jamesAMDG

Just wanted to add one thing about what my perspectives, as a social conservative, or whatever would be.

My expereince is that conservatives want a voluntary way of having it takes a village, which is where things like a church community etc. comes into play. The fear is that if the village is taken to mean government, that the family will become a branch of government.

Mostly I think it breaks down to people wanting the freedom to create their own combinations in their lives and not to be told that "x" is the only way, under legal penalty.

As usual, I'm a few days later than the posts I wanted to respond to, and I'm going to rain on some parades. Would you expect anything less?

First to Carl:

Where I live - Candidates for all offices are expected ,by the voters, to have an endorsement from their pastor and church. State Reps make it very clear that they are Evangelical Christians by putting the little Christian Fish symbol on their campaing signs. They are usually all Republicans - We normaly have no local democratic candidates - so all elections are determined in the Republican primary. If you are a registered democrat - you can't vote for anyone. You get a ballot that has blanks on all local elections - since there are no democratic candidates.

If you think you are in danger of falling under evenagelical theocratic rule, why not be a candidate? Unless of course there is some law where you live which would forbid it, in which case, you need a lawyer. If on ther other hand, there is no oopsition because they always get trounced/have no support among the populus, that's called deomcracy, where the candidate that the most people like wins. If you don't like it, I don't think there is much you can do.

To GreenPartyVoter:

Except that it does matter that certain groups don't want gays to marry. It's a civil rights issue where a set of people are being denied their civil rights. Religion should not enter into it.

So would it be fair to say you favour a dictatorship of relativism where a person with a religious faith that guides their moral choices is automatically disqualified? As a sidenote, atheism is also a religious affiliation (not necessarily religious practice) but involves at least as much faith as any religion proper (ie: with set worship and God(s))

It matters if R v W is overturned. If abortion becomes illegal in some states then we will certainly see a return to back alley abortions for those girls and women who can't afford to go out of state, or worse who are afraid to because it is a crime to cross the state line for an abortion.

It is worse to give a baby up for adoption (for whatever reason, fear of jail being one possible one) than to have it murdered and put yourself at greater risk for many physical and psychological difficulties? Yikes, what a strange world liberals live in.

And yes there are groups of Christians who are trying to get evolution out of public schools and I.D. in. Look at what is happening in Kansas even now.

I hate to say this, but science doesn't corner the market on truth. In fact, science is always changing and being challenged from within. Evolution is not fact, but a theory, ask any scientist how scientific theories work. A classic example is the shift from the Static State theory fo the universe, in which the universe has always existed the way it is now and always will, to the Big Bang theory (proposed by a priest) in which so many scientists got up in arms and complained that religion was trying to oppress science and other such nonsense. Now it is the prevailing theory in the origins of the universe.

Des:

The website I'm sure you meant to give was www.theocracywatch.ORG

I am also worried about creeping theocracy. Perhaps they aren't a majority of the party, but the mind and soul fo the Republican party right now is the Christian right

Can you deifne this any a way which isn't just that you don't agree with them? Or can you offer any sort of statistics which would show the number of self-identifying "conservative Christians" in the Republican party? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm sure many members fo the Republican party call themselves Christians, but I'm equally sure that a large number of members of the Democratic party would also call themslves Christians (the Clintons, Gores, Kerrys, etc. all calling themselves Christians) as do the members fo this board. Essentially, the are they wrong type of Christians for your taste if I am understanding correctly, and that sort of puts you in the same boat as the people that Carl was complaining about.

They have actually quite radical views not just abortion (I would also like to see way fewer of them but not through court mandate), but a range of issues from education to "intelligent design" to war and peace (see Christian right on Israel, scary), etc.

As far as abortion goes, would radical aulify as, they should be illegal? And if they are murder, as I and many others contend, and you seem to, if you are opposed to abortion, would you say that you would like to see fewer murders of those who have been born, but not through court mandate? (As a side-note, if SCOTUS actually ruled using the Constituion, instead of writing a new one whenever they please, there would be no "right" to abortion and most places abortion would be illegal by act of legislature (ie: the will of the majority of the people what with democracy and all that). As far as Israel goes, you don't really define your terms. But if you are against support of Isreal, I think I can safely assume that you support "Palestine" and the "Palestinians", which of course was never a state in the first place (it was parts of Transjordanie, Egypt, Syria, et al. and was lost in wars where Isreal was the victim of Muslim aggresion.) Secondly, there are no "palestinians" as they are the descendants of the citizens of the above mentioned countries. Plus, the refugees who languish in camps in the above-mentioned countries have far fewer rights than those living under the "occupation". They also have viewed terrorism as the legitimate way to force the creation of a state. They are goons, killers ang thugs. Strange company you keep.

I'm just trying to figure out where it is that mystictrek said "everyone knows."    It's funny, I can't seem to find it.

 

Atheists want to blame Hitler on the Christians and Christians want to blame Hitler on the atheists. Good grief. He was an evil person, no matter what his theology (or lack of it) and he used both (religion and the lack of religion) when it suited his purposes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My bad, I meant that the lack of evidence implied it was an argument based on common sense. A sort of a priori reference to the general knowledge which people carry around.

I rescind the quotation marks for everyone knows.

So let's see, denies the Deity of Christ, hates Saint Paul, wanted to fight capitalism. Almost sounds like a TCPC'er.

MOW, my apologies, I wasn't trying to draw an analogy between the evils of racial superiority theories and the goals of TCPC, but rather to draw the similarities in source material (although divergent ends) of heterodox/personalised versions of Christianity which eschew the Church which Christ established and legitimate authority therein.

My point being that neither leads to good, Holy places.

As a side point, you didn't interact with the main thrust of my argument at all. That being, principally, that Naziism has nothing more than lip service to do with Christianity.

jamesAMDG

jamesAMDG.blogspot.com

Victory in the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Nazi Germany clearly did use Christianity as a justification for its abominable ways over and over again and most of the German Christians bought it hook, line and sinker.  God and country.  This is actually ominous since that's what seems to be happening here in the USA.  Hopefully, our democratic heritage is strong enough to overcome the current madness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While it's awfully nice of you to offer the argument that "everyone knows" it would have been nicer if you had backed it up with, say, evidence.

It is quite clear from what Hitler said and did that he had no love for Christianity, and if he did use it, it was not of Christian convinction, but crass opportunism.

It might be useful for you to consult the following sources, amongst others.

OSS profile of Hitler

Nazi persecution of Religion as War Crime - From the Rutger's Journal of Law and Religion

It might also be worth noting that when Hitler speaks "favourably" about Christiainity it is ALWAYS in the context of removing heirarchies, etc and doing away with so-called organized religion.

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. [Hitler's Table Talk p. 51]

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. [Table Talk, p. 75]

The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St Paul....For the Galilean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him....The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore and a Roman soldier. [Table Talk, p. 76] ... Christ was an Aryan and St Paul used his doctrine to mobilize the criminal underworld and this organize a proto-Bolshevism.... Christianity is an invention of sick brains....The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life's final task will be to solve the religious problem. [p. 142-4]

So let's see, denies the Deity of Christ, hates Saint Paul, wanted to fight capitalism. Almost sounds like a TCPC'er.

Reference in the Jewish Source Library about the "incompatibility of National Socialism and Christianity"

All of this completely leaves aside the religion he was creating for the SS. This was particularly shown at the centre that Himmler constructed at Wewelsburg Castle.

But don't just take my word for it. In fact you could even consult a website, by "National Socialists" in which they describe the The Celebrations in the Life of the SS Family I wouldn't bother with the rest of the site, as it's full of Nazi dreck, but I use it as illustrative purposes to refute the assertions that Naziism had any sort of relation to Christianity other than lip service.

jamesAMDG

Victory in the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

jamesAMDG.blogspot.com

P.S. - As a side note, I'm curious which part of the ascent of National Socialism is cause for your statement about the "ominous" developments "here in the USA"

The guy who wrote the book The End of Faith makes a similar point-- countries with high rates of atheism (ie Scandanavia or the Netherlands) have higher literacy rates, less homelessness, etc. However, they are smaller, more homogenous nations. So I'm not sure how well they compare in population with, say, Britian or the US.

Just like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Vietnam, etc, ad naseum.

The religiousness of a society as directly related to the destruction seems to to have a few compelling rebuttals, no?

jamesAMDG

Victory in the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart fo Mary

jamesAMDG.blogspot.com

Now I tend to believe that there are more hypocrites "inside" religious institutions than there are "outside" such places. This is because, as you pointed out Fred, such institutions are, of necessity, intimately tied to political agendas. The serious thinkers "outside' such institutions are only trying to find or devise a new, better thing to fulfill our spiritual needs and that's a good thing. Religion may not progress without risk taking by people who gather (electronically even) in places like this which tolerate such discussions. Even though we're occasionally violating all sorts of orthodox, doctrinal, dogmatic, and political taboos, that's ok. I don't feel guilty. As I mentioned elsewhere here, one doesn't need to go to church to be a good Christian. I believe that Jesus, and God would  approve if they could voice an opinion, or maybe they will someday.     

