Some Thoughts on Catholicism and the Current State of Things

[syo]

By choice or chance?

Both.

 

[metis]

Both.

So, why would you avoid people who may worship in a Catholic Church? I'm not a Muslim but I have no trouble whatsoever visiting a mosque, and I have on numerous occasions here in the States and in Israel.

You sorta sound like my parents, who were strongly anti-Catholic as was the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in, so you can imagine their chagrin when I married an Italian Catholic woman, and we will have been married for 56 years in a couple of weeks. My parents came around after some years and even attended mass at our church at times.

 

[viole]

Ordaining women to Holy Orders is a red line for me. I

Why? Are testicles a necessary condition for being part of so called Holy Orders, whatever they are? Why?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I think the 90% of Catholics couldn't either.

Well, at least 45%, in that case.

Even though my selfish self hopes you insist on that, so that you get another schism soon, and you are really toast, I still would like to understand what are the theological reasons for your sexist beliefs.

ciao

- viole

 

[Glaurung]

Obviously, conditions have changed over the last 2000 years, thus certain teachings can and often have changed with different conditions-- ask Galileo about that.

The Church was justified in not accepting a heliocentric model that was yet to be decisively proven. In any case, that the Church was wrong on an issue of natural science does not mean the Church is now wrong on an issue of sacramental theology.

Generally, in today's Catholicism we refer it as "serious sin", not "mortal sin".

Tell that to the catechism. Dress it up as you will the Church still teaches that "serious sin" destroys the life of charity within the soul and that this must be repaired though the sacrament of confession.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText​

Why? Are testicles a necessary condition for being part of so called Holy Orders, whatever they are? Why?

The Church believes that a male only priesthood is the will of God. John Paul II declared the male only priesthood to be a definitive teaching of the Catholic Church.

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.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994) | John Paul II​

The pope is supposedly protected from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit. So even Pope Francis must realize that to disregard and contradict a definitive doctrinal ruling of a recent predecessor would make an utter sham of papal authority. The Church won't ordain women to the priesthood because it can't. Well, it could try, but then the entire edifice of the Church's own claims about the nature of its own authority comes crashing down.

 

[syo]

why would you avoid people who may worship in a Catholic Church?

I don't. I avoid their thoughts on religion.

 

[metis]

I don't. I avoid their thoughts on religion.

Then why do you label yourself as being a "nicene christian"?

 

[metis]

In any case, that the Church was wrong on an issue of natural science does not mean the Church is now wrong on an issue of sacramental theology.

I do not question "sacramental theology", just for the record.

Tell that to the catechism. Dress it up as you will the Church still teaches that "serious sin" destroys the life of charity within the soul and that this must be repaired though the sacrament of confession.

I did not "dress it up" but am using language that the Church also uses for this.

The Church believes that a male only priesthood is the will of God. John Paul II declared the male only priesthood to be a definitive teaching of the Catholic Church.

Again, conditions change and sometimes the Church's reaction changes as well. A first century member of the Church would hardly recognize the Church of today.

The pope is supposedly protected from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit.

Popes have changed positions at times, and they undoubtedly will in the future as well. The only serious question is what will be changed, but there's no way of answering that at this time.

When you say your Catholic Theology is Very Liberal, what do you mean? Only a Few of the 2.2 Billion members of the Catholic Church are Not Scriptural Literalist. Do you have Spiritual understanding of Holy Scripture/Bible? I'm aware that you have Niche Religious Orders with a Few practising a Different brand of Christianity to the Earthly Masses.

The Church has never endorsed scriptural inerrancy but took and still takes the position that errancy cannot happen with the most basic teachings as derived from scripture. Scriptural inerrancy is a Protestant position that started in the 19th century with some of their churches ["fundamentalism"] to counter "modernism".

 

[syo]

Then why do you label yourself as being a "nicene christian"?

Nicene creed the original. I reject all other creeds.

 

[metis]

Nicene creed the original. I reject all other creeds.

That creed was formulated by the denomination you prefer to avoid.

BTW, there was a short phrase in it that was inserted to try and bring in those who were into Arianism, and it worked. Trouble is, it actually contradicts another part of the creed.

 

[viole]

The Church believes that a male only priesthood is the will of God. John Paul II declared the male only priesthood to be a definitive teaching of the Catholic Church.

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.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994) | John Paul II​

The pope is supposedly protected from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit. So even Pope Francis must realize that to disregard and contradict a definitive doctrinal ruling of a recent predecessor would make an utter sham of papal authority. The Church won't ordain women to the priesthood because it can't. Well, it could try, but then the entire edifice of the Church's own claims about the nature of its own authority comes crashing down.

