Conclave

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
Mostly because of political pressure on the clergy.
Of the ones of XX century, after the church got free from foreign interventions in it, none was bad.

Actually, I think the popes have been much less "colorful" after the counter-reformation begun, so it's much older than the 20th century.

I think the reason why the popes behaved like hell during the pre-Luther era is because they had nothing to fear (they were at the helm of a significant country, and they didn't have to fear their flock converting to a non-papist religion). AND, the election process was completely unaccountable to the wishes of the believers, but also to the wishes of basic clergy. It remains so today: the Pope chooses the cardinals, the cardinals choose the next pope. Should a corrupt pope manage to get corrupt cardinals, you can have a very long string of adepts of group sex, or of pedophile popes.

I have no opinion whether the Church's decision-process should be open to all believers (Laymen included), but I think it would only benefit from associating all its priests, because the basic priests are the one in close contact with the believers and their reality, as well as they are people of genuine faith.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Heresson


Laity most often hasn't even read Bible or catechism, and in several European states it acts as if God did not exist.

Well, if they haven't read the cathecism how did they get confirmed? In most of the "mainstream" protestant churches almost all of the laity have read at least one book of the gospels and some portions of the OT.

Because no-one cares about elections of pastors or parish priests.
Also, in result protestant churches do just what the flock wants. It is taught by it instead of teaching it.

You don't know what you're talking about. This has never been true at any church I attended.

Mostly because of political pressure on the clergy.
Of the ones of XX century, after the church got free from foreign interventions in it, none was bad.

Neverthelees it is patently obvious that the current system of Papal selection can have some undesireable results. Term limitation lessens this effect.

yawn
If You read post I was replying to, You'd know that the author of it hesitates about the number of catholics worldwide. I wanted to precise it.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Well, if they haven't read the cathecism how did they get confirmed?

Some did not. And to get confirmation, You in general have to attend some classes and write something about a chosen saint, no more.

You don't know what you're talking about. This has never been true at any church I attended.

Is there anything that the protestant church opposes its laity in?

Neverthelees it is patently obvious that the current system of Papal selection can have some undesireable results. Term limitation lessens this effect.

Any form of selection can have undesirable results, especially so-called democratic ones.

[Spiffor]

BTW, Doc, what religion are you precisely? In protestant threads, you sound like a catholic, and in catholic threads, you sound like a protestant

[MOBIUS]

Why don't you silly ***** get it through your stupid heads that God doesn't exist?

Originally posted by Spiffor
BTW, Doc, what religion are you precisely? In protestant threads, you sound like a catholic, and in catholic threads, you sound like a protestant

Doc is a moron, surely you'd have figured that out by now?

The fact that he's religious should be a bit of a clue, even if he's too ashamed to admit which one of the many forms of Christianity that infest our planet...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Elok
Perhaps I am using the wrong word. I mean that you're listing a bunch of speculation that could explain the actual evidence, and then calling it evidence.

Um, I did nothing of the kind. I was just citing what is the current consensus opinion of historians

That Abraham came from a culture that had a record of the event has nothing to do with the veracity of the Hebrew account of it.

True. The account could have been totally made up. I'm not sure why you're making this point, as if I stated that the Flood was entirely not true.

That the concept has a heritage in the area is evident, though even that doesn't mean that the idea was necessarily directly taken. An historical event of sufficient magnitude would be known in many places, and while the details seem absurd, that's a double-edged sword. I don't remember the exact details of the Sumerian legends, as it's been a while, but assuming it bears some serious similarities to the biblical version that's some weird stuff to just make up.

Specifically, the animals. Why on earth would a man of those times bother preserving EVERY animal known? This was decidedly pre-Greenpeace, the animals that couldn't be eaten or otherwise used would not have had innate value.

The earlier myths are that a king sailed down the flooded Euphrates on a giant barge that held his own househould, including all of his animals. That's what is presumed to be the origin of Noah.

http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/specex/ur/ur-flood.htm

"The epic of Atrahasis, written in Akkadian, can be dated by colophon (scribal identification) to the reign of Hammurabi's great grandson, Ammi-saduga (1646-1626 BC), and it continued to be copied into the first millennium. In the epic, Enlil, the senior deity of the pantheon, plots to reduce the number of humans, whose noisy vitality was such that Enlil could not sleep. When his plans to wipe out the human race using various plagues are thwarted, Enlil decides on a flood. Enki, the god of fresh water, known for wisdom, as he had in the case of the plagues, betrays Enlil's plan to Atrahasis, the king. Atrahasis, his family, and his possessions, as well as animals and birds, ride out the flood that lasted seven days and seven nights in a reed boat coated with bitumen. On disembarking, Atrahasis makes offerings. The mother goddess condemned the chief gods Anu and Enlil for the destruction and tried to exclude them from the offerings. Enlil is furious when he discovered that even a few humans had survived and he blamed Enki. Enlil eventually gave way and permitted the human race to continue, but he required that Enki and the mother goddess organize them better, probably to spare him the noise."

