The Lowdown On Joseph Ratzinger

[BeachOfEden]

Follow This Advice to be "Orthodox"...

[Lolly]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yup. There's a phrase I like to use which speaks to this: Everyone starts where they are; it cannot be any other way.

 

We can't expect people who are at one point in this process to pick themselves up and plop themselves down at a different point. It can't be done. They are where they are and cannot pretend otherwise.

 

I think that there are so many wisdom traditions because there are so many different levels of receptivity in humankind. We may have started in one place and find that today we are in another, yet everything we have experienced-- including perhaps the indoctrination into and rebellion against a dogmatic way of thinking-- is part of what brought us this far.

 

I am wondering, though, if maybe this discussion belongs in a thread of its own? Anyone care to continue it elsewhere?

Edited April 22, 2005 by Lolly

[cunninglily]

I am wondering, though, if maybe this discussion belongs in a thread of its own?  Anyone care to continue it elsewhere?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lets do it.

 

You do the honors Lolly, if you don't mind...or anyone with a cogent thought. I've got company now but I will be back.

 

 

lily

[Lolly]

I am wondering, though, if maybe this discussion belongs in a thread of its own?  Anyone care to continue it elsewhere?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lets do it.

 

You do the honors Lolly, if you don't mind...or anyone with a cogent thought. I've got company now but I will be back.

 

 

lily

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Okay, done. Here's the link, for reference:

 

http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopi...st=0entry3852

 

Let's continue this discussion in that thread, to keep this one on topic.

[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.

 

I think the idea of "thumbing your nose at authority" is a strange one to protestants, so perhaps Fox does make a better protestant. (Although I do understand that some fundamentalists sects are quite authoritarian.) An outer authority beyond Jesus is somewhat a foreign concept to protestantism. I could, for instance, freely criticize the UCC church (as someone else could criticize --and have-- UMC, Presbyterian USA, etc.). You would not be silenced, excommunicated, etc. Progressives are maybe less authoritarian based. For example, most progressive churches are congregationally run.

 

One could argue one way or another *IF* Jesus meant to start another church (certainly there are verses pro or con) but one thing that Jesus stood strongly against was authoritarian church (or Synagog) restrictions, regimes, etc.

 

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

 

"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."

 

Well he has some nicknames: The Enforcer, etc. He was the hatchet man for the pope. However, I agree to give him time. Sometimes popes are not exactly what they were as cardinals. However, he did expand on Pope John Paul's comment on war on Iraq.

OTOH, he has been very anti-Turkey in the European union. His views are very well known, he is not an unknown quantity. But we'll see, I guess.

 

--des

[curlytop]

Hi all. For anyone interested, here's an article about how, and why, Catholic progressives keep hangin in there, from commondreams.org.

 

Why I Am Still A Catholic

by Suzanne Camino

Gay marriage? I'm all for it. Women priests? We need them desperately. Married clergy? It's time. Just war? Oxymoronic, from a Christian perspective.

 

And yet here I am, in the wake of the sexual abuse scandals, in the shadow of politicians denied the body of Christ for their political stands, with the knowledge that some of my weekly tithe is being used to promote legislation that denies civil rights to homosexuals, recommitting to the Catholic faith of my childhood and to the Catholic Church itself, with its looming, maddening, dangerous flaws. A gay friend, not Catholic, asks politely a question that boils down to 'How could you?'

 

What's the deal? Why not find a nice, progressive Episcopal church where my young daughter would see women in leadership roles and where I could support the ongoing realization of the civil and human rights issues close to my heart?

 

Blame Pope John XXIII. He opened the first session of Vatican II on Oct. 11, 1962. The modern church and I were born in the same week. 'Let's open the windows,' Pope John famously said, and as I grew I watched the windows fly open and I took for granted the fresh air blowing in. I watched my young, devout parents embrace the new Mass, the new music, and the new architecture that focused on community, on inclusiveness, on the participation of the laity.

