The Lowdown On Joseph Ratzinger

[BeachOfEden]

There's also an evil Pope in LadyHawk who is the villian in the movie.

[darby]

While the CC doesn't necesarrily ID with one label or another, I don't think this pope is way on the extreme of the foundational teachings of the Catholic Church, and there are all these other people in the middle. Like them or not, aren't his teachings are more in line with orthodox, traditional, foundational teachings?

 

I think it was DCJ who made a point in a similar discussion--in this debate, who moved? Is he, or the church, at fault if they are simply believing/maintaining the core, traditional beliefs of the catholic church. Why is it not ok, for example, for them not to bend on abortion, if it has been a core belief forever (I think it has).

 

Alethia, yes the church includes the leadership and those in the pew. But as I said earlier, any group (TCPC, Unity church, SBC, Communist Party, Rotary Club) has SOME foundational beliefs that they feel quite strongly about. When we (those on the outside or inside of the group) begin to disagree with some of those core beliefs, why is it they, and not we, who need to change? Or start a different group.

 

On the leadership issue, while I believe in the priesthood of the believer, I also believe it is biblical that there is authority and leadership in the church. I know there have been great abuses of leadership, and I know that saddens God. But good leadership, servant leadership (like Jesus) is still Biblical, and very needed in the church, IMO.

[BeachOfEden]

Do you have a link to a pic? I actually haven't seen him. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Here Aletheia, I made this for you.

"Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design."

[des]

I think something might be said for "strict foundationalistic" views being "good" for the Catholic church, after all lots of people seem to find it being attractive in protestantism (or are they finding something else in it, vs the fundamentalist views-- for example, many of these churches are seeker friendly, friendly towards visitors, and that sort of thing).

 

AS for changing the doctrine, well it seems to me the Catholic church has changed their doctrine lots of times. I think prior to the late 1800s, the pope was not considered to be infallible. Another change: the immaculate conception (I think around the same time). Another, I understand there were women priests very early on. There is nothing in the Bible at all saying anything about priests, popes, cardinals, bishops, or marriage or sex of same.

All of these are set up institutions. Nothing about silencing people you don't agree with or excommunication, to my knowledge. Another thing, I see not an iota of evidence against birth control either. In fact, it was almost changed during Vatican II, at least this is my understanding. They already let in married priests, to my knowledge. *IF* they are converted from Episcopalian they can be married if they already were married. Seems hypocritical, and might be bad for the short supply of priests in developed countries.

 

Another thing is that the sexual abuse of children is a very hot topic in the US. Ratzinger made some strong initial comments, but has also said it is overplayed. I think that is going to be an issue for some American and European Catholics. Also the hardline on condoms is going to be bad for African Catholics who are dealing with HIV and AIDs. I'm not sure how the liberation theology thing plays out in South America. I don't think that the majority of the populous knew that much about it.? I think the hardline about other faiths that might have been ok in his cardinal status won't play well as pope. (OTOH, I think the Nazi youth thing is overdone. He did dessert the German army. That's something. )

 

BTW, Aletheia, I think the timing fits for Ratzinger being involved with silencing Matt Fox.

I think he's happy in the Episcopal church and no doubt has more freedom.

 

Darby, I think you have a point about "moderating views" but the thing is that some of these things aren't really all that Biblically based, just have historical status of basically "we've always done it this way". Also I don't really think the Catholic church has a hx of being fundamentalist. They have a hx of conservatism is some issues (like birth control, abortion) but very high liberalism is social justice issues. I think there was a strong strain of liberalism in Vatican II, and the recent pope was more conservative in certain ways but made strong anti-war statements. I've known many Catholics who are much less doctrinal conservative than many protestants I've known-- for ex. many do not really get into strong literalist-- perhaps "soft literalism", ie the many of the events happened, but some did not; not strongly anti-evolution, etc.-- Bible reading.