It's important to note that Enlil is the Sumerian god from which Jehovah was derived.

I'm not saying the Flood account in the Bible is literally true; like I said, I'm not fundamentalist. I view the whole story as figurative on some level. But I don't see why you dismiss the entire story with contempt precisely because it seems to be ultimately based on a real event and is mentioned by other sources.

What the hell are you on about? I said--several times--that the story was based on a true event. I don't see how I can be any plainer about it. You're directing unfounded outrage at a strawman. "Highly fictionalized" means the details are not necessarily true, which you yourself concede. So what's the argument here?

The life of George Washington is "mythologized" after roughly two centuries have passed. That doesn't mean the man never existed.

So who am I asserting never existed again? Or what?

An event that occured around the dawn of civilization will be "mythologized" by the intervening years no matter who tells the story. Especially when we only know it from the written records of two extinct civilizations.

Isn't that my point? Dear lord, what are you arguing about?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Doc is a moron

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Brent

Which individual country has the most Catholics? USA? Mexico?

My guess is Mexico. I would suppect that about 95% of the Pop. is Catholic.

In the US 25% of 280 Million = 70 Million or so. CNN said one of every 4 American are Catholic.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Most people want:

1) Women priests
2) Married priests
3) Relaxed rules regarding birth control
4) Relaxed rules regarding homosexuality


What do you think Horse? Letting women be priests and letting the priests be married would do alot to improve the church's image both inside and out.

This church is not about what I want or you want, but what Jesus wants, and he lay that out very clearly 2000 years ago. I think some of todays Catholic have forgotten that. Jesus said many times, If you turn away from me, than you have turn away from the Father, and if you turn away from the Father, he will turn away from you.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by molly bloom



That's because the heretics use contraception.

In point of fact, during the Middle Ages illegitimate children were known as 'the Pope's b@st@rds' or 'the Pope's children' because so many had been fathered by monks, friars and priests.

As I recall, it was more to do with priests leaving their money to their children, rather than any biblically sanctioned injunction against priestly marriage. Married priests survived until the early middle ages, but I can't lay my hands on the reference at the moment.

It was around 500AD or something when they change it.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Brent
Well I suppose there are more black Americans than black Catholics. And being direct from Africa rather than being from slave stock (??) may help in some peoples eyes for some reason.

How does the worldwide distribution and ethnic makeup of Catholicism compare to 50 to 100 years ago? Is there enough of a difference there to logically mean a nonitalian is much more likely now? Or is it that the RCC was Italocentric in choosing its leadership for centuries but is not now?

I think the Catholic Church as a whole is probably less racist than the United States as a whole. I don't personally see much racism here in California. I've heard it said that Sacramento is the most integrated city in the country, due to its being a military town or something.

The Military is gone. There should be a lot of retires there. There was 2 Air Force bases and 1 Army base there until they close them.

Do you live there?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Joseph
This church is not about what I want or you want, but what Jesus wants, and he lay that out very clearly 2000 years ago. I think some of todays Catholic have forgotten that. Jesus said many times, If you turn away from me, than you have turn away from the Father, and if you turn away from the Father, he will turn away from you.

But do you believe that the pope and the cardinals (who were appointed by himself or by previous popes) will systematically have Jesus' guidance?

Don't you think that the earthly management of the Church is a matter of ideas that are inherently human? As such, what makes the ideas of the cardinals (flawed humans as they are) any superior to the ideas of the faithful?
I'm especially thinking about priest's celibate, which came into action because of very earthly concerns.

[Joseph]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Spiffor

But do you believe that the pope and the cardinals (who were appointed by himself or by previous popes) will systematically have Jesus' guidance?[/QYOTE]We can only hope yes.

Don't you think that the earthly management of the Church is a matter of ideas that are inherently human? As such, what makes the ideas of the cardinals (flawed humans as they are) any superior to the ideas of the faithful?
I'm especially thinking about priest's celibate, which came into action because of very earthly concerns.

We would again hope the Holy Sprit is looking in from time to time on what the Cardinals are doing, but remember God gave us a free will and some used it for good and some used it for bad.
I said in another thread that when a Man get up in the morning, he just a Man. Then he put on the clothes that made him a Policeman, Fireman, Priest, etc.

[JohnT]

You know, given how long this process is, it might not be the worst idea to top this thread...

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Joseph
This church is not about what I want or you want, but what Jesus wants, and he lay that out very clearly 2000 years ago. I think some of todays Catholic have forgotten that. Jesus said many times, If you turn away from me, than you have turn away from the Father, and if you turn away from the Father, he will turn away from you.

What the church wants and what Jesus wants is not the same thing. How frequently their interests coincide is an open question.