposes that exact approach, and preaches 'discernment' The Biblical God is not under tradition, tradition is under the Biblical God. Ignoring tradition would be like ignoring history. The Catholic Church is not the communion of believers ALIVE. It is the communion of the believers ALIVE AND DEAD. Therefore excluding tradition is excluding the history of the Church which would cause a separation from the fathers of the faith. In no way does the NT oppose tradition. Rather it confirmed the prophecies of the OT. Indeed, it teaches discernment of GODS WILL but if everyone were to discern the Bible for themselves on the simple grounds that God will guide them, who has understood the truth when there are differing opinions? Don't you think that Jesus would've REALIZED this enormous discrepancy?? Hence placing a single authority meant to interpret the Bible. "...and the gates of Hell will not prevail against you..." (Jesus said to the first Pope, Saint Peter after giving him the keys of the Kingdom of God.)

This is not the case. It ammends its PRACTICES. It's vitally important to understand the difference between DOCTORINE and PRACTICE....

The Catholic church amends its doctrines as well as its practices.

Catholic Church Changes Doctrine On Limbo (http://cbs3.com/topstories/Limbo.Catholic.Church.2.303594.html).

Considering this is the same Catholic Church that killed both Liberation Theology and Vatican II, I'm not having much faith.

The Catholic church amends its doctrines as well as its practices.

Ask any Catholic theologian, limbo was never a doctorine, simply a belief. Its being misused in this report.

Considering this is the same Catholic Church that killed both Liberation Theology and Vatican II, I'm not having much faith.
Can you elaborate?

That only makes sense if we believe that the Catholic Church considers all its doctrines to be infallible.

Not true.

The church can choose whether you are a Catholic or not.

If the consensus of the church body is that you are wrong, you ARE wrong, because they are the church and you are (suddenly) apostate.

They don't have to claim to be infallible - they have the numbers, the precedence, and the mechanisms to make it so.

The church can choose whether you are a Catholic or not.

If the consensus of the church body is that you are wrong, you ARE wrong, because they are the church and you are (suddenly) apostate.

Inaccurate. The Church doesn't decide whether or not you are Catholic. And there is no such thing as a consensus on whether or not you are part of the Church. The Church is not God.

Inaccurate. The Church doesn't decide whether or not you are Catholic. And there is no such thing as a consensus on whether or not you are part of the Church. The Church is not God.

In theory no, but in practice absolutely The church has often bypassed good doctrine for fine tradition. If the pope says you're an apostate, you are one.

There are numerous Biblical references to the authority of the Pope. However, thats another matter. You're right PARTIALLY. It's doctorine remains guided by the Holy Spirit.


There are no Biblical references to the authority of the pope. There are Biblical verses you can CLAIM refer to the authority of the pope.


That doesn't mean that 1) its practices are or are not completely in union with God's will


Actually, it does. If the church is guided on it's doctrine by the holy spirit, the church MUST be in union with god's will, or the entire church is apostate.


The Biblical God is not under tradition, tradition is under the Biblical God. Ignoring tradition would be like ignoring history.


Which is fair enough, because history is irrelevent, when you have the 'word of god'.


The Catholic Church is not the communion of believers ALIVE. It is the communion of the believers ALIVE AND DEAD. Therefore excluding tradition is excluding the history of the Church which would cause a separation from the fathers of the faith.


There is only one 'father' of the faith. Anything else is idolatry.


In no way does the NT oppose tradition.


Jesus makes a specific point of attacking those who adhere to the rules of the religion, following the letter of the law rather than the spirit. The Catholic church is the post-Christian Pharisee, and is the absolute enemy of everything Jesus preached about faith.


Rather it confirmed the prophecies of the OT.


A different argument. An objective assessment suggests that the NT fails horribly at actually fulfilling prophecies of the OT.


Indeed, it teaches discernment of GODS WILL but if everyone were to discern the Bible for themselves on the simple grounds that God will guide them, who has understood the truth when there are differing opinions?


