The Pope and CNN

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Yeah, but he seems to have been backsliding the past few years. Last week he admonished Catholics who have attended services at non-Catholic churches, calling such actions "grave error". Oh, BTW, in the same message he reiteraterd the age-old condemnation of gays and lesbians.
Maybe as he has gotten older and weaker he's knuckling under to pressure from the Vatican apartchicks. It's a shame. I used to really like him.

How could he have been responsible for the second Vatican council? Wasn't that in 1960? Wouldn't he have been a relatively low ranking bishop at that time?

He had a strong position in the church ever since He became a bishop.
Anyway. your post shows that You do not treat church seriously. Church isn't a market company. It's a question of faith. If You really believe in what your church teaches, You can not say that someone who chooses another way doesn't make a mistake.

[Ben Kenobi]

Dr. Strangelove:

How could he have been responsible for the second Vatican council? Wasn't that in 1960? Wouldn't he have been a relatively low ranking bishop at that time?

Good catch. However, he has been very good in defending the principles of the second Vatican Council during his papacy, particularly with regards to ecumenism between Christian denominations.

Heresson:

If You really believe in what your church teaches, You can not say that someone who chooses another way doesn't make a mistake.

Directed at non-Christians, or non-Catholic Christians, (ie, Protestant and Orthodox)?

[Ned]

Heresson, what the pope can do, and he did try, is to get Saddam to comply with the UN resolutions. I'll give him that much.

But, where is it written that the Church can never support a war? I think the Christian concept of a just war indicates otherwise. But if the Pope was even against the liberation of Kuwait, I begin to wonder.

BTW, what was his postion on the US/Australian liberation of East Timor? This involved liberation of a Catholic nation under oppression by a neighboring Muslim nation.

What I think we see is that the Church has learned the "lesson" of the Crusades and will never again repeat that error.

But, what is the lesson of the Crusades? Does it mean that the Church can never be in favor of any war by a Christian nation against a Muslim nation or does it mean that Christianity cannot be spread by force? The former appears to be what most concerns the Pope.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Heresson
The whole thread is either a troll, or ...

Heresson, it is mostly a troll. I still admire the Pope. I call him a coward, etc., for effect. I truly hope I did not offend you.

[Lazerus]

obiwan: the fact that less were killed in this war then under just year one of saddam.

I believe we should go into africa aswell, damn mugabe beating up and killing the white farmers, hope to god him and his followers starve as a result but thats unlikely, it will be the common man whos been brainwashed that will die while mugabe goes to Paris and buys a £30k watch.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Heresson


He had a strong position in the church ever since He became a bishop.
Anyway. your post shows that You do not treat church seriously. Church isn't a market company. It's a question of faith. If You really believe in what your church teaches, You can not say that someone who chooses another way doesn't make a mistake.

Uhhhh. Are you referring to the controversy over Catholics worshiping with protestants or the papal position regarding homosexuals?

If you're referring to the question of whether a member of one denomination can take the liberty of joining members of another denomination in worship and still be considered serious regarding his faith, then I believe you are wrong. My church allows me to worship in any Christian denomination because it believes in christian unity. It acknowledges and embraces the diversity of Christians around the world; this is called "ecumenicism". It recognizes a greater Catholic church consisting of the faithful of all denominations. Furthermore it trusts me to be the guardian of my conscience and soul. The question of permittting Christains to worship together in good fellowship is not about marketing at all. To me and my church it is an article of faith. The Roman Catholic Church also professes the concept of ecumenicism, but unfortunately the Pope's recent statements demonstrate that it does not takes itself seriously.

Do you know any protestants Heresson? Are you familiar at all with the doctrines of any of the major protestant denominations? Do you have any idea of how similar the doctrines of the older protestant denominations, Lutheran and Anglican, are to Roman Catholic doctrine? Could you enumerate the important differences in doctrine? If you can't then how can you judge their believes to be "mistakes". Do you know what the word for judging someone without adequate knowledge is? It's "prejudice".