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nobody seems to have picked up on it in the subsequent posts. But I thought it was important to point out what I think the main difference is between orthodox Christiainity and the relativistic versions which seem so popular these days.

There are more hypocrites inside of the Church then anywhere else. They're there because their hypocrites. Being a Christian means acknowleging that you are a sinner. Someone who commits offences against God. As a sinner you deserve to receive God's justice (ie: damnation). However, God tempers his justice by his mercy for those who are willing to repent and take up their crosses. This doesn't perfect a person, but it sets them on the path to perfection which can only be found in the grace of God

There are less hypocrites outside of the Church because they refuse to acknowledge that what they do is wrong, so when they keep doing they aren't hypocritical, they're just unacknowledged sinners.

As a progressive Christian I respect all faiths but I was wondering is the title of that book true (Why Catholics Don't Sing),and if so is there a reason for it ?

This book is fantastic! It's actually called Why Catholics Can't Sing, and it's written by a Catholic Church musician. The book's argument is that Catholic liturgical music has lost its way, both artistically and theologically, and has created an atmosphere where performance and sentimentalism are at the forefront, and liturgical music is either too difficult, or too embarrassing, to sing. Having attended a number of Catholic churches over the past 10 years, I have to say, sadly, that it's all too accurate. I highly recommend this book to anyone in church music ministry, in any denomination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't comment on that specific book, but given my (limited) experience as a Catholic I would agree completely about Sacred Music having lost its way in the Church. So much of what passes for hymns are just folk-rock retreads trying to ape the popular music of baby-boomer glory days. So musically, they're about as inspiring as a bunch of aging hippies.

Theologically they're even worse (from an orthodox perspective, progs might realy like them). They tend to glorify the community and essentially congratulate God on having such great people show up on a given morning. They also tend to downplay anything about God's (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) divinity and mostly just turn everything into a bunch of let's-all-have-a-hug pap.

The only real rememdy is to wrest control from all the "liturgical experts" who hijacked the Church since V2 and re-institute Catholic worship. That is to say, true worship of the Trinity, through the Sarifice of the Eucharist in the company of the angels and the saints.

But maybe I'm just bitter.

jAMDG

jamesAMDG.blogspot.com

It was half supposed to be a joke.  I guess no one could see my smirk as I wrote it huh? 

When I make jokes like that, I tend to get my head bitten off, so I guess I was trying to dismantle it. Thanks for clarifying anyway!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I figure I"ll probably get my head bitten for something or other, might as well be a sarcastic joke now and again. haha

I was more curious about your  last bit, does that mean I should only believe the rhetoric of the left?

I think most of us are willing to acknowledge that there is plenty of rhetoric on the right and the left.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was half supposed to be a joke. I guess no one could see my smirk as I wrote it huh?

There is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion."  It is a lie made up by those who don't know what they are talking about.  The procedure is a dialation and extraction which is only used in extreme cases when a normal abortion procedure would put the woman's life at risk.  Don't believe the rhetoric of the right wing politians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I'm not terribly inclined to argue whether or not the lay term of "partial birth abortion" is in fact, a medical term. After all, when someone speaks of a "partial birth abortion" others know what they mean. So I would argue it does in fact exist, something recognized under that name as a real procedure.

I was more curious about your last bit, does that mean I should only believe the rhetoric of the left?

I have no idea how to edit a post (maybe I'm just not so smart) but what I wrote in Post #10 about Orthodox (like the Eastern Orthodox Churchs, not to be confused with normal orthodoxy) was supposed to be that their ordinations are valid, but currently illicit because their situation with Rome is irregular.

So I clearly missed the actual intention of posting the article. Ooops.

I can't judge person's heart or faith, but we can judge their actions (the things we can observe). Not all priests who leave the Anglican Communion become Roman Catholics. So that's an important distinction to make. It's not as though all Anglicans who disagree with the AC's stance on women and gay priests (and bishops) becomes a Roman Catholic.

FredP said

The question she is posing, as a Roman Catholic, is this: if we believe that a celibate male priesthood is an essential dimension of our faith

This is not exactly a true statement. In the Latin (Western Rite) of the Catholic Church priests are required to be celibate as a norm of discipline. In some of the Eastern Rites, priests can be married, however, they much be married before ordination and only unmarried men can become Bishops. My understanding being that they can more fully be devoted to their flocks (and if they aren't under the responsibility of caring for a family). There are many reasons for this discipline in the Latin rite. Not the least fo which are three Evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity and obediance) as being the most intimate and imitative way to follow Christ and dedicate oneself to Him. (Religious take all three, and diosescan priests take a modified version of them).

So your statement about a CELIBATE preisthood being an essential element of the Faith is mistaken.

Another thing is that the "transfer" of a priest from a non-Catholic religion to one in good standing within the Catholic Church (this transfer would be more accurately seen as a ordination, as non-Catholic (or Orthodox) ordinations can't be proven to be Aposotolic and thus aren't valid) isn't done overnight or without a great deal of investigation on the part of the Catholic Church. The people who wish to be received into this exceptional situation must show good reasons for doig so and must fidelity to Catholic teaching, it isn't a free pass.

I will come back to some of the male priesthood stuff later this afternoon but my eyes feel liek they're bugging out. But I will offer this little correction. FredP, you are right about my ex nihilo stuff based on the way I phrased it. I meant that God created ex nihilo from things that didn't exist and he is outside fo them, distinct from them. It is this outside of creation aspect which emphasises the Father's masculinity. Just as a man must come from without of a women's body to share in the creative act with God, God comes from outside of Creation to work within it.

I"m not going to quote the article, it's easy enough for anyone to scroll up and read again if they so choose. But seeing as I'm a Catholic (in good standing, so far as I can tell) I would like to respond to the drivel which the so-called Sister has presented us with.

My arguments are not new arguments, in fact they are drawn prinicpally from a lecture given my Dr. Peter Kreeft, a much better and smarter philospher than I (*** gratutious advertising *** which can be downloaded for free from his website in the featured audio section)

This answers will be reasons why the Catholic Church cannot and will not have priestesses. Anglicans, well, they decided they wanted to do their own thing a while ago and it seems like there's not much chance fo them turning back.

The Church is neither the author nor the editor of the Priesthood. She cannot therefore change something over which she has authority (author's rights) over. This is a similar situation to the Priests of Israel. Good choose all his priests to come from the Tribe of Levi. Just as the Jews were not free to change the Priesthood, neither are Catholics.

Ms. Chittister made some remarks about sexism, etc. in her article. This is a serious error and a serious sin in that it charges Jesus Christ with either committing the sin of sexism or with condoning and perpetuating this sin throughout history. This is a denial of the Incarnation, that Jesus Christ was who He said He was, completely God and completely man, utterly perfect, tempted but never sinned.

She is therefore forced to accuse God of sinning or be demanding that the Church sin by changing a rule set down by God. A sticky wicket, no doubt.

Secondly, the priest is in persona Christi during the Sacraments. And just as Jesus has a male body (He ascended with His resurrected body into Heaven) those who speak as His mouth (a male mouth) must be male. To do otherwise would be as absurd as asking women to cross-dress to perform the sacraments and pretend to be who they are not.

Christ's maleness depends heavily on the masculinity of the Father. This is not male chauvanism (as Dr. Kreeft often notes) but if anything, close to female chauvisnism because it makes all souls female to God, we, as the Church, constitute His Bride. His maleness cannot be understood as Him having a male body (He has no form) but rather by creating ex nihilo, from nothing, He commits an act which is much like the impregnation of a women. He is outside of creation and so must come from outside to give life. (I"m not going to explain each step of impregnation, I can only assume that the "marital act" is reasonably familiar to us all, virgins or otherwise) This fundamental masculinity of the Father is present in (and is the cause of) Christ's maleness.

There cannot be priestesses either for several reasons of the common ecclesiastical good. Not only would massive schism and doubt (were the sacraments I received valid because they were preformed by a women, is that priest validly ordained because he was ordained by a bishopess, etc.) but it would create a doubt as to the entire mission and necessity of the church. If the Church were wrong about someinthg which it held to be true from the time of the apostles (and something which has been defined as being true in recent times) namely that only men can be ordained to the priesthood, what else could it be wrong about? Transubstantiation, confession, sin, the need for forgiveness? and so on and so on. It also creates a slipperly slope, if you can subtract things from the Deposit of Faith because you don't like them, where does it end? If Christ's maleness can be removed today, why not His compassion tomorrow? If Feminism can be read into the Scriptures today, why not Naziism tomorrow? These are pressing questions Ms. Chittister never deals with.