There cannot be differing opinions if discernment is real.

If you are arguing that there can be differing opinions, you are arguing that revelation through the Holy Spirit can be flawed, and that discernment is unreliable.


Don't you think that Jesus would've REALIZED this enormous discrepancy??

No. True believers would have all arrived at the same conclusions, if discernment works - and Jesus said it does.

The simple fact that the Catholic church feels the need to 'teach' what scripture means, and - in fact - has felt the need to add to it, means they can't have any connection to the Holy Spirit.

Ask any Catholic theologian, limbo was never a doctorine, simply a belief. Its being misused in this report.

Was Pope Pius IX using the word wrong when he established a brand new doctrine, thereby changing Catholic doctrine?

In 1854, Pope Pius IX proclaimed in his Bull Ineffabilis that:

"...We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b3.htm

Not true.

The church can choose whether you are a Catholic or not.

If the consensus of the church body is that you are wrong, you ARE wrong, because they are the church and you are (suddenly) apostate.

They don't have to claim to be infallible - they have the numbers, the precedence, and the mechanisms to make it so.

So the Church can be wrong, but it can just use its power to expel those who point it out.

Ah, well. That is slightly different from your previous claim.

In theory no, but in practice absolutely The church has often bypassed good doctrine for fine tradition. If the pope says you're an apostate, you are one. No, doctorine is not sacrificed for tradition. Offer an example and I will clarify.
There are no Biblical references to the authority of the pope. There are Biblical verses you can CLAIM refer to the authority of the pope.
The Popes can be traced back to Saint Peter, the first Pope. Was jesus specifically speaking to Peter? Yes.
Actually, it does. If the church is guided on it's doctrine by the holy spirit, the church MUST be in union with god's will, or the entire church is apostate.
Clearly, the difference between doctorine and practice has been misunderstood. Doctorine does not regulate practice and therefore the infallibility of the doctorine does not necessarily regulate practices. Practices change with the age.
Which is fair enough, because history is irrelevent, when you have the 'word of god'. History is always relevant. Especially in the Word, which is an account of history.
There is only one 'father' of the faith. Anything else is idolatry. You're right, I used the wrong word. I meant doctors of the faith.
Jesus makes a specific point of attacking those who adhere to the rules of the religion, following the letter of the law rather than the spirit. The Catholic church is the post-Christian Pharisee, and is the absolute enemy of everything Jesus preached about faith. It is not religion that he was attacking but those who used the name of religion to gain respect for themselves. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and is the same Church today (though practices altered, not doctorine). Claiming that it is the enemy of God is irrational. If you don't agree with it, don't follow it. But that doesn't mean you have to attack it.
A different argument. An objective assessment suggests that the NT fails horribly at actually fulfilling prophecies of the OT. HA! I'm sorry but the prophecies of the OT are fulfilled word-for-word by the NT. It takes a simple reading of the Bible to conclude that!
If you are arguing that there can be differing opinions, you are arguing that revelation through the Holy Spirit can be flawed, and that discernment is unreliable.
That's my point. The Holy Spirit DOES NOT discern different opinions. They are human made. Which is why Jesus saw it necessary to make sure we all don't bend the Bible to fit our own wants. Each person reads the Bible differently. That's fact. Obviously (since there are different religions) people have interpreted it differently. Hence the need for GODS interpretation.
The simple fact that the Catholic church feels the need to 'teach' what scripture means, and - in fact - has felt the need to add to it, means they can't have any connection to the Holy Spirit. All Christians have at least some connection to the HS. Period.
Was Pope Pius IX using the word wrong when he established a brand new doctrine, thereby changing Catholic doctrine? He did not change the previous doctorine, he simply added to it. No, he never changed the doctorine.

Really, Id be pretty happy if the Catholic Church just ceased to exist. Its a relic from a time we are better off not returning to.