If you are referring to the condemnation of homosexuality, please allow me to quote you the next time some jerk in this forum starts ranting about how protestants are so much more bigoted than Catholics because of their relative positions regarding homosexuality. Perhaps we should all be glad that the head of your church has now definitively ended that controversy.

[Heresson]

Directed at non-Christians, or non-Catholic Christians, (ie, Protestant and Orthodox)?

You got me wrong, ot rather got yourself wrong; I was commenting your demand towards the pope; anyway, yes, I think that protestants and orthodox, if they really believe, should share that view.

But, where is it written that the Church can never support a war? I think the Christian concept of a just war indicates otherwise. But if the Pope was even against the liberation of Kuwait, I begin to wonder.

You can find everything in church tradition. Being against any war is keeping the spirit of early Christianity; even if we fight a war, we should know we are doing wrong

BTW, what was his postion on the US/Australian liberation of East Timor? This involved liberation of a Catholic nation under oppression by a neighboring Muslim nation.

I don't think pope said anything about it, but He let a local bishop being concerned. However, notice that He was against Maronite claims to their own state, and was against church of liberation movements in Latin America.

What I think we see is that the Church has learned the "lesson" of the Crusades and will never again repeat that error.

But, what is the lesson of the Crusades? Does it mean that the Church can never be in favor of any war by a Christian nation against a Muslim nation or does it mean that Christianity cannot be spread by force? The former appears to be what most concerns the Pope.

Me, personally, I don't think of crusades as a pure evil movement; the lands it captured were once belonging to Christianity, were still majorly Christian, and Christians there were economically and physically persecuted, though with no intention of destruction; I didn't hear Muslims being sorry for their conquests of Christian Great Syria, Christian Egypt, Christian Libya, Christian north Africa, Christian Spain, Christian Iraq, Christian Asia Minor, Christian Armenia...
but I think that it's a question of any war, not only against some Muslim state, though. It's not a question of spreading Christianity by force, as a conquest doesn't mean conversion of inhabitants of conquered lands - not today. Of course, relations betwean Christians and Muslims are in pope's concern, but I don't think it's the most important thing. It's about war in general.

If you're referring to the question of whether a member of one denomination can take the liberty of joining members of another denomination in worship and still be considered serious regarding his faith, then I believe you are wrong. My church allows me to worship in any Christian denomination because it believes in christian unity. It acknowledges and embraces the diversity of Christians around the world; this is called "ecumenicism". It recognizes a greater Catholic church consisting of the faithful of all denominations. Furthermore it trusts me to be the guardian of my conscience and soul. The question of permittting Christains to worship together in good fellowship is not about marketing at all. To me and my church it is an article of faith. The Roman Catholic Church also professes the concept of ecumenicism, but unfortunately the Pope's recent statements demonstrate that it does not takes itself seriously.

(Sorry, I must hurry)
It's not about a choice. If You convert to other form of CHristianity, You are probably more serious in your choice than the ones that were borned in some church and stay there. I agree with You to some extent, but if we go that way, we have to admit that all the differences in between
churches are not important - and they are and are not.
My point is that if You are sure of your thoughts, You can't treat other ones as wrong in one or other way.

Do you know any protestants Heresson? Are you familiar at all with the doctrines of any of the major protestant denominations? Do you have any idea of how similar the doctrines of the older protestant denominations, Lutheran and Anglican, are to Roman Catholic doctrine? Could you enumerate the important differences in doctrine?

In fact I do. We have it at school...

And I was not referring to gay problem

[Dis]

I have no idea why the pope was against the war.

but I think he was concerned with the image of the church in the middle east. And didn't want to do anything to damage the church image even if it meant helping people of another religion.

[Ned]

Dissident, I think this is the reaaon. And more. There is still, even to this day, bitterness in Islam over the Crusades. This Pope, IIRC, actually reached out to Muslims and apologized, formally, for the Church's role in the Crusades 900 years ago.

