What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

The media is acting like the Pope has openly endorsed homosexuality, which he definitely did not do. In the same breath just prior to the "who am I to judge?" line he said, ""When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby."

So in other words, he's fine with Catholics being gay, as long as they keep their mouth shut about it. ;)

Not to mention that Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate anyway (despite recent scandals), so this shift on gay priests isn't really a momentous, groundbreaking statement that sweeps aside centuries of dogma. It just softens the rhetoric a bit.
 
Bob Gray said:
I don't think he said anything really groundbreaking
Click to expand...

Right. The most powerful man in the Catholic Church just said gay people shouldn't be judged or marginalized and it was just another statement. I'm sure that belief was predominant in church circles prior to yesterday. Probably why gays felt so warm and fuzzy about the church.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

This has to be the first Pope since Peter Rabbit to lead the Church inside of claim Divine Right.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Priceless said:
Right. The most powerful man in the Catholic Church just said gay people shouldn't be judged or marginalized and it was just another statement. I'm sure that belief was predominant in church circles prior to yesterday. Probably why gays felt so warm and fuzzy about the church.
Click to expand...
If you read the context, he was speaking specifically about gay priests, and differentiating between those who act on a homosexual inclination or don't act on it, and in the same discussion said church doctrine on gay priests hasn't changed. That's why there's no big black and white policy shift here, but definitely the tone is a bit different, and welcome.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
The media is acting like the Pope has openly endorsed homosexuality, which he definitely did not do. In the same breath just prior to the "who am I to judge?" line he said, ""When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby."

So in other words, he's fine with Catholics being gay, as long as they keep their mouth shut about it. ;)

Not to mention that Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate anyway (despite recent scandals), so this shift on gay priests isn't really a momentous, groundbreaking statement that sweeps aside centuries of dogma. It just softens the rhetoric a bit.
Click to expand...

It is a step in the right direction, a small step but still a step.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Dang, pretty soon someone will be quoting Aquinas or Teilhard.

But this his a hockey board, so we need to put his statements in the context of where we all come from: he was saying he had no problem with gay hockey players but he would not go into a corner with one.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

FlagDUDE08 said:
But considering most of the other Christian groups were created as a schism from the Roman Catholics...
Click to expand...
Actually there were at least 3- the Coptic Church, The Byzantine Church and the Roman Church. I am pretty sure there was another one too as at one point there were 4 recognized Popes at once for the 4 churches in 4 different areas. The Roman church became the more prominent church after the Huns went through and the Roman Pope saved Rome and he became more influential.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

leswp1 said:
Actually there were at least 3- the Coptic Church, The Byzantine Church and the Roman Church. I am pretty sure there was another one too as at one point there were 4 recognized Popes at once for the 4 churches in 4 different areas. The Roman church became the more prominent church after the Huns went through and the Roman Pope saved Rome and he became more influential.
Click to expand...
Actually those groups all have their own head patriarchs even today, so in a way they still each have their own popes, although I think the Catholic pope may be more powerful than the head guy in those other groups. Even amongst just the Catholic church itself, there were times way back when that they had dueling popes, for extended periods of time, before one or the other gained clear supremacy.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Bob Gray said:
Actually those groups all have their own head patriarchs even today, so in a way they still each have their own popes, although I think the Catholic pope may be more powerful than the head guy in those other groups. Even amongst just the Catholic church itself, there were times way back when that they had dueling popes, for extended periods of time, before one or the other gained clear supremacy.
Click to expand...

The Roman Catholic Church had a pope in Rome and Avignon back in the day.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

joecct said:
Historically there has been only one Pope at any time. Anyone else claiming the title has been labled Anti-Pope.
Click to expand...
I understand that's the technical view within the Catholic Church, but the reality was that you had whole lines of popes in Rome and Avignon, amongst other places, for many many years. There was even a short stretch there when there were three popes at once. Of course after it was all sorted out, only one pope at a time was considered "the" pope. Certainly very interesting times back then.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Bob Gray said:
Actually those groups all have their own head patriarchs even today, so in a way they still each have their own popes, although I think the Catholic pope may be more powerful than the head guy in those other groups. Even amongst just the Catholic church itself, there were times way back when that they had dueling popes, for extended periods of time, before one or the other gained clear supremacy.
Click to expand...
True. From what I read the popes were equally important until the Huns came to Rome and the Roman pope (pope used to be a very important bishop) did a deal that saved Rome. The other popes were less needed for protection and were just religious leaders so were not as prominent. That whole period of time is fascinating.

joecct said:
Historically there has been only one Pope at any time. Anyone else claiming the title has been labled Anti-Pope.
Click to expand...
Well, it depended which group you were in who was labeled the Anti-Pope. Agree with Bob- there were Popes functioning simultaneously and recognized by different factions/ European gov'ts. If one reads history or looks into history the 4 popes were acknowledged, there were dueling popes and the history of the Papacy is very convoluted. If you look at the official RC version it looks like one Pope (Peter) started a straight line. I spent hours one night looking up this stuff on the Catholic sites vs historical sites. A kid in my confirmation class asked the question about why Catholics think Peter was the first Pope and there is a direct line and Lutherans don't.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

joecct said:
Historically there has been only one Pope at any time. Anyone else claiming the title has been labled Anti-Pope.
Click to expand...
The Church made a decision to have two Popes for a period of time, not some false whatever, when they established the seat in Constantinople. It had to do with Christendom becoming too large for a single Pope to govern/guide, whichever word you'd rather use.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

leswp1 said:
Actually there were at least 3- the Coptic Church, The Byzantine Church and the Roman Church. I am pretty sure there was another one too as at one point there were 4 recognized Popes at once for the 4 churches in 4 different areas. The Roman church became the more prominent church after the Huns went through and the Roman Pope saved Rome and he became more influential.
Click to expand...

As I recall, the Coptics (along with the Gnostic Gospels) were thrown out at the Council of Nicea, and the Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox sect split from Rome in the 1100s due to a battle over iconography.
 
Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
As I recall, the Coptics (along with the Gnostic Gospels) were thrown out at the Council of Nicea, and the Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox sect split from Rome in the 1100s due to a battle over iconography.
Click to expand...
As to the latter is also had to do with the Creed and the status of the Holy Spirit (Ghost). Latin Rite (Rome) uses Filoque (...proceeds from the Father and the Son). The Eastern Rite does not (proceeds from the Father). Then it got UGLY. Popes were firing off excommunication notices to the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Patriarchs telling them to stick it (figuratively). It lead to the Great Divorce between the two great churches of Christendom. Sad.

IIRC, during the Crusades, Europeans slaughtered more Orthodox on the way to Jerusalem than Saracens in the Holy Land proper.

BTW, the Divine Liturgy blows the Latin Rite (Ordinary Form) out of the water. Only the Solemn High Mass in the Tridentine Rite is its equal in terms of solemnity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top