Reply With Quote
Ex, if women don't like their place at the bottom, they can leave the Church. It's their choice.
considering a conservative wing is in charge and prefers to hide or quietly transfer priests that molest children, i'll take the liberals anydayIf the liberal wing were to take the reins of the Catholic Church...God help us all.
Ex, if women don't like their place at the bottom, they can leave the Church. It's their choice.
They do, in droves. At last count, two of my five sisters and my mother have all taken a walk.
Both of my sisters and my stepmother have as well.
My mother left after the age of 70. THAT'S a statement.
Told you they would elect a hard pipe hitting as Pope. Keep in mind this guy has effectively been in charge for the past 10 years, the Catholic church has been doing some swell work in that time. Mind you they only chose him because hes old and they don't expect him to last. The real selection of Pope is only now underway.
Remember you can't spell ratzinger without nazi
As with most liberal ideas, they look great on paper, but usually never quite work out as planned.
Female Priests - Don't doubt that you may have attended a beautiful service presided by a female. Great. Be a Lutheran or any other denomination that ordains women. It's all good.
Contraception - Understand that for devout Catholics, this is more about interrupting the holiness and sanc y of the union of a man and a woman. Population problems? Abstinence/Celibacy/NFP. My wife and use NFP. Simple. The answer isn't offending God with some device. As a means to avoid abortion? Same answer.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catech...23a9p4.htm#III
The Fathers rejected women's ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. Throughout medieval times and even up until the present day, this teaching has not changed.
Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, "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 do ents, 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 cons ution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 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" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Cont...rilization.asp
Christians have always condemned contraceptive sex. Both forms mentioned in the Bible, coitus interruptus and sterilization, are condemned without exception (Gen. 38:9–10, Deut. 23:1). The early Fathers recognized that the purpose of sexual intercourse in natural law is procreation; contraceptive sex, which deliberately blocks that purpose, is a violation of natural law.
Every church in Christendom condemned contraception until 1930, when, at its decennial Lambeth Conference, Anglicanism gave permission for the use of contraception in a few cases. Soon all Protestant denominations had adopted the secularist position on contraception. Today not one stands with the Catholic Church to maintain the ancient Christian faith on this issue.
How badly things have decayed may be seen by comparing the current state of non-Catholic churches, where most pastors counsel young couples to decide before they are married what form of contraception they will use, with these quotations from the early Church Fathers, who condemned contraception in general as well as particular forms of it, as well as popular contraceptive sex practices that were then common (sterilization, oral contraceptives, coitus interruptus, and orally consummated sex).
Gay Marriage -
Just skim here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
People can leave if they wish. The Church is interested, and has been interested in truth. Not which way the wind blows. The bottom line isn't about numbers...it's about truth. If so and so has left for this reason, I know a so and so who has joined the Catholic Church for that.
Which reminds me, I saw an article recently about how the Church has made substantial gains in recent years (Since yall are into numbers). Let me find it.
Has the church accepted that the world is round and revolves around the sun? Or do they still condemn that too?
Iceman 1 Catholic Church several centuries ago 0.
The church is a large bureaucracy, nothing more. Those ins utions exist only to perpetuate themselves. I love the way the Pope says "We can't do that!" with regards to ordaining women. The church had NO problem ins uting the doctrine of infallibility...1870 years after the birth of Christ.Then again, that speaks to perpetuating and increasing the power of the Papacy and the college of Cardinals.
Lets not forget the myth of original sin. That fable teaches us that the pursuit of knowledge is the most evil thing a person can do. Nice little scam they have going there, maintaining power over the ignorant.
The Church, rather, Churches of any denomination are run by imperfect humans who inevitably will run the Church imperfectly. And as long as imperfect humans are running Churches in an unperfect world, it will always be easy to look at the Church with a cynical eye. I guess that's just the way it is.
Doesn't matter. They were wrong and wouldn't admit it. It's the same problem they have now with a number of issues. We'll see movement on women priests, married priests, and other issues, it just won't be in our lifetime. In three hundred years, NeoConMCXXLVII will be chiding IceManIsHere about mocking the church of three hundred years before, when they were WRONG and deserved to be mocked for their provinciality.Iceman 1 Catholic Church several centuries ago 0.
The Vatican would burn you for saying the Pope is fallible, ing heretic.The Church, rather, Churches of any denomination are run by imperfect humans who inevitably will run the Church imperfectly. And as long as imperfect humans are running Churches in an unperfect world, it will always be easy to look at the Church with a cynical eye. I guess that's just the way it is.
The pope is the voice of god and as such is infallible. Didn't you know that?The Church, rather, Churches of any denomination are run by imperfect humans
Um, no they wouldn't. Everything the Pope says is not infallible. The Vatican would totally agree with what I just said. Totally.
Your'e either fallible, or infallible. It's not a part time gig.
Brush up on Papal Infallibility. Whatever the Pope says isn't infallible. Hold on, let me get link to where it explains specific conditions from which the Pope will speak infallibly.Your'e either fallible, or infallible. It's not a part time gig.
Now you know!http://www.catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp
An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an e enical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from e enical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.
At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.
Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanc y found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)
Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.
Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a subs ute for theological study on the part of the pope.
What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
And knowing is half the battle!
It's just a fact that Catholic doctrine is so routinely twisted and turned around. There are some unbelievable misconceptions out there. Papal infallibilty is one of the big ones.
Why did she leave?My mother left after the age of 70. THAT'S a statement.
How can you be infallible part of the time? And how do you get to pick when? It's an idiotic concept from the get go.
I believe you. When over a billion people belong to a religion two millenia old with a couple of skeletons in the closet, crap like that is bound to occur.
What was the last "radical" move the Catholic church did do, by the way? Allow services to be in other languages besides Latin? Curious.
I'd rather you understand that Papal Infallibility is basically NEVER used, EXTREMELY rare and for you to think it's a dumb idea, than to believe that whatever the Pope says is infallible. The latter is just patently false.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