Really, Id be pretty happy if the Catholic Church just ceased to exist. Its a relic from a time we are better off not returning to.
You're perfectly entitled to that opinion. However, I must say that the Catholic Church is not just a relic from the past. It is the original Christian Church of the past, present, and future.

So the Church can be wrong, but it can just use its power to expel those who point it out.

Ah, well. That is slightly different from your previous claim.

My earlier claim is the same as this one, I was just phrasing it differently. BY their own lights, they're not wrong - and they can't be shown to be, because they don't have to accept your evidence... because you are (suddenly) not in a position to know or to tell.

We could call it Constantine's Precedent.

However, I must say that the Catholic Church is not just a relic from the past.
No, it really is. Why people need to belong to such an organization to practice their religion is something Ill never understand. Especially one so blatantly corrupt and backwards.
It is the original Christian Church of the past, present, and future.

Original? Youre unfamiliar with the first Schism, arent you? Eastern Orthodox makes the same claim.

And I hope its only future is in history books.

No, it really is. Why people need to belong to such an organization to practice their religion is something Ill never understand. Especially one so blatantly corrupt and backwards. I'm sorry you feel that way. Jesus said, "Wherever two of you come together in prayer, I am there too." What is religion but guidance and communal prayer? It is not backwards. Perhaps from a westernized progressive point of view you do not understand the history and the respect for it.

Original? Youre unfamiliar with the first Schism, arent you? Eastern Orthodox makes the same claim. No, actually I'm quite familiar with the first Schism which happened in the 500s or 600s. Although Eastern Orthodox makes the same claim, ours is indeed first because the orthodox church broke away due to disagreements about papal authority and use of images. The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus.

History is always relevant. Especially in the Word, which is an account of history.


The Word serves several purposes. It contains 'history', it contains poetry and prose. It contains instructional stories. It contains commandments to the faithful.

History is relevent for context, and for setting perhaps - but it doesn't change the instruction or the commandment.


It is not religion that he was attacking but those who used the name of religion to gain respect for themselves.


No - he was attacking the PRACTISE of religion. The specific methodology and ideal - which - unfortunately, is the exact same methodology and ideal embodied in the modern Catholic church.


The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and is the same Church today


So the Catholics will tell you.


Claiming that it is the enemy of God is irrational.


I didn't say that - I said it was the enemy of Jesus' teaching - which is self-evident.


HA! I'm sorry but the prophecies of the OT are fulfilled word-for-word by the NT. It takes a simple reading of the Bible to conclude that!


You're half right. It would take an EXTREMELY simple reading to conclude it.


That's my point. The Holy Spirit DOES NOT discern different opinions.


No. Those reading the scripture do, under the guidance of the SPirit.


They are human made. Which is why Jesus saw it necessary to make sure we all don't bend the Bible to fit our own wants.


Discernment is one of the Gifts, allowing those annointed with the spirit to experience personal revelation.

And that is how Jesus said we should experience god - as a personal relationship, discerned and revealed.

If your church teaches a different means of relationship than that simple mechanism, it is in disobedience to Jesus.


Each person reads the Bible differently. That's fact.


Unless they are filled with the Holy Spirit.

If Catholics cannot reach a common understanding of the scripture through discernment, they are out of contact with the spirit.


Obviously (since there are different religions) people have interpreted it differently. Hence the need for GODS interpretation.


We have 'god's interpretation'. Look for the red letters in your Bible.


All Christians have at least some connection to the HS.


Apparently not.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Jesus said, "Wherever two of you come together in prayer, I am there too." What is religion but guidance and communal prayer? It is not backwards. Perhaps from a westernized progressive point of view you do not understand the history and the respect for it.

No, see, I understand it enough to know how irrelevent it is. Plenty of Christians manage to have a close relationship with their God without a Priest to tell them what to pray.

No, actually I'm quite familiar with the first Schism which happened in the 500s or 600s. Although Eastern Orthodox makes the same claim, ours is indeed first because the orthodox church broke away due to disagreements about papal authority and use of images. The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus.

