Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

[St. Clown]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

You're making my point for me.

"People of the Book? More like Pen-ses of the Book, amirite?!"

I wonder if the Sutras and the Vedas teach men to sh-t all over women, too. I have a feeling this is a monkey brain thing, not a Western thing.

Show me a culture in which men did not subvert women's rights or power within society until the last 150 years or so. The Chinese bound women's feet for beauty (B as in B, S as in S). The Japanese had their traditions which hit a peak with geishas. The number of historically matriarchal societies in this world could probably be counted on a single hand.

I'll hold the line while you find one.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Show me a culture in which men did not subvert women's rights or power within society until the last 150 years or so. The Chinese bound women's feet for beauty (B as in B, S as in S). The Japanese had their traditions which hit a peak with geishas. The number of historically matriarchal societies in this world could probably be counted on a single hand.

I'll hold the line while you find one.

Well, if you believe Reay Tannahill...

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

enslave us up to the year 6565, eh?

One of the worst songs ever.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Show me a culture in which men did not subvert women's rights or power within society until the last 150 years or so. The Chinese bound women's feet for beauty (B as in B, S as in S). The Japanese had their traditions which hit a peak with geishas. The number of historically matriarchal societies in this world could probably be counted on a single hand.

I'll hold the line while you find one.

So you're saying that at our current rate, women will completely run the world sometime around 5017?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

One of the worst songs ever.

Great reference to it in Alien 3, however.

 

[joecct]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

CREATION OR EVOLUTION?
What does the Church have to say?

"We cannot say: 'creation or evolution', inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities.

The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God (Gn 2:7), does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are.

And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature.

To that extent we are faced here with two complementary - rather than mutually exclusive - realities."

Benedict XVI.
('In the Beginning...')

 

[unofan]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

I'll be honest. I really don't get your hard-on for the placeholder pope, especially compared to his immediate predecessor and successor.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

I'll be honest. I really don't get your hard-on for the placeholder pope, especially compared to his immediate predecessor and successor.

He was arch-conservative on most matters of faith. He permitted open celebration of the Tridentine Mass that had been disavowed, or celebrated behind closed doors by older priests, since the reign of Paul VI. He wore some of the old, fancy-schmancy Papal attire that had previously been mothballed (I was a bit surprised that he never hauled one of the Papal Tiaras out of storage).

Those were more than enough to get older Catholics nostalgic for the pre-VII era excited.

 

[joecct]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Joseph Ratzinger is a brilliant theologian. Traditionalist, yes. His sermon at the funeral of St. JP2 on the dictatorship of relativism was 100% spot on. His writings on the Liturgy are prophetic and his preaching/writings on Vatican II in context of the whole Church history are a must read.

I believe it was him that said "Truth does not depend on a majority vote."

His greatest achievement though may have been the establishment of the Anglican Ordnariate. They will be the spark that revitalizes the Mass.

The present Pope is mercurial. He just wiped out the Sovereignty of the Knights of Malta with a move that should make V.V. Putin envious and illegal under canon law. He has surrounded himself with sycophants. He's an intellectual lightweight compared to his immediate 2 predecessors.

But we've survived bad popes before. We have Christ's promise to rely on.

St. Pope John XXIII was a caretaker Pope, too. It is too bad cancer claimed him before V2 really started.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Interesting piece on Vatican politics.

TL;DR? There are many conservative factions of the Church that do NOT like Pope Francis, and this is just the latest example of him stepping on their toes.

 

[joecct]

Interesting piece on Vatican politics.

TL;DR? There are many conservative factions of the Church that do NOT like Pope Francis, and this is just the latest example of him stepping on their toes.

The Knights of Malta are a Sovereignty-they issue their own passports and are recognized as a Sovereignty by ~140 countries. What is happening is one Sovereignty (the Vatican) is taking over another Sovereignty (KoM). States just don't do that anymore unless your boss is V.V Putin.

As a Sovereignty, the Knights did exercise autonomy over their affairs. They are Catholic and in matters spiritual will always bend their knee to the Bishop of Rome. In civil matters and running of the Order, the Pope had about as much authority as running China.

That's the Cliff Notes version. Canon law afffectionados can visit Ed Peter's blog. https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com

 

[unofan]

Joseph Ratzinger is a brilliant theologian. Traditionalist, yes. His sermon at the funeral of St. JP2 on the dictatorship of relativism was 100% spot on. His writings on the Liturgy are prophetic and his preaching/writings on Vatican II in context of the whole Church history are a must read.

I believe it was him that said "Truth does not depend on a majority vote."

His greatest achievement though may have been the establishment of the Anglican Ordnariate. They will be the spark that revitalizes the Mass.

The present Pope is mercurial. He just wiped out the Sovereignty of the Knights of Malta with a move that should make V.V. Putin envious and illegal under canon law. He has surrounded himself with sycophants. He's an intellectual lightweight compared to his immediate 2 predecessors.

But we've survived bad popes before. We have Christ's promise to rely on.

St. Pope John XXIII was a caretaker Pope, too. It is too bad cancer claimed him before V2 really started.