 

 

--des

[curlytop]

Hey all --

 

Beach -- The RCC has had a wide variety of popes. In the 60s with John XXIII and Vatican II, modern reform was the name of the game. In the 80s and 90s with John Paul II, dialogue and social justice and holding a conservative stance on sexual and human life issues was the name of the game -- a mixture of liberal and conservative. With Benedict XVI, it may be that doctrinal traditionalism is the name of the game. But his papacy doesn't automatically erase or negate the reform-minded moves of previous years. All is process; nothing is static. The CC contains all of these elements; to suggest that it is only conservative or fundamentalist is to be reductive. (Similarly, to say that the church was a thorougly progressive institution after Vatican II would also be reductive.)

 

Darby -- The RCC has held various opinions on abortion, although it has generally weighed in against it. However, according to the HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism: "Therapeutic abortion to save the life of the mother was not officially condemned by the Catholic Church until the latter half of the nineteenth century."

 

Peace out,

curly

[AletheiaRivers]

Beach,

 

LMAO!!! Thank you very much. You're a trip girl!

[AletheiaRivers]

Darby,

 

Actually, I was agreeing with both. Both the leadership and the general congregation should have a say.

 

As to your point about TCPC (for example), I wouldn't want TCPC changed, but if the MAJORITY did, then perhaps it would be better if I let it change and go somewhere else myself.

 

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that the majority of Catholics want change. Change doesn't always mean turning the church into "leftist liberals" either. Change can occur and still leave the foundation of the CC intact.

Edited April 21, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[jamesAMDG]

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

[BeachOfEden]

"On "fundamentalism" - As Pope Benedict XVI said about orthodoxy becoming seen as fundamentalism in our day, that'S defaintely whats happening in this conversation."

 

That IS correct. And THIS IS what our issues (Progressive Christians) IS and has always been with conservative/Fundamental religions..be they Catholic or Protestant or other. It's this issue that fundamental faith groups deem 'their' interpretations of the Bible as "Orthodox" or "The Truth" and everyone else is "unorthodox", "UNChristian", "cult",ect..you get the idea. It's that they claim to hold the flawless understanding on Christianity..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."

 

 

"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."

 

Umm. me and Ath leard ALOT about claiming to have found all "The TRUTH" when we were in JW. Funny thing is..Progressive christians don;t claim to have aquired the flawless interpretations of the TRUTH" cause we understand that all human beings are imperfect. Somehow, fundamentalists speak and ask as if they have already gotten into the prefect Kingdom of God and have become perfect.

 

"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)."

 

Yeah, in JW they called this "New Light."

 

"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.

 

"Pope John Paul II was very clear on this in his writings about the the sacrament of Holy Orders."

 

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.

 

"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)."

 

You forgot about the Pope.

 

"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!

 

"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?"

 

 

 

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.

 

"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."

 

" I guess I'll never be a moderate or a progressive."

 

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.

 

Sexism against women? Hatred towards gays? Ban on birth controll? Man seuxally attacking boys because they can't marry? Sorry, I am not one over with this religion. I guess I must be Unorthodox.

 

QUESTION AUTHORITY...

[jamesAMDG]

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

[BeachOfEden]

You know, I really don;t know why your fundamental Catholic Church, the extremist far right Protestants, and the JW org are not good buddies cause you all claim to have aquired all the copy rights to God...oh that's right...have could all three of you have THE TRUTH? That's why each claim the other is a fake. Let me recount HOW MUCH ALIKE the 3 of you are:

 

1. You ALL claim to have 'THEE TRUTH' and everyone else is on the highway to hell or Armageddon or (D) all of the above.

 

2. You ALL claim that your imperfect old white men are the bull. horn for God.

 

Catholics Fundies= The Pope & Vatican

 

JW's= The JW Organization

 

Protestant fundies= Billy Graham

 

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

 

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. Likewise in JW they admit that the women do the vast majority of the preaching work but again ONLY MEN can be elders and overseers. Same with Southern Baptists and all 3 of you claim to praise women yet treat them as second class citzens.