 

I went to catechism classes where they told me that being Catholic was about serving the poor and seeing Jesus in every suffering person. 'If you want peace, work for justice,' were the oft-quoted words of Pope Paul VI, the pope we prayed for and listened to while I was in elementary and junior high school.

 

Copies of the Catholic Worker newspaper were distributed in the vestibules of the conservative Midwestern parishes we belonged to as I was growing up. I learned that the Catholic faith that moved Dorothy Day to action was the same faith that I should be nurturing for myself. The local Catholic newspaper featured stories of brave young women working with victims of political violence in El Salvador, among them Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel, women we would eventually mourn and revere as martyrs and models of Christian faith at work in the world.

 

This was the Catholic Church I learned. It was a church that celebrated the reforms of Vatican II, that reached out toward other faiths, that focused on the needs of the poor and the oppressed, that looked at abortion as a social problem to be approached with great compassion and in the much larger context of the 'seamless garment' of respect for all human life, at every stage. This was a church where women were emerging from their invisible, supportive roles to become leaders, to preach the gospel from the pulpit, to offer the body of Christ to communicants, and to head the newly-empowered parish councils. It was a church determined to keep pace with the times and there was every evidence that the pace would continue.

 

Sometime after college I noticed that going to church was not the same experience it had been, and I started on the long, frustrating faith journey that led in a painful circle back to where I started. I stumbled upon an unusual Catholic parish, one where the commitment to community and social justice and vibrant liturgy were immediately tangible, where the pastor teaches that Jesus' way is a way of nonviolence and service to the poor, that women should be allowed to answer's God¹s call to the priesthood, and that homosexual Catholics must find a way to integrate their sexuality into their lives by consulting not only official church teachings, but their own prayer-informed consciences.

 

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, but I couldn¹t stop thinking that what I observed there seemed so familiar and so beautifully commonsensical. Jesus was a nonviolent radical who served the poor and welcomed everyone to his table, and these people were behaving, quite reasonably, like his followers. Their celebration, their focus and their service to others are rooted in the history of the Church, a history that includes St. Francis, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Dorothy Day, Archbishop Oscar Romero, Sister Helen Prejean, Kathy Kelly and Sister Dorothy Stang. This is the Church to which I am recommitted, the one I hold in my vision, the one I will pray for and work towards.

 

I didn't move away from the church; the church moved away from itself, and damned if I am going to let it get away. As one of the nuns at my new parish told me, following a frustrating series of decisions by the church hierarchy, 'Just because they're in charge doesn't mean it isn't our church too.' Amen, sister.

[jamesAMDG]

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

[curlytop]

Wow James, quite a long response there -- hard worker, you!

 

For the moment I want to respond to just one of your assertions:

 

"Anyone who holds these opinions [about ordaining women priests and having married clergy] is not a Catholic in good standing, you can't contradict doctrine and then say you'Re still a Catholic. A person can hold those ideas and a person can be a Catholic, but they can't be both."

 

If that's the case, then the Catholic Church itself is not a Catholic in good standing. In the 1980s, when the Episcopal church began ordaining women, hundreds of their married priests left in protest. They were welcomed to serve as priests in the Catholic Church. So we actually do have some married priests in the Catholic Church.

 

Moreover, even the Council of Trent (1545-63) recognized that the rule on celibate clergy was not an unchanging, divine law. According to the HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, "Trent recognized that the laws governing celibacy for clergy were church laws rather than divine laws. Consequently, it conceded that these laws could be changed should the Church ever decide to do so."

 

We also have had women priests as recently as the twentieth century. Quite a rarity, and in extremely unusual circumstances, but a fact nevertheless. Here's some information from www.womensordination.org:

 

"The 1948 communist takeover of then Czechoslovakia brought vast social changes. It also brought heavy persecution to Catholics who constituted 66% of a population of 16 million. Thousands of people were imprisoned for practicing their religion. Despite the threat of imprisonment, believers nourished a vibrant faith in an underground church that paralleled the government-controlled parish structure.