Calling a Jesuit an intellectual lightweight? Yeah, that's a credible opinion...

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Calling a Jesuit an intellectual lightweight? Yeah, that's a credible opinion...

I'm not up on my understanding of jesuits. Can you explain why being a Jesuit means they aren't lightweights?

 

[unofan]

I'm not up on my understanding of jesuits. Can you explain why being a Jesuit means they aren't lightweights?

Jesuits are traditionally an academic-oriented society of priests. There's a reason they punch well above their weight when it comes to teaching and running universities. For instance, in the new Big East, 4 of the 9 Catholic schools are Jesuit institutions (Creighton, Xavier, Georgetown, and Marquette).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus

 

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Joseph Ratzinger is a brilliant theologian. Traditionalist, yes. His sermon at the funeral of St. JP2 on the dictatorship of relativism was 100% spot on. His writings on the Liturgy are prophetic and his preaching/writings on Vatican II in context of the whole Church history are a must read.

I believe it was him that said "Truth does not depend on a majority vote."

His greatest achievement though may have been the establishment of the Anglican Ordnariate. They will be the spark that revitalizes the Mass.

The present Pope is mercurial. He just wiped out the Sovereignty of the Knights of Malta with a move that should make V.V. Putin envious and illegal under canon law. He has surrounded himself with sycophants. He's an intellectual lightweight compared to his immediate 2 predecessors.

But we've survived bad popes before. We have Christ's promise to rely on.

St. Pope John XXIII was a caretaker Pope, too. It is too bad cancer claimed him before V2 really started.

Not being a Catholic (and a heretical Lutheran, to boot) I found this view fascinating and it lost me a bit.

I realize I am not a Catholic (so my logic might be correct). I thought the belief is a Pope was chosen because God moves those who vote into the correct direction. The Pope is supposed to be the 'mouthpiece' on earth for God. If this is so, how can the Pope be bad? Isn't this akin to saying God is screwing up? (serious question, not flaming) I listen to this Pope and he sounds like the various Prophets in the Bible who told the peoples they had lost their way, become too obsessed with maintaining the status quo, focusing on human made rules and institutions, not God's work. The people predictably didn't like the message. From the outside it seems as if this Pope is calling people to account for having lost their way, getting mired in preserving power, various 'structures' with in the system rather than focusing on how to minister to the faithful. The people invested in the 'Institution', who have the power, are unhappy and obviously most people don't like to reorg- it is unsettling. (I obviously don't know enough background to know if my logic is correct in the context of the Church's teachings)

When mr les and I were first together I considered being Catholic but had a hard time with Doctrine over the Bible. Contemplated for a while but couldn't get past Doctrine rules that were in opposition to Scripture. As a non-Catholic I would have rated the last Pope as the most ineffective and off putting of all the those I remember. To me he appeared intolerant, rigid, defending people who should never have been defended, ignoring or excusing errors instead of saying yes we were wrong and mea culpa (he did the mea culpa thing a few times but after first trying to squirm off the hook- making it seem less sincere). My general impression was he was more interested in preserving the 'Institution' of the Church than on the reason it exists.

My FIL is very Catholic and we have had many discussions about Church teaching mostly centered around Matthew. Jesus chastises the Pharisees and Sadducees for preaching rigic adherence to the Rule while forgetting the point of it. Many times the FIL would say he couldn't explain the reasoning. No more lively discussions since this Pope came in. This Pope could almost convince me to be Catholic. He seems to have remembered Christianity is supposed to be 'Go and do likewise' and is a walking example that he is willing to do so. He is the first Pope in many years I feel has behaved in a Christ-like way both as a person and a leader of the Church.

Long winded but I guess my question is how can a Pope, ordained by God to be a leader, be bad?

 

[joecct]

Not being a Catholic (and a heretical Lutheran, to boot) I found this view fascinating and it lost me a bit.

I realize I am not a Catholic (so my logic might be correct). I thought the belief is a Pope was chosen because God moves those who vote into the correct direction. The Pope is supposed to be the 'mouthpiece' on earth for God. If this is so, how can the Pope be bad? Isn't this akin to saying God is screwing up? (serious question, not flaming) I listen to this Pope and he sounds like the various Prophets in the Bible who told the peoples they had lost their way, become too obsessed with maintaining the status quo, focusing on human made rules and institutions, not God's work. The people predictably didn't like the message. From the outside it seems as if this Pope is calling people to account for having lost their way, getting mired in preserving power, various 'structures' with in the system rather than focusing on how to minister to the faithful. The people invested in the 'Institution', who have the power, are unhappy and obviously most people don't like to reorg- it is unsettling. (I obviously don't know enough background to know if my logic is correct in the context of the Church's teachings)

When mr les and I were first together I considered being Catholic but had a hard time with Doctrine over the Bible. Contemplated for a while but couldn't get past Doctrine rules that were in opposition to Scripture. As a non-Catholic I would have rated the last Pope as the most ineffective and off putting of all the those I remember. To me he appeared intolerant, rigid, defending people who should never have been defended, ignoring or excusing errors instead of saying yes we were wrong and mea culpa (he did the mea culpa thing a few times but after first trying to squirm off the hook- making it seem less sincere). My general impression was he was more interested in preserving the 'Institution' of the Church than on the reason it exists.