And the Eastern Orthodox church would claim that you broke away and they were founded by Jesus. See how that works?

I'm sorry you feel that way. Jesus said, "Wherever two of you come together in prayer, I am there too." What is religion but guidance and communal prayer? It is not backwards. Perhaps from a westernized progressive point of view you do not understand the history and the respect for it.

No, actually I'm quite familiar with the first Schism which happened in the 500s or 600s. Although Eastern Orthodox makes the same claim, ours is indeed first because the orthodox church broke away due to disagreements about papal authority and use of images. The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus.

The whole point of a 'schism' is that both/all parties concerned must have been 'founded by Jesus'... or none.

History is always relevant. Especially in the Word, which is an account of history.

Its an account of history only if you dont really know anything about history outside the Bible. Once you do, you see how it doesnt really do a really good job accounting history.

HA! I'm sorry but the prophecies of the OT are fulfilled word-for-word by the NT. It takes a simple reading of the Bible to conclude that!

Only if you dont actually pay attention and listen to your Priest.

...
He did not change the previous doctorine, he simply added to it. No, he never changed the doctorine.

Can you please define, exactly, what you mean by doctrine?

My earlier claim is the same as this one, I was just phrasing it differently. BY their own lights, they're not wrong - and they can't be shown to be, because they don't have to accept your evidence... because you are (suddenly) not in a position to know or to tell.

We could call it Constantine's Precedent.

Have you heard of Galileo?

He was an Italian fellow who had a little run in with the Church about some business with the sun. They did what you said, with the drumming out of society bit.

I think they had to change their doctrine eventually anyway.

Funny that.

Have you heard of Galileo?

He was an Italian fellow who had a little run in with the Church about some business with the sun. They did what you said, with the drumming out of society bit.

I think they had to change their doctrine eventually anyway.

Funny that.

To be fair, the biggest problem the Church had with Galileo was he was an arrogant ass and basically told them they were "simple" if they didnt accept his idea.

Certian members were offended by such a remark.

Have you heard of Galileo?

He was an Italian fellow who had a little run in with the Church about some business with the sun. They did what you said, with the drumming out of society bit.

I think they had to change their doctrine eventually anyway.

Funny that.

Galileo might not be the best example - his simple observation that the Sun didn't, in fact, circle the Earth earned him trial and conviction on charges of heresy, a ban on his writings, and actual physical imprisonment. You could argue that the ban was overturned in the 19th century, but that doesn't mean the doctrine changed.

Indeed, even Pope John Paul II failed to actually make a statement that heliocentrism or geocentrism was correct - instead, prevaricating and equivocating:

"In Galileo's time, to depict the world as lacking an absolute physical reference point was, so to speak, inconceivable. And since the cosmos, as it was then known, was contained within the solar system alone, this reference point could only be situated in the earth or in the sun. Today, after Einstein and within the perspective contemporary cosmology, neither of these two reference points has the importance they once had. This observation, it goes without saying, is not directed against the validity of Galileo's position in the debate; it is only mean to show that often, beyond two partial and contrasting perceptions, there exists a wider perception which includes them and goes beyond both of them"

What he effectively says is 'they're both right... kinda'.

Where's the doctrine change?

Galileo might not be the best example - his simple observation that the Sun didn't, in fact, circle the Earth earned him trial and conviction on charges of heresy, a ban on his writings, and actual physical imprisonment. You could argue that the ban was overturned in the 19th century, but that doesn't mean the doctrine changed.

Indeed, even Pope John Paul II failed to actually make a statement that heliocentrism or geocentrism was correct - instead, prevaricating and equivocating:



What he effectively says is 'they're both right... kinda'.

Where's the doctrine change?

Can you please define, exactly, what you mean by doctrine?

Because, you know, this is getting a little ridiculous. Slavery is another example of the Catholic Church changing its doctrine.

