Today is my last day

[Straybow]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You don't need a Pope in order to co-ordinate the religious ceremonies of a worldwide church. The Anglican Communion does the same thing without an autocratic structure.

Yeah, and looked what happened. There's a trans-atlantic rift because there's no central authority to dictate policy. That would never happen to the Catholic church.

No, that's exactly what happened from the 5th to the 11th century with the ever-widening rift between the Roman Communion and the Eastern Orthodox. That's exactly what happened in the 16th century with the Lutherans and the Anglicans. Even within the RCC there were two Popes at the same time. Maybe happened more than once, can't remember for sure.

The Church will get over these issues. Just wait until a more liberal Pope comes in and makes the proper reforms.

Who are you to say what "proper reforms" are? You are sitting in judgment over the Pope just as Luther and Henry did five centuries ago. Its just that the Protestants decided not to wait hundreds of years for the College of Cardinals to straighten up. So who is the wiser?

Having a central authority like the Pope allows the church to evolve cohesively without the need for partisan splintering into a million different denominations like the protestants have done.

Again, get your facts straight. The Catholic church has "splintering into a million different denominations." The Majesterium says that we Prots are (iirc the phrase) "separated brethren," saved by the same Sacraments of the Holy Catholic Church only we're ignorant of how it "really" works.

You need to study your own denomination better. Even with the Roman Catholic Church the Roman Communion is not the only Communion or Rite. There are at least three or four others (can't remember exactly). Look it up.

The Pope also gives the church power. Heads of state meet with the Pope on a regular basis. How many protestant denominations can claim this? No, it doesn't mean the catholic church is more theologically valid, but in practical terms it gives catholics a very real and tangible sway which they wouldn't otherwise have. But I digress...

First, when's the last time the Pope's sway achieved something "tangible?" As for Protestants, since we don't delude ourselves that authority rests in one fallible human we don't have just one representative. Among them Billy Graham has met with many heads of state, with equally "tangible" results (ie, little or none).

[Straybow]

Doc S DanS'd me

[Tuberski]

That's why I never post anything of substance........

ACK!

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Spiffor
...(your opinion of scripture as the one source of literal truth, or not). Could you tell me if your beliefs evolved about the role of scriptural interpretation? Thanks

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Two streams. First of all, there is the recognition while in the Mennonite church that tradition is still required in order to interpret scripture, even if you say that scripture is the primary authority.

Secondly, is the presentation by Scott Hahn as to the Catholic position of scripture and tradition, I found closer to my own beliefs than sola scriptura. I rejected that interpretation that each ought to be able to interpret scripture on their own without any tradition, because that leads to all sorts of problems, quite early on.

Also, scripture affirms the role of tradition in intepretation as well as the role of elders in assisting such interpretation. So if you believe the bible is the sole authority, then you are forced to cede that even the bible affirms the authority of tradition.

The question is, at what point did tradition stray from the truth? According to the RCC, tradition strayed from the truth when Prots tried to strip back a dozen centuries of tradition. According the the Prots tradition strayed those dozen centuries earlier.

"Did not!" "Did, too!" "Did not, first!" "Did, first!"

Yeah, I've heard Scott Hahn. Nothing new here, just a vastly oversimplified reading of sola scriptura compared to an equally oversimplified reading of RC tradition.

I've read or heard Prots who decided the Eastern Orthodox is the "real" path. I know folks who say the Messianic tradition is the "real" path. I'd be more inclined to agree with this last group than any other. Traditions added long after the (Jewish) Apostles passed on don't hold much weight with me. Wisdom of men.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Straybow
No, that's exactly what happened from the 5th to the 11th century with the ever-widening rift between the Roman Communion and the Eastern Orthodox. That's exactly what happened in the 16th century with the Lutherans and the Anglicans. Even within the RCC there were two Popes at the same time. Maybe happened more than once, can't remember for sure.

Yes, obviously. The RCC has changed quite alot since the 16th century though when it was all into political affairs as well as relgious ones. Today its not like that. [Insert Catholic head of state] will never have to excommunicate him or herself so he or she can get a divorce. The RCC is a very different organization today than it was in the 16th century.

Who are you to say what "proper reforms" are? You are sitting in judgment over the Pope just as Luther and Henry did five centuries ago. Its just that the Protestants decided not to wait hundreds of years for the College of Cardinals to straighten up. So who is the wiser?

You're right, I'm not the one to say which reforms are the proper ones. I'm not even a practicing catholic anymore. What I was addressing was the point that was raised regarding the Papacy being "out of touch" with common issues like birth control and abortion and female clergy. And in a sense they are a bit out of touch... but the RCC has steadily been liberalizing over the centuries, so I believe that with a new pope will inevitably come new reforms to the church.

Again, get your facts straight. The Catholic church has "splintering into a million different denominations." The Majesterium says that we Prots are (iirc the phrase) "separated brethren," saved by the same Sacraments of the Holy Catholic Church only we're ignorant of how it "really" works.

You need to study your own denomination better. Even with the Roman Catholic Church the Roman Communion is not the only Communion or Rite. There are at least three or four others (can't remember exactly). Look it up.

Oh believe me, I have. I'm not speaking as a catholic when I talk about communion, I'm speaking as an anthropologist interested in ritual studies.