Finally, women cannot be priestesses for reasons fo discernment. The priesthood does not exist to "empower" individuals. It exists to make the sacraments real to the Church. The priesthood is not about power, but about service. One of the Pope's titles is Servus sveorum Dei, that is, Servant of the Servants of God. Priests, like Christ, are sewers who siphon off the sins and refuse of our lives in the confessional. It is not about power or glory. More importantly though, priests do not choose themselves, but are chosen by God, so any vocation which is about "empowerment" is already a problem.

With any luck that was coherent. I've done my best to sum up the Church's reasoning and arguments (with much thanks to Dr. Kreeft), but you should go listen to his lecture on "Women and the Priesthood" because it's much clearer and "awesomer".

God Bless

Victory in the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

jamesamdg.blogspot.com

Lndz123 said some things that perhaps she should reconsider. And luckily (sarcasm?) for her, I'm here to help!

Here’s a few examples of bush using religion TOO much!

 

“My faith tells me that acceptance of Jesus Christ as my savior is my salvation, and I believe I made it clear that it is not the governor's role to decide who goes to heaven. I believe God decides who goes to heaven, not George W. Bush. “

-- Clarifying his relationship with Creation, Austin, Texas, Dec. 3, 1998

 

“Which isn't the America we know? Fear among Muslim Americans or compassion in the Jewish and Christian communities? I'm confused.” – the bush Town hall meeting, Orlando, Florida, Dec. 4, 2001

 

“But one way is for religion to be introduced - is for me - you know, my heart was changed - one heart at a time, my little old heart.“

Incoherently religious in interview, US News & World Report, Dec. 6, 1999

 

“And if you choose to -- if you believe in the Almighty, you can -- you're equally an American. If you're a Jew, Christian or Muslim or Hindi or whatever. It is one of the great traits and traditions of our country, where people can worship the way you see fit. “

--Quote the bush -- “Hindi is a language spoken in India. A Hindu is an adherent of Hinduism.” Oh well. Interview on Larry King Live (CNN), aired Aug. 15, 2004

 

“One of the great things about this country is a lot of people pray. “

-- I guess we're the only Godly country out there ? Washington, D.C., Apr. 13, 2003 The bush

So GWB is using religion too much when he says it's not up to him to decide who goes to Heaven?? Or that it is good that people pray?? SWEET ENOLA GAY!! I can't believe this guy's nerve. Wow, he's so clearly using all that non-specific mention of God and praising religious freedom because he's forcing everyone to become an evangelical! It's so diabolically designed through reverse psychology! Seriiously though, all sarcasm aside, nothing which you posted in even the smallest way alludes to the coercion you have been going on and on about.

How is that wrong at all?

That's what I'm trying to get you to explain.

There’s pages of him referring NOT only to a “GOD” but to a specific religion “Christianity.”

He's a Christian, get over it, he'll talk about Christiainty sometimes. In fact, sometimes it's reporters or members of an audience that ask him about it, so he answers the question. Simply noting the existence of a religion by name isn't coercion. And nothing which you have posted demonstrates otherwise. GWB has also spoken at length to defend religious freedom, in fact several of your quotes are about religious freedom.

So are you saying to me that YOU think a Christian President should be in office? That they are in some ways “better” than another qualified candidate? I don’t think so! We don’t listen to the president for a sermon, we don’t need him to teach us about Jesus ( you have a Preacher at your local church who gets paid to do that job) and it really upsets me knowing that this man (the bush) can’t even quote BIBLE passages but yet he seems to be the most Christian guy since the Pope! Almost like he’s worshipped by Americans for his beliefs.

I think that a Christian head of state is better than a non-Christian head of state. I am a Christian and it would be nice to see my morality (and that of the rest fo the country) represented in the governance fo the country. Representing the majority view is called democracy. I also think that the morality of Christiainity is uperior to that of non Judeo-Christian religions. I am a Christian, remember. If I thought any other religion was more truly inspired by God I would follow it. As an example, let's examine the moral difference between flying jet-liners into skyscrapers into buildings and the bombing of military targets (yes civilian targets get hit, unless you have some suggestion for improving missle technology you must admit that current weapons are more humane than the carpet bombing of World War II, for example). Islam is a religion that has always been comfortable using the sword to expand it's dominion and it hasn't felt any compunction in restricting the rights of non-Muslims living under Muslim governments. There's a term called Dhimmitude, it means that non-Muslims must pay special taxes, cannot build or repair their places of worship and they cannot spread their religions. I think that the US under GWB vastly surpasses the rights given to all under freedom of religion to those given under Islamic governments.

True, they do get teased all the time. BUT YOU TELL ME, do you think it hurts a child WORSE when he gets made fun of for his ugly outfit, bad hair cut OR his religion beliefs?! EVEN POLITICAL beliefs now!!! I had a little friend in school once, Katie and she was a Jew. This was when “praying” in school was still acceptable. The teacher broke out in prayer before lunch one day and I remember glancing over at her and watching her stare at everyone, like “what’s going on?” That young child (who are very impressionable at a young age) was wondering what was going on and how come she couldn’t be part of the group participation. That’s not fair to her OR any other kids sitting in that class that aren’t that particular religion. NOW here’s where the GW b/s comes into play…. Christianity has become the new “popular” thing with politics. Especially CONSERVATIVE republicans! Read a few quotes above if you need some reference… wink.gif My little sister is in kindergarten now and just the other day she told me a little girl came in wearing a Bush sticker! *OH MY GOODNESS!* My mom taught us at a young age not to fall for propaganda like “republicans” throw at you AND I’m sure parents of those “bush lovers” have taught them as well. wink.gif My mom had Kerry signs up in her yard during the election and these teenagers would walk by every day, she said and pull the signs up. She could see them from her kitchen window. NOW YOU AND I BOTH KNOW! That those kids HAVE NO clue about politics and what’s really going on. They have been taught these things (that REPUBLICANS are right and true Christians and that anything else is UN-AMERICAN and democrats are now the NEW baby killers! ROFL!!) and that’s not fair. They’ve been taught that liberals are bad (just like the guy that started this post is being accused of being “evil” and going to hell because he didn’t “think” like them) non-Christians are evil and almost like they’re part of some “higher” more elite class if they believe in what they believe. I don’t get the republican party at all! They “say” they’re for less government but then turn around and make National ID cards (step shy of installing computer chips in you as a baby) and have a new law every other week.

This is completly unrelated to the question I posed you. I asked if you had any statistics to back your assertions that the children of GWB voters were more likely to tease other children and further, if that teasing was more likely to take the form of religous teasing from a Christian perspective.

No, I think I speak with most of the folks here when I say NOPE. I don’t think it’s “OK!” It’s wrong, you’re taking up MY time with God to discuss these crooks! I don’t think so…. When I take my children to church, they’re not going to hear about Bush and Dick’s latest profit gain from this war or about how they’re trying to do away with social security. I want them to hear God’s message and learn all about this wonderful religion. I want them to not only learn it but to live it. Practice it. That’s WHY I think you discussing BUSINESS in church is WRONG!

My actually thought was the discussing of politics in a Church. You would do well to note I say that a priest/pastor forcing his congregation to vote a certain way is immoral. Who do you think that morality can be discussed at all in a Church if the worldly/secualr/political consequences are forbidden?

Dude, I can throw a MILLION and ONE things bush has done wrong and admitted to! Don't even go there...this post will turn into a 5 page essay! lol

1 000 000 001 huh? ok, I'll go there, I would like to see your five pages.

After the death of the pope, The Vatican limited the official delegation to five for the trip. WELL, instead of inviting our FORMER PRESIDENT, Jimmy Carter - whom I'm proud to say was GA's first president elect! - the bush invited Laura Bush (boyfriend killer) and Condi Rice. NOW I'm SORRY BUT PRESIDNT CARTER SO much more deserved that spot that Condi Rice OR Laura Bush! And he DID want to go! That man RAN our country! What have those 2 women done lately? NOT MUCH!! SO sadly, President Carter had to sit out the trip to Rome. That man is OLD and may not be around for many more years....DID Condi Rice REALLY have to be as COLD as she was?!

After all, she had NO relationship with that man whatsoever! Probably never even spoke with him. I'm sure Carter had done at least that much....