 

 

Whether you're hard$#@ Catholic church approves or not..whether the hard%$# JW organization approves or not and finally whethjer the extremists far right branch of Proetstants like it or not...all three have individuals in their faith groups who DO question your religious authority..and when these non-dark-aged minded individuals get over their fear of OLD, WHITE MEN "lording it over the people" like the pharisees of Jesus' day... we heathen non-Orthodox "Progressive Christians" will be here to welcome them and throw them a lifesafer and help them out of this hell hole we call fundamentalism.

 

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

[DCJ]

Beach, I'm curious, if you don't think you've found the truth, why are you expending so much energy trying to convince james that you're right and he's wrong?

 

BTW, you're commiting the either/or fallacy. Just because the JW's err when they claim to have the truth, doesn't mean everyone else who claims the truth is wrong. We have methods of determining truth: intuition, reason, revelation, etc..

[cunninglily]

We have methods of determining truth: intuition, reason, revelation, etc..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yes. all methods which are condemned by orthodoxy as leading to heresy, UNLESS, they happen to concur with orthodoxy, which essentially means that "intuition, reason, revelation etc." is either unnecessary or heretical.

 

Orthodoxy claims that nothing outside orthodoxy is necessary for salvation, and anything outside orthodoxy is condemned as heresy, so "intuition, reason, revelation, etc" is not useful for orthodox Christians. So....those of us who actually believe that we are led by the Holy Spirit through "intuition, reason, revelation, etc" are essentially heretics to the orthodox.

 

That's how that works.

 

 

lily

[Lolly]

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.

 

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

[des]

James said:

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)."

 

 

Gosh, you and I sure read Matt Fox differently. I certainly don't see anything as debasing of Jesus or just claiming he is a nice guy. OTOH, I imagine he is happier as an Anglican where he doesn't have to worry about stepping on the toes of the pope or other higher ups. 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). I think if he had taken the wiccan off his staff he prob. would have been happily accepted.

 

James said:

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.

 

I have heard of women priests in the old ancient church. However, if you look at the Bible there isn't even any mention of priests, to say nothing of bishops, cardinals or popes. These are human institutions that make up the hierachy. As for some other things that supposedly will never change, well the CC has changed before. I don't see any reason why it won't change again. Artificial birth control was almost allowed. OTOH, I don't think Pope Benedict is going to be the one to do it.

 

 

James said:

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.

 

Well I wouldn't say "make it up as we go along", but those of us who do not believe that ever single word of the Bible is literal truth have somewhat a harder time in some ways.

What do you understand, how do you understand it, these are struggles. I don't feel personally rabid towards conservatives, however, I have been hurt by my sister's behavior and words, even though she is supposed to be the real Christian. I think others share these experiences. I would be the first to admit some of us have baggage. I don't feel rabid against Ratzinger. But I do feel a bit for Catholics that take a more moderate view of things.

I would remind you that *we* aren't the ones being told we aren't really Christians. At leaset in today's society, the conservative view is very strong.

 

 

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. I actually think there is a conservative streak right now in society (perhaps the world, as evidenced by conservative aspects of other faiths-- such as Islam) and that things will moderate themselves over time. I would guess that I would always be a bit on the liberal end of things even if things moderate, but I will be happy for it, as I think there will be less polarity in society.

 

 

--des

[curlytop]

Hey all. Unorthodox Catholic Curly here.

 

I came across this article in the April 20, LA Times. It speaks to the variety of perspectives within Catholicism. It encourages me to stop pre-judging. It also gives me a feeling of hope --God bless Cardinal Mahony -- and I will continue to pray for Pope Benedict XVI. (What follows are excerpts, not the entire article):

 

"Mahony Says the World Soon Will See Pontiff's Pastoral Side"

 

It was an odd pairing: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's watchdog of othodoxy, sat down for breakfast Tuesday next to Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, one of the most progressive U.S. prelates.

 

Given their sometimes conflicting approaches, the two men might not have ended up next to each other had a protocol officer been present. But Mahony said in an interview that he came away from the encounter -- and from two days of secret meetings in the Sistine Chapel -- convinced that Ratzinger would show a far more pastoral side of himself as pope than he had in his years as enforcer of doctrine.