Protestants and catholics may have similar rituals, but the focus is different. Protestants (and the RCC to an increasing extent) pay more attention to the historical dimensions of the sacrements and the rituals and to Jesus . Catholics have traditionally (but like I said its changing) payed more focus to jesus and the bible and the sacrements in ultimate dimensions - that is, to achieve a "oneness" with god. The traditional catholic mass (especially as it was in latin) was almost mildly trance inducing, which would be culminated by touching this "oneness" through the metaphor of the body and blood. It could be a very powerful experience. And this is the very point of christianity. "Christ" is a Greek word meaning body, whereas in the original aramaic, the word for Christ meant more along the lines of "oneness" (sort of).

First, when's the last time the Pope's sway achieved something "tangible?" As for Protestants, since we don't delude ourselves that authority rests in one fallible human we don't have just one representative. Among them Billy Graham has met with many heads of state, with equally "tangible" results (ie, little or none).

I never said coercive power, but because of the Pope Catholics form by far the largest denomination in the world. The RCC is also among the richest (if not the richest) organizations in the world. Its therefore capable of a kind of organization and cohesiveness that other denoms are not... for better or for worse.

[DanS]

"splintering into a million different denominations."

I hate to get technical, but the RCC does not view itself nor the orthodox as denominations. The prots have quit the church entirely, whereas the RCC and the orthodox are merely schmismatic and could conceivably come fully into communion sometime in the future, as they have done in the past several times after schisms. Please note that different rites can be in communion just fine, as several are nowadays with Rome, and Roman Rite and Eastern Rite were off and on for a thousand years.

As for the hierarchy being out of touch, I think the only place they were really out of touch with the flock was the pedophilia scandals. With regard to all of the other stuff like abortion and birth control, it's rather a matter of differing opinions. The hierarchy and the priests need not agree with the churchmembers on everything each says in order for there to be a certain amount of respect going both ways. For instance, AH's parish priest may make it a point to rail against this stuff with which AH doesn't agree, but I would guess that AH has a fairly high regard for his parish priest nonetheless.

[Hueij]

I'm not going to get in the theological and historical discussions here, I just want to say to BK that I hope that he will find what he's looking for in the Catholic church. And that he will find at least a little of the spirit of Vatican 2. The Church seems to have forgotten already

[Heresson]

Congrats, BK

[Ben Kenobi]

So isn't all this for a girl? Religion can't be all that important if you can cast it off just because you're horny.

Even the good book says it is better to marry than to burn.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not going to get in the theological and historical discussions here, I just want to say to BK that I hope that he will find what he's looking for in the Catholic church. And that he will find at least a little of the spirit of Vatican 2. The Church seems to have forgotten already

Well, I wouldn't be Catholic without the Vatican II recognising the beliefs that all Christians share need to be recognised by the church.

As such, even at my confirmation, he told us all to recall our own baptisms, just as he did for the rest of the congregation, and that we would now be brought from partial, to full communion.

[Ben Kenobi]

The question is, at what point did tradition stray from the truth? According to the RCC, tradition strayed from the truth when Prots tried to strip back a dozen centuries of tradition. According the the Prots tradition strayed those dozen centuries earlier.

"Did not!" "Did, too!" "Did not, first!" "Did, first!"

Both strayed from the truth.

The problem is that the Catholics recognised this and made changes. The protestants just schism if there is disagreement. There is no incentive to maintain unity in the face of disagreements.

Yeah, I've heard Scott Hahn. Nothing new here, just a vastly oversimplified reading of sola scriptura compared to an equally oversimplified reading of RC tradition.

I've given his argument here.

Perhaps you care to address it?

[Hueij]

Well, I wouldn't be Catholic without the Vatican II recognising the beliefs that all Christians share need to be recognised by the church.

What I meant is that after Vatican 2 it looked like the church was gearing up for the 21st century. But with Paul VI and now John Paul II we (well, not me, I left some 20 years ago) are back in the 19th century.

Oh, and about the new pope? He will be as conservative as JP II...

But my personal feelings about the church aside, congrats BK. How did your family take it?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I should correct my earlier statement about Baptists. Plenty of catholics out there protesting.

The right to life fringe types. Catholicism. Religion for stupid people is what it is.

You need to study your own denomination better. Even with the Roman Catholic Church the Roman Communion is not the only Communion or Rite. There are at least three or four others (can't remember exactly). Look it up.

There's "Ukrainian-Byzantine" (Greek-catholic) rite, There's Chaldean rite, there's maronite rite in Syria and Lebanon, Melkite rite, Armenian-catholic rite, there's a rite or two in India.
But in general, this rites emerged in result of an union with other denominations, not splitting of Roman-catholic rite. Also, they are quite small, even the way the biggest Greek-catholic rite is not very significant in overall catholicism.
Also, with time, the differences between the rites get smaller (though in Poland, there's been an initiative by some Armenian-catholic priest to return from the path of latinisation f.e.)

Protestant churches come and go but catholicism is forever.

no more so than Judaism...

we shall see about that

Today the Anglican churches probably stick to the timeless traditions of the Church more faithfully than the Catholic Church

Like in the case of giving marriage to Charles and crowning Camilla

You don't need a Pope in order to co-ordinate the religious ceremonies of a worldwide church. The Anglican Communion does the same thing without an autocratic structure.

Anglican church is a small insect compared to catholicism
Anyway, what can I say about a church found by Henry VIII, the ever-bloody and horny king?

we all know what a bunch of hopeless screw ups Peter and the apostle were

They created the biggest religion in the world, and the countries following it are the most advanced in the world. Loosers.

[Hueij]

They created the biggest religion in the world, and the countries following it are the most advanced in the world.

Like Poland??

[Heresson]

Poland isn't that bad, don't be rude.