I can'T really say why the President chose to do as he did, I don't hang out with him. But I think you must understand that no one forbade Carter from going. GWB did invite a senior member fo the current administration (Condoleeza Rice), his wife, and the two most recent presidents other than himself, George Bush Sr and Bill Clinton. If excluding Carter was a political decision, I would like to know why Clinton was invited?

Did I say that? DID I SAY IN ANY form my way was right? You’re starting to get on my nerves now…and I think you may just be trying to “pick” me apart. Don’t be so anal dude! I didn’t say “my way” was the right way. I said you must use it (religion) in an intelligent way (not throwing it around like the bush) and insightful (perhaps using “GOD” like MLK did to relate to human rights and the basic comparison that we’re ALL EQUALS!) Like I said before, don’t try and put words in my mouth. I think most people understood me when I made that statement

You didn't say it explicitly, but it was more than implicit in your post. You attacked GWB for what you called an bad way of using religion and then you praised some people who you thought did it well. Then you retiterated that it was only ok if it was a good way. You didn't offer anything other than the people you agreed with as using religion in an inteliigent way. Your statements begged the question, is it possible to use religion in an intelligent way while having a different point fo view than your own.

Want all the things he’s done wrong as well James? I can get them for you wink.gif No problem…

Yes please, thanks in advance.

You may “think” that you’re above God in someway,

Huh? Are you saying that I think I'm above God because I think that abortion is murder? Please clarify this statement.

Until you squeeze a 7 lb 8 oz HUMAN out one of your bodily organs you shouldn’t discuss this. And I know you’re gonna come back with the “oh it takes a man to make a baby as well!” REALLY?! So I’ll go ahead and say this. This is the man’s work involved in making a child, he gets a hardy, has HOT sex, orgasms and then sits back to relax. ALL joyful things that require NO real work. So like I said, until your body is a barer of a child… don’t even go there dude.

I'm sorry to burst your sexist little bubble, but if abortion is an issue or murder (as I am contending it is) why can a man not be involved? Can no man be involved in discussing rape as it is predominantly a crime where the victims are female?

If you really believe that a man is in no way involved in the life of a child other than to have sex with the women you are seriously mistaken. Not only does a man play an obvious role in the conception of the child. But he has a God-given responsibility to help and protect the mother during the pregnancy and to provide for her needs. After the birth, he has that same responsibility but with the inlcusion of the child and his or her protection and support.

If you really believe that sex is no more than a joyful physical act you have a great deal of learning to do. Sex is one of the most spiritual things that two human beings can do. While it is certainly (I am told) a wonderful physical sensation, it's also a necessary way in which spouses share their lives and give their love.

Lastly, I am not a Republican. I am not a member of any political party and if I were I still wouldn't be a Republican because their ideology would not adequately represent my social views. Even more than all that though, I am a Canadian, so it's a moot point anyways.

jamesAMDG

Peace and Victory in the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

jamesAMDG.blogspot.com

I really just wanted to clarify a little bit about what the Catholic Church teaches about communion and Transubstantiation.

FredP was essentially right in describing that the essential substance of the bread and wine offered on the altar become the essential substance of Christ. This means that Jesus the Christ is as present in the Eucharist as He was on the cross at Calvary or when He was fishing with the Apostles. I can imagine that for this reason, an ex-Catholic, would have trouble partiicpating in the "communion" of any other group. It must be very hard to forget what Christ taught us in the Gospel of John about the Eucharist. (Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to Saint John, Chapter 6, verses 50-64)

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?

62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

I would imagine that were I to leave the Church I would always some trepidation of participating in a ritual which failed to take these words of the Saviour into account.

But my original intent was to argue over Transubstantiation and what Real Presence mean (when other Christian groups use that term they mean different things that Catholics, by the way) For example, My anglican friend has informed me that she doesn't believe the consecrated bread retains the Presence of Christ after their service. So the change in substance is not irrevocable. The best that you will get out of most Lutherans is a Consubstantiation, that is, the Presence of Christ is really there along with the original substances of bread and wine (or juice and so forth). From this point on, the insistence on Christ being truly and really present is less and less literal)

My original point was about the original meaning and understanding of the Eucharist which was in the Early Church. It is mentioned by several of the early Fathers, (including Ignatisu ofAntioch who probably knew Saint John) that those who were unable through heresy or having not been baptized were unable to recevie the Eucharist.

From Ignatius of Antioch (martyred c. 110)

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

From Justin Martyr

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Before all of these men, of course, there was Saint Paul. Who wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 11, verses 27-29

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

The Eucharist is exclusive because Christianity is exclusive. You must abandon the world for Christ. Those unwilling to do so are not members of the Church in good standing (those who have committed mortal sins) cannot receive because it would be a blasphemy before God and it would be unhealthy for their souls. The Church is therefore not only concerned with profanation of the Sacred Species, but also of the souls of those who would do this. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is sometimes more loving to tell someone not to do something that will be bad so that they will not end up in a worse state by the end.

Victory and Peace in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

jamesAMDG

jamesAMDG.blogspot.com

I want to preface this by saying that I think the Biblical miracles are in fact true eevents which happened but there are a few things I wanted to get some clarification on.

DCJ said

The biblical authors did use different literary genres (narrative, poetic, apocalyptic..) in their writings to communicate truth. But the difference is fairly easy to discern. The gospels and epistles are more narrative. Dr. Luke wrote to give an accurate account of what happened. Paul (the former persecutor of the church) frequently referred to "eyewitnesses".

 

Either Jesus is alive or he is not. If not, I'm wondering how the early church survived in the face of extreme persecution. I don't see any explanation to account for the historical data. I'm curious what alternative meanings the early Christians mused as they were crucified, beheaded, and fed to lions.

I don't think that anyone has provided a reasonable response to these points. When the evangelists cite eyewtinesses or when Peter tells the crowds in the Acts fo the Apostles that the apostles are eyewitnesses and have seen things I'm not sure what other conclusio can be drawn than that they did in fact see them. After all some of the events after the Resurection are pretty mundane, like Jesus cooking some food for the tired apostles or eating some fish with them. Finding the meta-spiritual metaphor in what seems to be written as a dactual account seems like a stretch at best.

cuninglily said

Well, for one thing DC, the Christian martyrs of the early church actually believed that martyrdom would get them into the Kingdom of God, or into heaven.

Uhhmm. yeah they actually did, what with it being in Scripture and what with Jesus saying that those who persevered, even through terrible torments (no servant is greater than the master) just as he did would be in Heaven with the Lord and would be raised up on the Last Day.

This particular madness was widespread during the fourth century and was based on a literal interpretation of the directive, "Take up your cross..." In fact, even more so than other doctrinal differences, this understanding of what it means to "take up your cross and follow Jesus" is what ultimately split the church into orthodoxy and heresy.

The fourth century? Have you read any history? By the fourth century Constantine was the Emperor and eventually the persecutions were ending around the Empire. It was not, contrary to your assertion, the rejection of martyrdom that lead the Gnostics to be considered as heretics.

The Valentinian gnostic Christians, who considered themselves part of the Church and were not interested in separating themselves from it, were condemned as heretics because they believed that "courting" martyrdom was insanity and a literal interpretation of what was meant metaphorically (clearly, the literal versus metaphorical debate has been going on from the beginning).

Their use of non-canonical Scripture (read what Saint Iraneaus has to say about the number of Gospels for example in Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies)). Their rejectio of the Old Testament, their assertion that the "God" of the Old Testament was a defective semi-god called the Demiurge, their incorporation of over 30 "eons" who took the place of gods, their elitism based on "gnosis" or knowledge held in secret by them and the "elect" and so on. You can read the works of Saint Irenaeus or Tertullian or other early Fathers. Both of whom were writing at the end of the second and beginning of the third century.

We, it seems to me, need to understand what it may have meant to the minds of the biblical authors to be "abandoned to the grave" or to "see decay and corruption". For instance, there was a widespread belief in reincarnation in the early church, which in time, of course, became heresy. Those who were thought to be Divinized were those who had transcended the wheel of birth and death and knew corruption no more. We do not know with any certainty whether the OT authors adhered to this belief or not. There are scriptural indications that were not excluded from the canon that suggest that some did. This would lend a completely different perspective on what "decay and corruption" may have meant in the minds of the authors.

What can you offer as proof that the Early Church believed in reincarnation? For example, Saint Paul clearly contradicts it in Scripture (Letter of Saint Paul to the Hebrew 9,27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:" .

And the Early Fathers wrote against it too. You should read Early Church Fathers on Reincarnation . You should read the actual article as it is quite long and detailed (which is why I didn't post it)

Victory and Peace in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

jAMDG

jamesAMDG.blogspot.com

So, it would seem that laziness couldn't keep me away for too long.