 

Bishop Felix Davidek (1921-1988), a brilliant scholar, linguist and medical doctor, was consecrated with Vatican approval to serve the underground church. When a need for sacramental ministry for women in prison emerged as a serious concern, it was clear that a male priesthood could not answer it. Davidek called a secret Synod composed of bishops, priests and laity to consider the ordination of women.

 

After heated debate, the decision was made to proceed. On December 28, 1970, Davidek ordained the first woman priest, Ludmila Javorova, who served as Vicar General of the underground diocese for 20 years. In 1991, Cardinal Miloslav Vlk of Prague confirmed that up to five or six women were ordained as priests, but only Ludmila has come forward."

 

Catholics can and do disagree with various doctrines. Here again the Encyclopedia of Catholicism:

 

"Every dogma is a doctrine, but not every doctrine is a dogma. It is no easy matter to determine the difference between the two, and there is no list of dogmas to which all Catholics would agree, bishops and theologians included.

 

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."

 

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

 

Ciao for now,

curlytop

Edited April 28, 2005 by curlytop

[jamesAMDG]

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

[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...

 

This IS WHAT WE PROGRESSIVES CARE ABOUT...

 

The 8 Points

Original Version

 

 

By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who:

 

 

1. Proclaim Jesus Christ as our Gate to the realm of God

 

2. Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the gateway to God's realm

 

3. Understand our sharing of bread and wine in Jesus's name to be a representation of God's feast for all peoples

 

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;

 

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

 

6. Find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty, in the questions than in the answers;

 

7. See ourselves as a spiritual community in which we discover the resources required for our work in the world: striving for justice and peace among all people; bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers;

 

8. Recognize that our faith entails costly discipleship, renunciation of privilege, and conscientious resistance to evil--as has always been the tradition of the church.

 

 

James wrote:

"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."

 

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.

Edited April 28, 2005 by BeachOfEden

[FredP]

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.

 

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...

 

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.

Sorry in advance if this comes off as a rant.

 

If I may say so, personally I have very much appreciated James' respectful treatment of us as persons in everything he has written. There have been no polemics or insults. Nobody here expects him to agree with the Progressive "line." He has openly and consistently stated his perspective in an informative, non-threatening way. The funny this is, you appear to be more threatened by his presence than he does by ours, and this is our "home territory"!

 

To state the obvious, this IS a thread on Joseph Ratzinger, is it not? A solid understanding of the way things proceed in Catholic thinking and motivation seems eminently appropriate here, no? The "we don't care," "your dogmas don't matter to us," "I don't give a damn about your debates" tantrums seem callous and insensitive to me -- not to mention, they betray a shallow grounding in your own beliefs. It's easier to criticize than write a well-thought-out response.

 

You went through the trouble of highlighting rule #5 in your last message.

 

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

 

It's a good one. Why don't you do some of it?

[jamesAMDG]

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

[BeachOfEden]

It appears to me, from my observation of both James and Fred's comments, that both of you presumed when I started this thread challenging this new Pope's views..that you both interpretated to mean I was requesting that non-Progressive Catholics come here and defend their position. This was not MY desire nor can I see where I requested that any non-progressives Catholics come here and defend non-Progressive Catholicsm.

 

This is a Progressive Christianity board, and as such, if anything I desired Progressive Catholics to respond with 'their' views. Had I desired to hear or inner-act with NOn-Progressive Catholics would not it made some sense if I went to 'THEIR' sites? It's like Des comes from a Christian Science background....neither Des or myself or anyone here for that matter, ever requested that Christian science come here and defend the (NON-progressive) Christian Science faith. Had I or Des wanted that..would it have not made since that we go on the Christian Science site...rather than on here, a Progressive site?

 

If you or the both of you..somehow read this thread I started and asumed it as a request for Non-Progressive Catholics to come here and defend their fundamental Catholic's views...then I am not sure what to tell you..other than I see no where on this site where I gave any impression that I wanted, desire or request such a Progressive verses Fundamental dilalog.