My FIL is very Catholic and we have had many discussions about Church teaching mostly centered around Matthew. Jesus chastises the Pharisees and Sadducees for preaching rigic adherence to the Rule while forgetting the point of it. Many times the FIL would say he couldn't explain the reasoning. No more lively discussions since this Pope came in. This Pope could almost convince me to be Catholic. He seems to have remembered Christianity is supposed to be 'Go and do likewise' and is a walking example that he is willing to do so. He is the first Pope in many years I feel has behaved in a Christ-like way both as a person and a leader of the Church.

Long winded but I guess my question is how can a Pope, ordained by God to be a leader, be bad?

Because he is a man and subject to all the temptations that we in the laity face.

There have been some pretty disgusting Popes. There are a few books out there that detail the lives of the Popes, both good and bad.

Matthew 16:18-19
"18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

There were some very colorful Popes during medieval and Renaissance times. Popes who bribed and bought their way into the office. Popes who were war profiteers, and actively condoned torture of enemies and heretics. Popes who had multiple wives, concubines, and dozens of children. Popes whose sole ambitions were worldly wealth and power, and used the Church to those ends.

Francis has yet to match the misdeeds of any of them. The problems he has are with conservatives who believe in moral absolutes, and feel he is moving too quickly towards relativism, creating an even bigger "Church of Nice".

 

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Because he is a man and subject to all the temptations that we in the laity face.

There have been some pretty disgusting Popes. There are a few books out there that detail the lives of the Popes, both good and bad.

Matthew 16:18-19
"18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Pope history is really, really interesting. Looked into it a long time ago when one of my Confirmation kid' parents had a question about something. From what I could glean, not from Catholic sources (which have the most extraordinary circular logic) Pope history- non-Catholic style from memory, not completely accurate~~I just tried to Google it but everything I get is Catholic~~There is disagreement with Peter being the original pope in many sects of Christianity, the quote you gave interpreted as metaphorical, not a declaration. Initially there were 4 major popes (really big time Bishops) for the 4 large areas: Byzantine, Rome, 2 others in Northern Africa. In other areas their power waned as time went on. The Roman Pope became more powerful ascended to more than Church leader when the Visigoths invaded around Rome and he intervened. Initially the Pope was like the 'Chairman of the Board' of Cardinal College. The College was more powerful and the Pope was the voted leader. Over time he became more elevated from the College and in the late 1800s was declared infallible.

The infallible part is the thing that confuses me. If he has been declared infallible how can he be bad? If he is fallibly infallible then how can one discern between humans rejecting his leadership because they are trying to avoid what they don't want to hear.

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/rise-papacy/ isn't one of the original sources I read but it kind of is a synopsis

Explanation I dug out doesn't help me much. Emphasis mine- Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

 

[joecct]

Pope history is really, really interesting. Looked into it a long time ago when one of my Confirmation kid' parents had a question about something. From what I could glean, not from Catholic sources (which have the most extraordinary circular logic) Pope history- non-Catholic style from memory, not completely accurate~~I just tried to Google it but everything I get is Catholic~~There is disagreement with Peter being the original pope in many sects of Christianity, the quote you gave interpreted as metaphorical, not a declaration. Initially there were 4 major popes (really big time Bishops) for the 4 large areas: Byzantine, Rome, 2 others in Northern Africa. In other areas their power waned as time went on. The Roman Pope became more powerful ascended to more than Church leader when the Visigoths invaded around Rome and he intervened. Initially the Pope was like the 'Chairman of the Board' of Cardinal College. The College was more powerful and the Pope was the voted leader. Over time he became more elevated from the College and in the late 1800s was declared infallible.

The infallible part is the thing that confuses me. If he has been declared infallible how can he be bad? If he is fallibly infallible then how can one discern between humans rejecting his leadership because they are trying to avoid what they don't want to hear.

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/rise-papacy/ isn't one of the original sources I read but it kind of is a synopsis

Explanation I dug out doesn't help me much. Emphasis mine- Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

Infallibe ONLY on matters of Faith and Morals. If he told me to vote Democrat because they treat refugees better than the Republicans, I have as much duty to obey him as I would from following the opinions in the New York Times.

Luther did not like what he saw and in good faith tried to change the doins. However the Pope at the time was not interested, and the Reformation/Revolution got political when the kings and dukes figured out that if they gave Rome the finger, they could get their hands on the temporal holdings and bank accounts of Holy Mother Church.

Then it got REALLY ugly. Heads rolled.

Read this on noted Lutheran theologian Thomas Piepkorn. It's kind of neat

https://secker.sharepoint.com/Pages/TheBelovedLegendaryPiepkorn.aspx

 

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...

Infallibe ONLY on matters of Faith and Morals.

This is a new, politically-motivated addendum. Mother Church instructs us on matters of Faith. That's it. On everything else, from abortion to the death penalty, opinions are like as-sholes.