I think there are several ideas which have been talked about in this thread are worth commenting on.

Lndz123 said

And about Martin Luther King's approach to using God in his speeches... He (King) was fighting for civil rights. He WAS a preacher! He was fighting for understanding, love and togetherness and RIGHTS for black Americans. All the principles of good Christian belief. He wasn't the President of the US and I'm SURE he didn't try and IMPOSE his beliefs onto anyone. If "God" was the extent of his mixing religion and politics then he did a fairly well job at it. He didn't "poke" fun at other religions or anything of the sort.

Yes, Martin Luther King, Jr was a preacher and sure he had a cause that I think we both find noble. But I think you're letting your affection for his cause colour your interpretation of events. Are you saying that religion can only enter politics for the rights of Blacks?

Surely, you realise that attempting to change the prevailing political system through the changing of laws (as well as hearts and minds) is in fact attempting to impose (or more gently, teach) your values to others? If he didn't want to convince others of his values he would never have done anything. Convincing someone is imposing your beliefs on someone, especially if you manage to convince enough people (but certainly not the total of a population) into changing laws. I'm sure there are more than a few Klan members who feel pretty darn imposed upon!

We can change the argument to the acceptable limits of coercion in politics generally or the role that religion can play in that coercion. But your statement of facts is simply wrong.

Our LEADERS SHOULDN'T discuss a "particular" religion, especially when they are supposedly addressing a Nation of MANY religions! Our leaders represent a vast majority of different people with different ideas and understandings. The idea of another religion SHOULD NEVER be imposed onto someone. And who's the imposing leader you may ask? Bush is the #1 guy! dry.gif

 

Children attending school get ridicule from other children because they are "Jewish" or "Muslims." This is b/s and is SO sad! Their parents (mostly bush lovers) feed them with this propoganda that you're not as good as the other person if you don't believe in Jesus and THEIR GOD. This is just absurd. The Bible teaches that ANYONE can be forgiven. I don't "look down" on my Jewish neighbor because they believe differently than me. Everyone was brought up a different way so don't be so quick to judge. That's God's job remember? They can't help that's what they've been taught since the day they were born! Imagine someone telling you YOUR religion is wrong and you aren't a good person because of that? I would never "judge" someone according to their beliefs and I hope they would do the same.

If you can find any instances of George W. Bush insisting that other people become Christians I would like to hear/read them.

As far as children being teased over religion goes, kids get teased over all sorts fo things at school. It's not particularly good, but kids'll just make fun of the "fatty" next or whatever. Using the schoolyard behaviour of children seems a weak way to support your remark about GW Bush imposing his religion on others. Further, I would like to know where you got the statistics for the assertion that the children of people who voted for GWB are more likely to tease and ridicule other children based on their religion. This is more than a straw man you've constructed here.

Lastly, humans can judge (St. John 7.24 comes to mind). The Scriptures clearly state that humans not only can judge, but should judge - but only in exterior actions, as it is God who will judges the thoughts and hearts of others.

And the CHURCH is not a place for POLITICAL agenda's as well as OUR WHITE HOUSE is not a place for RELIGIOUS talk

Surely, you can agree that discussing political matters in a Church is ok (I would agree that a priest, etc. forcing his congreation to do something is a violation of conscience) But why not discuss politics in a Church? What better place to consider our worldly goals than in the light of our highest ideals?

I would rather my children learn about good, love and peace through my pastor rather than a MONEY, grubbing, war loving little man!

I think that unless you are/were a personal confidante of the President, that you might have trouble making this not look like a judgement of someone's heart and thoughts.

Nobody cares which God bush believes in!

You clearly do or you wouldn't devote so much time and space to attacking him.

He doesn't take in other Countries opinions and doesn't exemplify his religous beliefs!

These two statements are non-sequiters. Neither ha a relatio to the other. But barring that, it is posible to consider someone's opinion and then disagree with it and continue with your original plan of action.

He doesn't exemplify what you think is a Christian life. But, if you consider yourself part of the progressive camp and ascribe to the 8 points, You can't really talk smack about the way someone else lives their faith. That would be not allowing them to live "their way to the God realm"

Right, you CAN use religion in politics but only in an intelligent, insightful way.

But only your way is intelligent and insightful? That seems somewhat conceited.

geekforlife

Well, yall the reason i said keep the politics out of religion is that where I live most folks say you can't be a liberal and still be a christian. That kind of talk has no place in church.

Well, I guess it would depend how you define liberal. If you mean it in a classical sense I would say that liberalism and Christianity can be very compatible. If however, you mean the more modern version, with the approval of sinful ways of life and the destruction of the concept of marriage, or the legalisation of murder against the unborn, or the prevailing moral relativism of the elites then I think it is impossible to be a Christian in good conscience while holding those positions.

Victory and Peace in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

jAMDG

jamesAMDG.blogspot.com

BeachofEden

James, You keep stressing to US how the Catholic churche's man-made dogmas mean alot to YOU..and WE keep stressing you that the Catholic churches man-made dogmas do NOT mean alot to us. As I said before, as Pregressive Christians we do NOT care about the man-made rules of the fundamental churches, be they fundamental catholic, Fundamental Protestants, JWs or Mormon...

Two things are important about what you said. Fisrtly, seeing as it was you and not myself who started this thread, it would seem that what the Catholic Church teaches (and the person teaching it, our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI) is important enough for you to write about it and engage me in a discussion.

It would also seem that you are trying to get in a back-door insult by calling the dogmas fo the Church man-made. You must know that as a Catholic I will say that dogmas are defined by men as revealed by the Holy Ghost. However, the 8 points which you quoted are clearly human-made as I can quote from the .pdf document available on the front page of the site,

In September of 1996, the TCPC Advisory Committee and Board of Directors

formulated "The Eight Points", as they are now affectionately called.

So I'm not really sure what the thrust fo your idea is in calling Catholic dogma man-made as your own religious views clearly fall within the same category.

I'm not going to comment on the first two points you offer because it would get into more technical Christology then I realy feel like doing for you to say something to the effect of it being just my opinion. I would however like to comment on two things though,

4. Invite all sorts and conditions of people to join in our worship and in our common life as full partners, including (but not limited to):

 

believers and agnostics,

conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,

homosexuals and heterosexuals,

females and males,

the despairing and the hopeful,

those of all races and cultures, and

those of all classes and abilities,

 

without imposing on them the necessity of becoming like us;

The Catholic Church is always open to all people, as God has called all people through the Church to Christ His Son in whom Salvation is found. However, the Catholic Church, because it still believes in sin, says that those who choose to follow God must renounce their sins, and amend their lives (a usually long process) so as to be more completely conformed to the Divine Will. Secondly, all people all called to be full partners in the roles which have been established for them. In the same way that women are more able as family care-givers men also have certain roles they are alled to fulfill. Being a full partner in the life of the Church means living fully the vocation which God gives each of us, be it as a religious (brother or sister), married person, single person or priest.

Because you bolded the fifth point I'm sure it is what you are trying to impress upon me, specifically that you think my "treatment" of some people is wrong and that my faith isn't as important as what you call inequitable treatment.

5. Think that the way we treat one another and other people is more important than the way we express our beliefs;

In a strictly local sense I believe that I have always treated you, and the other people on this board with respect (which includes honesty). Respect and love doesn't mean that you always acede to someone else's will or say that something which is wrong is right. Surely there more is love in helping someone to be better than to allow them continue on a wrong path.

In a more general sense, I think that by treating people as individuals is important and I do my best to be respectful and loving in all my personal relationships. No doubt there are times that I fail to be Christ-like, I am not perfect and I have never claimed this as one of my attributes. I am somewhat confused though about you can presume to talk about my personal life and the relationships I have seeing as you only know me in internet forum posts (as far as I know I don't know you personnally)

We don;t care about their theological differences. As Progressives we only care that these 3 fundamental groups you quoted above do not honor the above 8 points of social justice.

I've noticed you don't seem to care about the differences that exist in the three groups named. It seems clear to me that you don't care about the legitimate differences which exist outside of your monolithic view of social justice. I'm sorry that you aren't able to see that just because someone doesn't agree with you it doesn't mean they agree with or are the same as everyone else who doesn't agree with you.

I guess some of this has been redundant with what FredP wrote. Sorry if it's too repetetive, but I wanted to make sure that I spoke for myself as well. Thanks to FredP though, it's nice to see that there are other progressives who don't just want to insult me and the Church.

Victory and Peace in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

jAMDG

jamesAMDG.blogspot.com

curlytop,

haha, it was long because I've been so slack in posting. I had a lot of ground to make up.