 

I merely was asking Progressives, as well as Progressive Catholics what 'their' take was on this new pope. Regardless of what I had inteneded when I started this thread, it has turned into something else...rather than simply asking Progressives for their view..it has turned into conservative Catholics challengeing the Progressive view.

 

This does not interest me...dialogging with non-Progressive Catholics or Non-Progressives of any faith. However, again this IS what this thread has turned into..so if there are Progressives here who desire to continue in this dialog on non-Progressive Catholicsm...be my guess...but I have no interest in such a dialog so i am leaving this discussion to those who care to debate with Conservative Catholics. the topic does not interest me.

[des]

Beach, I do agree with what Fred said. James is invited to come here and share his views. We don't have to accept them. He is statign his point of view. As long as he does this in a respectful way he is fine , which he does, imo.

 

OTOH, I can understand your feelings as I also have been hurt by the legalistic type faith of CS and of my sister's constant and not too kind pushing of her fundamentalists creed. It is hard to get away from those feeligns of hurt and just read what James (or DCJ or Darby) says, as what they say and not really having to do with personally having to do with your own hurt. I hardly ever agree with James (once in awhile and I am delighted), but he is not really responsible for the things that you (or I) have felt in your own life that have been so negative.

 

 

I'm not sure how I would have done at your age with all this either. I would guess that Fred and I are older than you and more experienced in dealing with some of these issues (not sure Fred ever has, can't recall). But I will tell you that here I initially felt very threatened by conservatives coming in our safe space and perhpas trying to convert us and so on.(I was so happy to finally find such a place!!!) I recall how I "greeted" James-- mostly with a slew of suggestions as to his prob. motivations. I can't say I understand it all, as it isnt' something I would do personally, but id do accept his answers which were sincere. I also understand that groups can be taken over as I saw happen on UCC.org which has become a tiresome discussion of whether or not homosexuality is a sin (tis so, tis not but mostly not so nicely stated). But all of the conservative folks here have been respectful, they have not gone on and on and taken over every thread etc. Ratzinger is HIS pope, not ours, so I understand his enthusiasm on this topic.

 

FWIW, I think it should be put in the debate section, as it certainly is that!!

 

 

--des

[FredP]

Turns out I'm younger than both of you. Don't know about James...

 

Actually the thing that has helped me most in this regard has been a long-time friend who is a hardline Reformed Lutheran -- a passionate intellectual and articulate defender of Christian orthodoxy. Believe me, I spent my entire life up until I left for college in a Fundamentalist Baptist church, and there is a vast difference between my long-time friend and many of the ignorant, bigoted people I grew up around. I respect the hurt and anger you feel from growing up in denominations like this; but it's too easy to label every orthodox or conservative viewpoint as bigoted and ignorant. (Even many of the people at my church were mostly harmless.)

 

In my personal experience (and I don't expect this to be yours either), I feel an enormously strong pull towards much of Christian orthodoxy, even though I don't regard it in quite the special, supernatural way that an orthodox person does. I view it as the ongoing process of the total revelation of God, processed through reason, tradition, and experience, and thus as having enormous weight and precedent for Christian thinking of any kind. I would say that I'm not a progressive Christian because I don't care about theological issues, but precisely because I do care, and because I want to discover what contemporary worldviews bring to the interpretation of Christian doctrine and practice (and just as importantly, how Christian doctrine and practice challenge contemporary worldviews).

 

As a progressive Christian, I think it's important to understand my orthodox heritage, lest I repeat the philosophical and theological dead ends of the past. It's like saying, "I hate my parents; I want nothing to do with them, and I'm not going to be anything like them!" ... and then you turn out to be either just like them, or the mirror image of all their worst qualities, which is probably just as bad. (Think obsessive political correctness vs. obsessive censorship, for example.) At the same time, there will certainly be orthodox folks who I will passionately disagree with about what constitutes a theological dead end. But we'll at least have the common ground to stand on, that we're arguing about the same thing.