 

"I think what you're going to see and hear is a very pastoral, spiritual dimension," Mahony said. "Remeber, he's no longer the chief theologian of the church in that same sense . . . . He is the chief theologian as being pope."

 

Ratzinger's choice of the name Benedict XVI, Mahony said, is an indication that promoting peace in the world and reconciliation among peoples and faiths will be priorities.

 

After Ratzinger was elected, Mahony said, the new pope was asked what name he had chosen.

 

"He said, 'I'm going to take the name Benedict XVI,' but then went on to explain why, which is very interesting," Mahony said.

 

His first reason was that his namesake, Pope Benedict XV, reigned from 1914 to 1922 during World War I. "It was the worst scourge of war ever known on the face of the Earth" at the time, Mahony said.

 

"So he said we still need to be working at peacemaking, reconciliation and harmony around the world," Mahony said.

 

The second reason offered by Ratzinger was that St. Benedict, who founded the Benedictine Order, said that "Jesus Christ is first and foremost. Everything else is secondary. [Ratzinger] said those are the reasons [he] chose the name."

 

At breakfast Tuesday, Mahony said, Ratzinger inquired about the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, as well as those of the other prelates present.

 

"He's someone that you could walk into a Starbucks with and sit down and have a coffee with and be totally at ease," Mahony said. "He's just delightful." . . .

 

Mahony acknowledged that Ratzinger had a reputation as uncompromising when it came to adherence to church doctrine. "Everyone who's a public figure in some way always carries a reputation or baggage," Mahony said . . .

 

[Mahony]: "We, as American Catholics, have to be a little more patient, and we have to know the rest of the church better," he said. "We really are isolated."

 

Asked whether he expected the pope to give local dioceses more leeway in addressing local problems, a position which Mahony endorsed as recently as two weeks ago, he said he though Benedict would consult with bishops and be "very helpful."

 

For more than two decades, it was Ratzinger's role to quell dissent in the church, and he silenced a number of theologians who challenged the Vatican.

 

But Mahony said Ratzinger liked "to listen to other points of view. That's the role of a theologian -- to hear other points of view. Those don't frighten him or turn him off."

 

Mahony added: "As a good theologian, if he disagrees with you, he does so in a very pleasant way."

 

---article by Larry B. Stammer

Edited April 22, 2005 by curlytop

[BeachOfEden]

"Beach, I'm curious, if you don't think you've found the truth,"

 

You have ears but you do not hear. Did you not read my previous replies here to this Catholic guy? I just got through telling him that as PROGRESSIVES WE do NOT claim to have foundTHE TRUTH and that Progs do not believe that one CAN find all the so-called unsullied TRUTH in this imperfect world and thus IS WHY,we do NOT makes such claims as fundamentalists do.

 

"why are you expending so much energy trying to convince james that you're right and he's wrong?"

 

First, D,he came HERE first to tell US Progs how he believed US to wrong and to explain to US what HE 'thinks' is orthodox. I am merely stated that as a Prog i refute this and why.

 

"BTW, you're commiting the either/or fallacy."

 

Let me get this straight. A fundamentalist comes here and preaches to US how we are all wrong cause when are simply NOt in agreement with HIs fundamental views and because I dare to disagree with this then you charge cause i dare challenge this then by so doing this makes me a fundie?

 

"Just because the JW's err when they claim to have the truth, doesn't mean everyone else who claims the truth is wrong."

 

So you believe it IS wrong for JW's to claim that their only leader and meditor to God is Christ..then turn right around and contridict themselves the next by claiming that 'their' organization of old white men is the channel to God...but..that it may NOt be wrong for the Catholics to likewise 'claim' that Jesus Christ is their only leader and meditor to God..but then turn around and claim their old white man aka the Pope?

 

Why do you think it may be wrong of JW's to do this but that it may NOt be wrong for Catholics/..or Fundamental Protestants? So, it is OK for 'some' Juedo-christian themed faith groups to creature worship either a man or a bord of men...but it is wrong for others? How do you figure this? I believe it is des, on here, who came from Christian science background, would you say it was wrong of SC to follow Mary Eddy Baker...but NOt wrong for the Catholics to follow the Pope?