They were welcomed to serve as priests in the Catholic Church. So we actually do have some married priests in the Catholic Church.

You are right, I copied too much when I pasted about married priests. A celibate priesthood (in the Latin Rite) is strictly a discipline and could theoretically be changed. A person can hold the opinoin that married priests would be a good thing (as far as I can tell) and still be a Catholic in good standing.

However, I take issue with your reference to the "ordinations" carried out by Bishop Felix Davidek. Cardinal Vlk who conceded that Bishop Davidek did these things also noted that Bishop Davidek had "abused" the trust the Holy See gave him in making ordinations and that the Holy See has worked to "contain the disastrous activity" of those Bishops while noting that the Czech Church, "bears the burden of the situation created by Blaha and Davidek." (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=586) He clearly believes that these ordinations were invalid (as are any ordinations, even if made by valid Bishops, if they don't conform to Church teachings)

Women in the priesthood has taken on the aspect of an infallible teaching, besides the quotes from Sacred Scripture that I offered to BeachofEden there is also the Apostolic Letter "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" issued by Pope John Paul II in 1994.

This is paragraph 4

4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Please note the part I conveniently underlined.

So, this is not a topic open to discussion and it has been defined by the Pope.

The formal and deliberate rejection of a dogma (a doctrine that is considered infallible) is an act of heresy. This is not to say, however, that dogmas are beyond critical evaluation or immune from development. Not every dogma was originally expressed in the best form. A dogma can reflect 'the changeable conceptions of a given epoch' and as such is open to improvement and development."

While certain understandings of a dogma may deepen, it can never mean the opposite of what it once meant. It is now a dogma that women cannot be ordained, therefore, no developpement can reverse that, although we may one day more fully understand this teaching.

Remember that some our our most revered saints, like Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, were once held in extreme disregard by the Inquisition, the precursor of today's Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

You can add many Saints to that list, Saint Pio of Petrelcina comes to mind. But those Saints all submitted themselves to the judgement fo the Church with obediance (unlike Matthew Fox, for example). Nor did any of them, as far as I know, engage in publicly disagreeing with a dogma of the Church.

We should not be so quick to judge who is and who is not a "Catholic in good standing."

We are required to judge the things around us according to their fruit (Gospel according to Saint Matthew 7, 15-20). When someone advocates contradicting the clear dogma of the Church, somehow taking the Church from the heirarchy, etc. Their fruits are clearly before us and we havea duty to discern/judge whether they are false prophets appearing as sheep but who are in fact ravening wolves seeking to divide and destroy. I stand by my judgement of those fruits.

Victory and Peace in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

jAMDG

jamesAMDG.blogspot.com

So I'm not really sure why my quote tags used to work but they don't seem to work in my posts anymore. Any sugesstions as I am already using the quote button to add the tags so I don't think they're caused by typos.

thanks in advance.

Victory and Peace in the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

jamesAMDG

jamesAMDG.blogspot.com

Sorry about the lateness of my reply, busyness + final exams + general laziness have all contributed to me not having so much free time. I'll do my best to stay a little more current in the future. I'll also try to get replies to several posters into this one.

BeachofEden:

So let me address this by replying..I don't give a damn about your trinatiatian verses unitarian theology debate..and that this has NOTHING to do with these social justice issues I am talking about...so please, you 3 fundamental faith groups, don;t do a switch and bait with me.

I'm not switch and baiting anything, I'm simply saying that from a theological point of view that JWs, evangelical Protestants and Catholics are quite different. And in many areas, eccliosology (the organization of the Church), sacramentology, reference to and interpretation of Scripture, recognition and interpretation of Tradition, and so on.

In STARK contrast to YOUR FAITH...as with these other 2 fundamental faith groups...Progressive Christianity does NOT limit one from being a priest/elder based on their gender or age.

It's frankly irrelevant what YOUR version of "Progressive Christianity" does or doesn't do. I thought we were talking about what the Catholic Church does and and what the new Pope can and can't do. Do you really think that you can define what all people who define themselves as Progressives Christians believe? Gee, seems sort of like you have taken some serious authroity upon yourself.

Has there EVER been a Pope that was black? Or female? Neither has there been a president of the watchtower society that has been black or female. Humm... Besides, I did not know that for me or anyone to simply state this obvious FACT made them sexist or racist. If I ignored this FACT than would that make me tolerant?

There ahve in fact been three African Popes, all of whom are canonized Saints; Pope Saint Victor 1, Pope Saint Gelasius 1 and Pope Saint Militades 1. Whether they were black or not I couldn't tell you as I've never met them, and frankly it wasn't important enough to the Church to note it, as I said before, the Church is more worried about a Holy Pope than the colour of his skin (and certainly we haven't always lived up to using holiness as a factor in the election of Pope, so you can keep your Chick comic attack on that to yourself, thank you) You know very well that there has never been a woman Pope, this is because the Pope is a priest and the Bishop of Rome (being a Bishop necessitates being a priest) and seeing as women priests are a theological impossiblilty... well you get the idea. Saying that the Pope is a white man isn't racist or sexist, your implication that he will be less holy or less able to represent the members of Christ's Church based on those facts is, as is your implication that a non-white and non-masculin Pope would be more able to represent the entire Church based simply on the colour of their skin and their "accessories". So let's not play bait and switch, hmm?

How about YOU show us YOUR statisics? Show US WHEN a Pope has ever been black or female.

I have already noted three African Popes, there may well have been black Popes whose portraits we don't have. As I noted skin colour isn't the first thing that the Holy Spirit looks for. But more importantly, I don't need to prove anything. You are the one who has been making accusations about who does x work and so on and so forth. As in any reasonable debate, it is incumbent on the accuser to provide facts, think about a court of law for a good analogy.

Really? Is their gender a reflection of their "holiness"? And how do you define "holiness"? That they walk on water? Or that a halo appear over their head?

Certainly anyone who displayed either of those qualities during their lifetimes would probably count as holy (although Satan can and does work counterfeit miracles, so they would still need to be investigated) Holiness (as best as humans can determine it) can be seen examining a person's private and public lives. But it would seem you're looking for a bumper sticker answer, and I can't give it to you. Perhaps the useof a popular deifnition of pornography can be useful here, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

Or the pictures. They say a picture worth a 1,000 words.

And finctional characters are fictional... please step back towards reality.

Or how about, "Well, you Unorthodox!" Or "You're A Cult!" Or "My God bigger than your God!"

The only one of those things I've ever said is that certain opinions are unorthodox, I've used Scripture and Tradition to explain why I (and the Church) give such a judgement. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but I've done my best to explain my sources and my reasonings, I'll try harder in the future.

Well, if you if you think Mathhew Fox is a heathen..then you would not like us any better either because we question religious authority here. We constanly "thumb our nose" at fundamental faith group leaders by following Paul's advice given to the Boreans to "Check and see if what we are being told is really so or not." Acts 17:11.

The difference between yourselves (as far as I know) and Matthew Fox is that he took vows of poverty, chastity and obediance to God. These vows are lived in a variety of ways, but a vow of obediance is binding on the individual conscience who takes it and includes immediate superiors in religious life. He broke his vows to God and to his superiors, that's a major difference.

As a side note, the Bereans checked what Paul said by referencing Scripture, not by discounting it and then quoting the Jesus Seminar, John Spong or any of the other usual suspects in heresy.

Please give a reference.

 

http://www.cbeinternational.org

These aren't references to women being ordained. This is a bunch of modernist biblical interpretation. The fact that women were in the Church and worked in a variety of ministries isn't a revelation, its true, the same way women work ina variety fo ministries today. It certainly doesn't folow that they can receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Read what Paul has to say about a few women fulfilling priestly roles such as teaching...

First letter of Paul to Timothy 2,11-14

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.

14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression.

First letter of Paul to the Corinthians 14,34-38

34 Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak but to be subject, as also the law saith.

35 But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

36 Or did the word of God come out from you? Or came it only unto you?

37 If any seem to be a prophet or spiritual, let him know the things that I write to you, that they are the commandments of the Lord.

38 But if any man know not, he shall not be known.

It seems unlikely to me that a woman could give a homily or say Mass while keeping silent.

Yeah, thank God! Just think of all those poor people in Mexico not having one child after another. They might actually rise out of poverty!

Yeah, imagine all those poor people being told that because they are not simple animals, but rather rational beings that they can choose their actions. Imagine, people being chaste, or using NFP (Natural Family Planning) and only making love during periods of infertility. I know, it's a bombshell by saying that even poor people can be responsible, but thats what the Church teaches.

Is fobidding birth controll and allowing women to be priests doctines or merely diferneces of opion or are both one and the same?