 

Of course, this isn't to say that there always has to be argument. If this thread wasn't intended to be a progressive/non-progressive engagement, that's fair enough. Nobody wants to argue all the time, and some people don't want to argue any of the time. There's nothing wrong with that. I just want to challenge us as progressives, and say that we have a special and explicit committment to be respectul of other people's views, even ones we don't like. Fred Phelps doesn't have to respect us, and he never said he would. But we have said we would, and that holds us to a certain standard.

 

Peace,

Fred

[Guest admin]

OK, time out:

 

Just to be absolutely clear...

 

The "Progressive Christianity" section of the boards is for generally supportive discussion of more progressive/liberal viewpoints. Obviously, there will be conflicts and challenges between those who identify themselves - at least theologically/religiously - as progressive, and discussions arising from differences of this nature would be welcome in that area.

 

If you are clearly espousing a more traditional or conservative viewpoint and/or challenging, in a more heated way, a progressive/liberal stance on a religious issue, you are ABSOLUTELY WELCOME on these boards, but in the "Debate and Dialogue" area. OK?

 

So if you see something in the other area that makes you retch, please put a respectful little note in the thread inviting those who wish to come over to the debate area where you can retch out loud to your heart's content in a thread that you start.

 

I wish I could have split this topic at post #33 (not that I am pointing any fingers ) when the tone shifted and moved it over here, because there was a valid discussion going on before that that should have been allowed to continue. But I think that makes things more confusing.

 

So just don't do it again !

 

( )

[darby]

Banned to the "Debate and Dialogue" forum..ahhhhhh!!!! (Just Kidding)

 

That makes enough sense to me. If I see anything on the other ones, I'll sit on my fingers.

[BeachOfEden]

Yeah, it makes sense to me too. I have a question, and I'll see what you all think of this....Should there be a "Conservative/Progressive dialog" forum? Or IS the Debate issue section the same of this? Just wondering.

[AletheiaRivers]

I'd say the debate forum IS the Progressive versus Conservative forum.

[FredP]

I'd say the debate forum IS the Progressive versus Conservative forum.

Well, I suppose the question is whether Prog/Non-Prog debate is a different animal than inter-Prog debate (as opposed to less heated inter-Prog conversation ), and whether there should be another major form to make it clear which type of debate is requested.

[Guest admin]

Without splitting hairs and trying to come up with rules, I do think one can, more or less, tell when the tone of a discussion has shifted. It is one thing to discuss different viewpoints within a generally liberal framework and another to challenge the foundations of that framework altogether.

 

And I do think that this can happen between two people who self-identify as "progressive." It would be silly to suggest that we agree on everything. That is, after all, part of the unspoken liberal platform - that there is some kind of unity in diversity. Perhaps a tone of respect, or a lack of a sense of a single truth that can be "owned" is what makes the difference.

 

Maybe we can just take it on a case-by-case. You guys can use your own judgment, and I will try not to be moving posts all over the place unless it is a really obvious call.

[BeachOfEden]

And to help in this regard, from now on, I will try and clearify to WHOm I am addressing my threads to,a nd if I think the subject might inspire this type of debate I will try and make sure I place it on this debate section.

[AletheiaRivers]

Well, I suppose the question is whether Prog/Non-Prog debate is a different animal than inter-Prog debate (as opposed to less heated inter-Prog conversation ), and whether there should be another major form to make it clear which type of debate is requested.

 

Doh!

 

I agree. I never considered "inter-prog" debate. I'm too used to most of us disagreeing amicably enough to not need to discuss anything on the debate forum. LOL.

[BeachOfEden]

Yeah, I myself can not ever recall have a heated debate with ANY Progressive...no matter what faith group background they come from...as long as they are NOE PROGRESSIVE..then i usually always get along