[jamesAMDG]

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

[Cynthia]

James 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.

 

 

 

Not attacking - curious -

 

What does this mean for American Catholics? I have many friends who are catholic - quite loyally catholic... but they seem to have little regard for the church's position on social and personal issues... and really don't seem at all bothered by this. [plenty of protestants in this cultural christian camp as well ] I find it somewhat confusing. Is this an American phenomena? Would you define them as heretics? Fallen? Where are those lines? How does the gospel concepts of pharases (to me, very sincere religious people who got caught up in the rules vs. grace and missed) apply? Thanks!

[Cynthia]

Curly - thanks for the article. I think we tend to forget that we don't believe the media when they confirm our own fears . That seems to happen all over the political spectrum - the media is right/accurate/believable when they agree with us or confirm our fears (no matter who "we" are) and they are biased/inaccurate/untrustworthy when we don't agree. Quite a bind .

 

 

Beach - Oh girl... . I too am tolerant of anything but intolerance. Which puts me in the intolerant camp with the people I am intolerant of and drives away the tolerant people because I, in the cause of tolerance, am quite intolerant... BUT, being tolerant of intolerance seems wrong... it's a conundrum. I personally would appreciate knowing what others here do with this!!!!

[Lolly]

Cynthia, regarding tolerance/intolerance, I wrote this here a while ago as a response to the same issue:

 

Actually, I have some problems with the concept of "religious tolerance". It seems to imply a sort of condescending acceptance, like saying "we know we've got The Truth, but we'll let you play in our sandbox, anyway".

 

I've replaced dialog about intolerance vs. tolerance with dialog about inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness. The model I hold up for myself is that of inclusion... that all are intended to have a place at God's table. It is up to each individual to find their way to that table (or not) and they can get to the table through many different means.

 

Some will fall prey to the voices of bigotry and exclusionism they hear along the way. I don't have to condone this, and I don't. But I can understand that it is just another way that ego asserts itself in its misguided effort to find security, and I can look to myself and see that, in my own ways, I am no better. It may not manifest as bigotry, maybe it's something else, some other fear driven behavior or set of unreasoned beliefs that causes me to act out in ways that harm others... I may not like it, but if I look for it, it's there.

 

This way of seeing things puts us all on the same field, really. It's just that we all have different perspectives, different points of view, based on what we believe is right.

 

But really, I think that when you look at what motivates people, deep inside we all want the same things. We all want to be happy, safe, secure, and we want this same thing for our families. We just have very different ideas about how to go about securing these things that we believe we need.

 

I'll add here that this model seems to work best for me when I remember to remind myself that I don't really know what the truth is, either. It's easy to fall prey to 'belief' in the sense that I want to believe that I know something with certainty even though it is often actually impossible to be so certain. Every situation that presents itself to me has a deep history. If I go into every situation with the understanding that I may not be seeing the whole picture, it allows me to be more receptive to really hearing what others have to say.

[cunninglily]

This way of seeing things puts us all on the same field, really. It's just that we all have different perspectives, different points of view, based on what we believe is right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

"In a Spiritual Church such as that which Jesus ordained, the focus is not on the believer holding the proper set of beliefs, or a hierarchy of priests -- because the source and authority is spiritual, and remains above and beyond the physical world. The beliefs of each person are therefore seen as a product of the individual's stage of spiritual development, and are in accordance with the individual person's condition in relation to man's spiritual reality. Because each person is at a different level of spiritual awareness, fixed creeds and dogma are a detriment to a truly spiritual religion."

 

I ran across this while studying on-line this morning and thought it pertinent to this thread. To give a bit of context in which this paragraph was found, it is necessary to state that the author gives emphasis to Paul's use of the words "milk", "herbs" and "strong meat" as pertaining to depths of teaching revealed in Christ. "Babes in Christ" are given "milk" or the nurturance of the "simple faith" which is "Christ Crucified", and yet according to Paul, there are deeper revelations which "the One teacher" only can give and which does not come from man, but through the Anointing, or Christ in you.