Both are matters of doctrine and not simply disciplines (like married clergy in the Latin rite) and therefore are not matters of opinion.

and don;t forget if you happened to see sexism or racism happening then simply the mere act of admitting that you SAW this makes you also racist or sexist.

So are you slandering me by saying I'm a racist and a sexist by noting your reliance on them as debate tactics? Or is it an admission of your guilt when you try and point fingers at the Church?

des:

Yes, Matt Fox describes Jesus as "weak". I think this statement is taken out of context to mean not divine or incarnate. I think the point Matt Fox makes is that God really takes human form by taking on the weakness of human beings; the compassion of human beings; etc. After all he did get crucified, if he had really been "strong", he could have avoided this. I think you are misinterpreting an idea of anti-machoism

Well, I think that in consideration of the rest of Matthew Fox's work your assertion is hard to bear out, but you didnt address his assertion that Christ was "imperfect". God is perfect, it is on of the charateristics of God. Christ showed his strength and perfection as God in going through with the Crucifixion. I'm not entertaining any idea of machismo, im simply saying that if Jesus the Christ is in fact God, he cannot be imperfect.

RE: artificial birth control. What about AIDs in Africa, esp

Contraception is wrong because it destroys the nature fo the sexual act by attempting to remove on of the aspects that are necessarily part of natural sexuality, that is the possibility of reproduction during fertile periods of a woman's cycle. As far as AIDS in Africa, a great deal of African AIDS is a result of infections acquired during medcail treatment (please see here http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=20030) and rampant promiscuity. Examine if you will the AIDS infectio rates of some of the least Catholic countries in Africa (and in the world for that matter) Sawziland, South Africa and Botswana. These are the countries that have the highest rates of HIV/AIDS infection in Africa and the lowest numbers of practicing Catholics. An excellent article can be found here (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA993.htm) The author is not a Catholic and notes how he left the Church in the past. He makes several strong points against the MSM claim that the Church is behind the spread of AIDS/HIV due to its stance against condoms.

Well he has some nicknames: The Enforcer, etc. He was the hatchet man for the pope.

When I say the media is already clamouring against Pope Benedict XVI you note his nicknames, who do you think gave him those nicknames? Who do you think has gotten him known as "The Enforcer" etc.?

curlytop (and Suzanne Camino, although I doubt she'll read this)

Gay marriage? I'm all for it. Women priests? We need them desperately. Married clergy? It's time.

Anyone who holds this opinions is not a Catholic in good standing, you can't contradict doctrine and then say you'Re stilla Catholic. A person can hold those ideas and a person can be a Catholic, but they can't be both.

in the shadow of politicians denied the body of Christ for their political stands,

Thier political stands? Would that be the stands which condemn a child to death if its mother chooses to have its head orn off in an abortuary? or perhaps just to have its skull pirced and its brain sucked out? Political stand my eye, thats a moral stand (and evil one while we're on it)

How someone can think that murdering a child is ok and then complain that there's a war on against people who would make it illegal to posess a New Testament is bewildering to me.

It was a church that celebrated the reforms of Vatican II

Pope Benedict XVI was one of the thologians who assisted at the Council (and Pope John Paul II was one of the Bishops who helped write the documents) by saying that neither of these men understand the council as well as a layperson is simply false.

It would be also nice to see references given by these people (from the Council's documents) about exactly what parts of the Council aren't being implemented. Something other than their cracked assertions about the "spirit" of Vatican II.

This was a church where women were emerging from their invisible, supportive roles to become leaders, to preach the gospel from the pulpit,

Women cannot preach the Gospel during Mass, its clearly in the rubrics that only the priest can do that. If there is no priest a lay presider may do so, but it isn't the Holy Sacrifice fo the Mass.

I felt immediately at home. I didn¹t know exactly why. Months later it hit me: This was what my catechism teachers, my pastors, and my own experience of church‹the mainstream Catholic church-- had led me to expect. I knew that this congregation and their pastor would be considered radical Catholics by today¹s standards,

ACtually, anyone who preaches that women can be priests would be a heretic because they have an opinion contrary to defined dogma by the Church. A person may not like that being the case, but it is. The Church after all, can make laws that are binding on its members. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other places to go.

I didn't move away from the church; the church moved away from itself /QUOTE]

 

On wonders if the author can offer any proof for this, or if it's simply her opinoin about what the Church is. Why is that there are never any references to Church documents, Scripture and Tradition offered with this tripe?

 

I guess that's all for now.

 

May God bless us all and may the Holy Spirit reveal all Truth to those who earnestly seek it. May the prayers of Mary and all the Saints and Angels protect us and obtain for us the graces we need in our lives.

 

Victory and Peace in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

jAMDG

 

jamesAMDG.blogspot.com

I seem to have touched several nerves for BeachofEden.

You know, I really don;t know why your fundamental Catholic Church,

I'm a fundamentalist because I believe what the Church teaches? It's like I'm talking to the entire MSM (mainstream media).

Gee and what do these all have in commom? OLD< WHITE MEN.

I think it's very telling that you would equate authentic Catholicism with Evangelical Protestantism and the Watchtwoer group. It shows how little you actually understand the argument you're supporting. There are very large differences between these groups in organisation, authority, and theology. I hope you don't really think that we would all fit nicely into your cookie-cutter.

The OLD WHITE MEN scream, what could be less exiciting than an argument based on the age of the person's involved and the colour fo their skin. I hope you don't mind me saying this, but your attitude is incredibly ageist, racist and sexist. As if somehow the only people who can represent other people are young (by your definition) non-white women.

And I'm sure you have some statistics about the number of cardinals who aren't white to back this up right? And the number of non-whites who are in Roman Curia (the Church's beaurocracy) is equally small I'm sure, but I'd still like to see some statistics. Of course, even if you could provide these statistics (which you can't) you would still need to explain to me how a white man can't represent non-white women (and men) but that the inverse argument would be true, that a non-white woman (or man) coul represent all white men (and women). Secondly, You fail to notice that the colour of a person's skin isn' necesarily a reflection of their holiness, and I don't know about you but I would rather of a holy Pope before any other adjectives get added on.

3. The nuns in Catholics do most of the work of teaching the kids and helping the poor but only the men giet all the glory of being priests and bishops.

If you could please provide me with some sort of reputable statistic on this, I'd be much more inclined to discuss it further.

Why don't you go back to your Death Star and plan how you'll crush this rebellion known as the 21st century.

Nothing like one more ad hominem attack just to make sure I got the point right?

I really appreciate your argument being based on one man's physical resemblance to a fictional character and I'm struck by how much it reminds me of a child throwing a tantrum an finally screaming "Well, you're..... UGLY! So there!" Awesome.

Lolly:

Shouldn't you be doing this on the debate board?

I usually stay in the debate room, but BeachofEden decided that she should attack His Holiness in here and I couldn't let it go without a defense (however unworthy all my actions might be in service fo the Church, I've still got a duty to try)

des:

I certainly don't see anything as debasing of Jesus or just claiming he is a nice guy.

He claims Jesus was not omniscient (a charateristic of God) by saying that He "was always looking for wisdom to grow in wisdom" and says that He was "weak and imperfect" (contradicting the doctrine of God's perfection) Both of those quotes are from the book Original Blessing and can be found on pages 307 and 122 respectively. Further, in his book A Spirituality named Compassion (p 34) he makes Jesus' divinity dependant on his outward charateristics, "Jesus is not so much compassionate because he is divine as he is divine because he is compassionate... And did he... not teach others that they too were... divine because they are compassionate." He twists the meaning of divine from an attribute propre to God to one proper to any good person. At best Jesus is a good guy who is in touch with the natural world, that's heresy by the deinfition of heresy and blasphemy in Catholicism because it contradicts a dogma and because it insults (in this case lowers) God from His eternal position.

My understanding is he got in trouble for supporting liberation theology, believing in original blessing, and having a wiccan on his staff (and possibly mostly for the latter).

Neither of these things helped. Generally when you encourage things that wiser men than yourself have told you are no good, they bring some sort of sanction against you.

I think if he had taken the wiccan off his staff he prob. would have been happily accepted.

If you discount the heresy, blasphemy and constant thumbing of his nose at the Vatican.

I have heard of women priests in the old ancient church

Please give a reference.

Artificial birth control was almost allowed.

Thank God it wasn't. If you read Pope John Paul II's work on human sexuality, also called Theoogy fo the Body you will understand why removing one of the two apsects of sexuality is a gross distortion of the sexual act.