Because, you know, this is getting a little ridiculous. Slavery is another example of the Catholic Church changing its doctrine.

It is?

It seems to me that slavery has enjoyed various fortunes under mother church - sometimes opposed and sometimes allowed. It seems to me that some figures have spoken against it in certain circumstances - but I guess I'm lacking an official church position that ultimately declares for or against slavery, doctrinally.

Does Pius IX's referring to the 'supreme villainy' of slave-trading qualify as 'doctrine'?

This is not the case. It ammends its PRACTICES. It's vitally important to understand the difference between DOCTORINE and PRACTICE.

Incorrect on that count. II Vatican Council amended doctrine issues. Lithurgy was imparted, up until then, in Latin. After that council, both imagery and lithurgy were edited and brought into a more modern concept, taking into consideration that the common denominator did not know Latin. Sacraments were administered in "vulgar".

Incorrect. It would be wise to research the mindset of the Vatican instead of making assumptions or observations from a western point of view. A biased opinion is uneducated.

What do you suggest, that we take a Zen approach for an institution that doesn't follow anything but Western points of views? This is as uneducated an assumption as you accuse me of.

Fixed;)

And to the sack you go!

It is?

It seems to me that slavery has enjoyed various fortunes under mother church - sometimes opposed and sometimes allowed. It seems to me that some figures have spoken against it in certain circumstances - but I guess I'm lacking an official church position that ultimately declares for or against slavery, doctrinally.

Does Pius IX's referring to the 'supreme villainy' of slave-trading qualify as 'doctrine'?

I'm confused.

I just said that the RC Church has had several different positions on slavery over time. You seem to be agreeing with me.

This is an example of the RC Church changing its doctrine over time, which is what I claimed. I thought you were claiming that the Church doesn't change its doctrine.

But I also pointed out that this is dependent on your definition of doctrine. So, I asked you two to define it because your criticisms that my examples do not qualify as an example of doctrinal change only make sense if you are using very narrow definitions of 'doctrine' and 'change'.

And now you're asking me to define 'doctrine'?:confused:

Incorrect on that count. II Vatican Council amended doctrine issues. Lithurgy was imparted, up until then, in Latin. After that council, both imagery and lithurgy were edited and brought into a more modern concept, taking into consideration that the common denominator did not know Latin. Sacraments were administered in "vulgar".
Again. liturgical PRACTICES are PRACTICES. There is a certain difference between which prayer we say, for example, and what we beleive about Christ's death, for example. Vatican II council ammended PRACTICES to include vernacular practices.

What do you suggest, that we take a Zen approach for an institution that doesn't follow anything but Western points of views? This is as uneducated an assumption as you accuse me of. Perhaps I misworded myself because I didn't mean what you thought I meant. I simply mean instead of taking your local views (we all do it, im not saying you specifically, im saying people in general) try putting the shoes of the Vatican on and understand why THEY made the decision. Better or still offensive?

Again. liturgical PRACTICES are PRACTICES. There is a certain difference between which prayer we say, for example, and what we beleive about Christ's death, for example. Vatican II council ammended PRACTICES to include vernacular practices.

The Vatican has, on several occasions, and according to times, made councils to change dogma. I don't know you seem to fail to understand that.

Perhaps I misworded myself because I didn't mean what you thought I meant. I simply mean instead of taking your local views (we all do it, im not saying you specifically, im saying people in general) try putting the shoes of the Vatican on and understand why THEY made the decision. Better or still offensive?

It's not offensive as much as it's an uninformed way of approaching the subject. The Catholic Church IS a Western Institution, unless you're making reference to the Orthodox Church, which is a whole different thing. How else are you going to approach the viewpoints of the Catholic Church if not with a Western Concept in mind? I'm inclined to believe you have a bad way of choosing your words.

And understanding WHY and AGREEING whole-heartedly with the decisions the Holy Mother Church makes are two different things. Think about that.