 

My problem with orthodoxy is that it does not allow for a deepening revelation of Christ, as it claims that only what is found in orthodoxy is necessary for salvation, and therefore, "hold the keys to the Kingdom, do not enter themselves and prevent others from entering".

 

 

...just some thoughts,

 

lily

[Lolly]

My problem with orthodoxy is that it does not allow for a deepening revelation of Christ, as it claims that only what is found in orthodoxy is necessary for salvation, and therefore, "hold the keys to the Kingdom, do not enter themselves and prevent others from entering".

 

Yes! I've found that in order to deepen understanding, it's often necessary to rebel to some extent in order to find one's path to the next phase of understanding.

 

To use your analogy, we may need to drink the mild for a period of time, but when we are ready for more substantial nourishment, the milk-givers will insist that we continue to take only the milk. At some point we have to be willing to acknowledge that milk is no longer what we need.

 

It takes a certain courage and willingness to part from our current level of conditioning to continue an honest pursuit of a spiritual path. We may need to be willing to part company from the milk-givers, many times over. This is very difficult when one has been conditioned from birth to believe that he or she must drink milk, or die. The reality of that situation is that those who believe they have our best interests at heart are often the ones whose influence most effectively impedes our progress.

[curlytop]

Lolly and Lily -- hey, that has a nice lilt to it!

 

Amen to your posts!

 

Recognizing the fact that people are at different developmental levels and different stages along the spiritual journey is so important.

 

I think it is also partly what Paul means in 1 Cor. 13: 9 - 12: (NAB)

 

"For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then fact to face. At present I know partially, then I shall know fully, as I am fully known."

 

All is process, and we have different needs as the journey contines, as we keep on walking and growing.

 

Peace,

curly

[BeachOfEden]

By the way, if the editors of this forum conclude indeed that this discussion has become a debate (which is ovbiously has) and thus think it would be best to MOVE this intire thread onto the debate forum instead..hey, that's fine by me.

 

jamesAMDG:

 

" I seem to have touched several nerves for BeachofEden."

 

Humm..try this intire TCPC community.

 

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

 

Yes, that is basically it. You could say this forum is kinda like the Daily Show with John Steward.

 

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."

 

Let me cut to the chase here to save time. Cause lord knows I have been down this road more than once with all 3 of you. Whenever I draw attention to these social justices, such as FULL equality for women and a fundamental faith group claiming to have aquired all the copy rights to the REAL Jesus....it always seem to be the case that these '3' fundamental groups will respond by switching the subject to the theological debate of the trinity...the #1 topic that fundamental catholics, far right Protestants and devote JW's love to debate, and usually this is their prime debate issue to fight a point over why one of these faith groups are THEE true unsullied version of Christianity, while the others are false, cults,ect...

 

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 am talking about social justice issues and it you wish to talk about the trinitarian verses unitarian debate, then please, start a new thrad devoted to THAT topic.

 

"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."

 

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. 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?

 

"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."

 

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

 

"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."

 

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?

 

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?"

 

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

 

"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."

 

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

 

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

 

 

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.

 

I have heard of women priests in the old ancient church

 

Please give a reference.

 

http://www.cbeinternational.org

 

Artificial birth control was almost allowed.

 

"Thank God it wasn't"

 

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!

 

"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)"

 

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

 

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."

 

The evening is yet young.

 

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

 

 

Cynthia :

 

" Beach - Oh girl... . I too am tolerant of anything but intolerance. Which puts me in the intolerant camp with the people I am intolerant of and drives away the tolerant people because I, in the cause of tolerance, am quite intolerant... BUT, being tolerant of intolerance seems wrong... it's a conundrum. I personally would appreciate knowing what others here do with this!!!!"

 

Me too, I guess we are both hopelesy intolerant of intolerance, 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..But if we see all this and pretend we did not and don;t say anything then this when mean we are tolerant.

SeeNoEvil.bmp