From what I understand the CC is a bit bigger tent than James will say. Sure there are conservatives, like James. But there are moderates and liberals as well.

there is all kinds of space in the Church for differences of opinon, but only on the things that there can be a difference on. Dogmas and doctrines are right out, disiplines and small-t traditions are all up for grabs (well discussion anyways)

I actually think there is a conservative streak right now in society

I disagree, and the MSM is a classic example, if there is so much conservatism why has Pope Benedict been so roundly attacked by mainstream papers, television, etc. before he has even acted on anything as Pope? The MSM is already screaming about how conservative he is and how people will be driven from the Church, but he hasn't done anything yet.

And as sleep sings me her siren song, I'm out for tonight,

Victory in the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary

jamesAMDG

jamesamdg.blogspot.com

It's that they claim to hold the flawless understanding on Christianity

No, its the clear thrust of EVERYTHING that has been known has Christianity since the time fo the apostles. If you don' like it, tough.

and the the rest of us who dare voice that we think women should treated equal and that all other faiths are not cults..and considered the "heathens."

The opressed victim card, what an argument based on reason. Women not having certain priviledges is not "treating" them unequally, but rather recognizing that men and women are different. Men can't bear children, men lack much of a women's instinct for direct care. Taking stock of observable truths isn't discrimination, it's calling aspade a spade.

Umm. me and Ath leard ALOT about claiming to have found all "The TRUTH" when we were in JW.

The difference of course between the JWs and Catholics is that Catholics are right. Try reading Scripture and learning about Tradition.

Progressive christians don;t claim to have aquired the flawless interpretations of the TRUTH" cause we understand that all human beings are imperfect.

That's right, "progressives" don't believe in pesky things like truth, except when they're slamming the leader of a religion they aren't even a part fo and demanding that he come over to their understanding. Arg. Why is there a thread about evanglizing "conservatives" in this forum if you don't believe that you have the truth?

"On "democracy in the Church": As I noted above there are things that cannot change, for example, there haven't been and there will not be women priests, thre is NO precedent for it in Tradition..-"

 

In tradition..you are right there is not.

 

"and none in Scripture."

 

On this you are VERY WRONG. Disciples of Christ pastor John Temple Bristow wrote a book called, "What Paul Really Said>" and in it he PROVES by SCRIPTURES that there WERE INDEED '3' women pastors/elders/priest who served SIDE BY SIDE WITH PAUL, and '2' of them ARE mentioned in the BIBLE BY NAME.

Because women are named in the bible as helping the apostles, they must have been priests? What an argument, read what the Church Fathers (yeah, those guys who knew the apostles) had to say about women's ordination.

Woopy-do. We don;t give a damn about what Pope this or that said. Or what Billy Graham says, Jerry Felwell, Bob Jones or the JW organization says...We only care about what Jesus said.

My point, was that his writings are authoratative for Catholics. This means that Catholics cannot take a contrary position while remaining faithful Catholics. Anyone else can do as they please, but the issue has been settled in the Church.

"on "tenability" : fatherman was right, things won't change because the world wants them to, frankly the world needs to realise that anyone who doesn't want to be a Ctholic isnt being forced to stay, however, if there consceinces are being picked about leaving, that could be some actual grace trying to get you into a confessionnal and back on the straight and narrow as it were. "

 

Oh HOW RICH! If I had a buck for everytime a JW said that to me!

Man, what a devastating response. Please, don't feel obliged to use facts, reason or history to refute me, the ad hominem is much more effective.

Teacher? Is that all your pope is to you? Besides Jesus said that he would leave us with a HELPER. And WHAT did Jesus say this HELPER was? A "POPE"? BILLY GRAHAM? No He siad it was THE HOLY SPIRIT.

The Pope holds a special place of teaching within the Church, being as he chosen under the inpiration of the Holy Spirit, he carries on the Office of Teaching and Authority held by Saint Peter. As a side note, if you don't believe you need teachers, just the Holy Ghost, why do you read John Spong's books, or Marcuz Borg, or even bother with this forum. Why aren't you just off doing what the Holy Ghost is telling you do to?

So it would seem. So why are YOU HERE? To educate all of us heathen Progressives that we'd better become fundamental catholics or ELSE? We have all been there and done that and left.

I've been through this before. I'm on this board for a number of reasons. Firstly, I find the "progressive" make-it-up-as-we-go-along version of Christianity fascinating (and sometimes ridiculous), I'm here to defend the Christ and His Church (and her ministers, like right now) to provide a counterpoint that isn't the rabid caraciature of a "conservative" (read: anyone that disagrees with us) against which you all fight so strenously and finally, sure if I was able to help someone come to the Church I'd be happy, after all, spreading the Gospel is a duty of every Christian.

Sexism against women? Hatred towards gays? Ban on birth controll? Man seuxally attacking boys because they can't marry?

Sexism because women have different God-given roles than men? Hatred towards gays because their actions are sinful (does the Church also "hate" men and women who have sex before marriage? or what about thieves, do we "hate" them too?), I tried to articulat ethe Church's teaching Birth Control but was told I couldn't because it was in a thread on abortion, I tried to explain why sexuality and abortion and contraception are all part of a set of teachings that necessarily go together, but no one wanted to hear it. ANd of course, the best card fo them all, some priests have abused people (children, adults, etc.) and you think it's because they can't get married? No married man has apparently ever abused a child, and certainly no other member of a religious group has ever done that... please.

Victory in the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary

jamesAMDG

jamesamdg.blogspot.com

Seeing as there hasn't been an orthodox (I think I am anyways) Catholic voice yet in this thread I guess it's my turn to blather.

I'm not goign to actually quote anyone in particular because I think several people have raised several issues (and I don't want to have to scroll back through all the pages of replies either)

On "fundamentalism" - As Pope Benedict XVI said about orthodoxy becoming seen as fundamentalism in our day, that'S defaintely whats happening in this conversation. As a Cardinal he stood up to people saying and doing un-Catholic things while claiming to be Catholics (as theologians, priests, brothers, etc.) because it was his job. It isn't necessarily a reflection of the way that he will be act as a Pope, although I'm sure that he won't be loosy-goosy about doctrine because, frankly, if you stop calling Truth true, then you're in a whole mess of trouble. After all, Isaiah said (5.20) Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

It is therfore necessary to protect the core and foundational truths of the Faith (the doctrine and dogma which cannot change but is sometimes clarified and more deeply understood: for example, the Immacualte conception as an idea dates back to at least the 3rd century, it just wasn't confirmed as being true until Pius IX declared it in 1854) and that was his job in a proxy way as the Prefect fot the COngregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and in a direct way as Pope. After all, he is now responsible for EVERY soul on earth. this means fo course that he can't say homosexuality is anything other than a "grave cross to bear" (from the Catechism) and that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disorderd". Further, he has to say that the wholeness of Christ's truth subsists in the Catholic Church because it was the Church founded by Christ on the Apostles and propagated by their successors (the Bishops of today).

On "democracy in the Church": As I noted above there are things that cannot change, for example, there haven't been and there will not be women priests, thre is NO precedent for it in Tradition and none in Scripture. Pope John Paul II was very clear on this in his writings about the the sacrament of Holy Orders.

on "Anthony de Mello and otheres who were censured": He advocated things that were clearly heretical, saying for example that Christians must engage in essentially TM (transcednetal Meditation) and other "visualisation" excersises which ahve no precedent in Christianity but rather in Pagan religions. Matt Fox left the Catholic Church because he realized he was no longer a Catholic and couldn't therfore continue what he was doing. His writings continaully exalt Nature while debasing Christ, and reducing Him, essentially, to a nice guy. Nothing could be clearer heresy, as Catholics we are required to believe that Christ is THE Saviour of humanity and that there are no roads (that we can seek) to Heaven other than Him (I don't really want to get into invincible ignorance right now).

on "tenability" : fatherman was right, things won't change because the world wants them to, frankly the world needs to realise that anyone who doesn't want to be a Ctholic isnt being forced to stay, however, if there consceinces are being picked about leaving, that could be some actual grace trying to get you into a confessionnal and back on the straight and narrow as it were.

on "people beign too supid to decide for themselves and wanting someone to tell them what to do" : Humbug! is listening to a teacher weak? does ti imply some sort fo decifieciency? of course not! When the teacher is teaching you listen, when hes right you agree, not because he said it, but because his argument is strong and true. Thats what the Pope does, he informs consciences , then we have to act on that.

on "conservatives, moderates and so on": the Church would never use words like conservative and moderate but the Church constantly talks about Orthodoxy and heterodoxy/heresy. If something is untrue it has no place with that which is true. But if believeing true things while rejecting untrue things isn't moderate or progressive, then I guess I'll never be a moderate or a progressive.

I cant think of any other ones, so I'll leave it here.

Victory in the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart fo Mary

jamesamdg

jamesamdg.blogspot.com