[Dis]

That's a long time to hold a grudge . What about their jihads, we don't hold grudges against them?

I'm not too sure about them. In fact that is what I planned on looking up on history websites this weekeneds. The muslims took over a lot of land didn't they? Of course it helps their religion is predomininate on this land still today . My history on that periods isn't that great.

I've been getting into muslim history a lot lately. And that is something I will look up this weekend.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Heresson
(Sorry, I must hurry)
It's not about a choice. If You convert to other form of CHristianity, You are probably more serious in your choice than the ones that were borned in some church and stay there. I agree with You to some extent, but if we go that way, we have to admit that all the differences in between
churches are not important - and they are and are not.
My point is that if You are sure of your thoughts, You can't treat other ones as wrong in one or other way.

Huh? I don't understand how any of this relates to the question of whether it is permissable for a Roman Catholic to break bread with his protestant brethren and still be considered a good Roman Catholic. The policy stated by the Pope, if applied strictly, implies that if a Roman Catholic is stuck in some town where there are no Catholic churches and feels the need to attend church he can't fulfill this need in a protestant church. It also means that he could not accept an invitation to attend a protestant friend's baptism, marriage or funeral if the ceremony were to be incorporated into a regular church service. See, this policy means that can't ask a Catholic to be my child's godparent, or to be my best man, or even the pallbearer at a family member's funeral unless I change the venue of the service. I can ask a Methodist, a Baptist, a Lutheran, or even a Pentecostal without causing them distress, but if I were to ask a Roman Catholic to do any of these things then I'm asking him to be disobedient to his faith.

My graduate school advisor was a Roman Catholic. When he married a Baptist woman he tried to arrange for the marriage service to be a joint Catholic-Baptist one. After a great deal of effort he managed to get it all arranged, than at the last minute the priest was denied permission to participate. The Roman catholic Church lost a member that day.

[Felch]

It's not about membership tallies, it's about the Church. Some Protestant denominations reject basic tenets of Church doctrine, and virtually all reject transubstantiation, the most important part of Catholicism. The Church can't in good conscience tell people it doesn't matter what they believe. It has an obligation to set a variety of standards, and Baptists, among others, don't meet those standards.

On the other hand my brother's wife is Indian and they had a Hindu wedding without any hitches. The sacrament of marriage is only between the two being married, and does not require a priest any more so than baptism. The priest functions as a witness on behalf of the Church, not as a third party to the sacrament. Not that you asked, I just felt like rambling.

[VetLegion]

The Roman catholic Church lost a member that day.

This is the problem with you mericans. You can not treat the Church like a commodity. You can't just leave the Church. The guy wasn't serious in the first place.

[VetLegion]

And by the way, I think you can be present in say a protestant church during a ceremony but you must not partake in it (in any way). You must not pray or sing or whatever. Makes sense for Pope to whine about that, you can't simply have people running around erasing differences between religions

[Ben Kenobi]

My graduate school advisor was a Roman Catholic. When he married a Baptist woman he tried to arrange for the marriage service to be a joint Catholic-Baptist one. After a great deal of effort he managed to get it all arranged, than at the last minute the priest was denied permission to participate. The Roman catholic Church lost a member that day.

Dr. Strangelove:

Interesting. Not very many Baptist-Catholic joint marriages. I'd like to know more about the details, what kinds of arrangements were needed to accomodate both traditions.

If you don't feel confortable posting on 'Poly, you can always PM me.

I'm not Baptist, just Mennonite, pretty much the closest thing to a Baptist. The only difference is the pacifism.

Vetlegion:

And by the way, I think you can be present in say a protestant church during a ceremony but you must not partake in it (in any way). You must not pray or sing or whatever. Makes sense for Pope to whine about that, you can't simply have people running around erasing differences between religions

And you would be wrong. My girlfriend comes when she can and is not restricted from singing, and participating in the services. May this be a local difference in Croatia?

Secondly, I can go to a Catholic mass, and quite enjoy the service. I just cannot take the eucharist. Seems a good compromise to me.