Since the Church is/was mainly made of men, it is not surprising that it does.

So, unless there is some evidence in Scriptures that this is the case, I must conclude that this is just what the RCC made up. And they made it up, because they are probably sexist. Can you imagine the Holy Spirit whispering in the pope's ear saying "psss, man is good, woman is not. You need to have that chromosome difference to turn a wafer into the other third of Us, otherwise it will never work". C'mon, what God would ever do that?

Anyway, about the crashing down thing. Are you sure? Hasn't that ever been a case where two popes spoke ex-cathedra saying contradicting things? And even if not, the Holy Spirit could change Its mind. After all stoning children was Ok back then, and sort of suboptimal today, so why not?

Honestly, I think the RCC will crush down soon if It does not do anything. You are losing people at such a rate, that you will get extinct in a generation or two, at least here in Europe, if you do not act on that.

I suggest that:

1) Allowing gay couples to be blessed, or even married
2) Allowing clergy to marry
3) Allowing women same status. Including the capability to administer the sacraments

That should increases the chance to survive a couple of generations more.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The Church believes that a male only priesthood is the will of God. John Paul II declared the male only priesthood to be a definitive teaching of the Catholic Church.

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.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994) | John Paul II​

The pope is supposedly protected from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit. So even Pope Francis must realize that to disregard and contradict a definitive doctrinal ruling of a recent predecessor would make an utter sham of papal authority. The Church won't ordain women to the priesthood because it can't. Well, it could try, but then the entire edifice of the Church's own claims about the nature of its own authority comes crashing down.

Since the Church is/was mainly made of men, it is not surprising that it does.

So, unless there is some evidence in Scriptures that this is the case, I must conclude that this is just what the RCC made up. And they made it up, because they are probably sexist. Can you imagine the Holy Spirit whispering in the pope's ear saying "psss, man is good, woman is not. You need to have that chromosome difference to turn a wafer into the other third of Us, otherwise it will never work". C'mon, what God would ever do that?

Anyway, about the crashing down thing. Are you sure? Hasn't that ever been a case where two popes spoke ex-cathedra saying contradicting things? And even if not, the Holy Spirit could change Its mind. After all, stoning children, and forcing a raped girl to many her rapist, was Ok back then, but sort of suboptimal today, so why not?

On the contrary, I think the RCC will crush down soon if It does not do anything. So, inaction is more dangerous. You are losing people at such a rate, that you will get extinct in a generation or two, at least here in Europe, if you do not act on that.

I suggest:

1) Allowing gay couples to be blessed, or even married. I mean, if weapons get a blessing, why not people loving each others?
2) Allowing clergy to marry. Also to reduce sexual tensions going astray and causing bad press
3) Allowing women same status. Including the capability to administer the sacraments
4) Allowing condoms and other means of procreation prevention. Possibly, allow abortion, too
5 Allowing euthanasia, or assisted suicide

That should increases the chance to survive a couple of generations more. Just a modest suggestion to help, and with all due respect for your belief and the RCC, of course.

Ciao

- viole

 

[pearl]

2) Allowing clergy to marry. Also to reduce sexual tensions going astray and causing bad press

Celibacy is only a discipline, nothing to do with Tradition, or the Deposit of Faith.

3) Allowing women same status. Including the capability to administer the sacraments

Women already administer the Eucharist. They may not consecrate. As for the other sacraments, since the priest represents Christ, back to square one, women's ordination.

Following all your suggestions might make the Church more popular, but it would no longer be the Catholic church.

 

[metis]

Celibacy is only a discipline, nothing to do with Tradition, or the Deposit of Faith.



Women already administer the Eucharist. They may not consecrate. As for the other sacraments, since the priest represents Christ, back to square one, women's ordination.

Following all your suggestions might make the Church more popular, but it would no longer be the Catholic church.

I have to more go with @viole on this, but any such changes would have to take place very s-l-o-w-l-y.

 

[viole]

Celibacy is only a discipline, nothing to do with Tradition, or the Deposit of Faith.

So, it can be easily removed as a requirement. Right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[pearl]

So, it can be easily removed as a requirement. Right?

Right.

 

[pearl]

So, it can be easily removed as a requirement. Right?

Right.

 

[pearl]

I have to more go with @viole on this, but any such changes would have to take place very s-l-o-w-l-y.

As far as sexual issues are concerned the Church will have to alter its position based on 'Natural Law', and its position on marriage as first pro-creative etc. And since the Church marks time in centuries not decades, well.........

 

[syo]

That creed was formulated by the denomination you prefer to avoid.

No. It was formulated by Constantine the emperor.

 

[Glaurung]

Since the Church is/was mainly made of men, it is not surprising that it does.

Yeah, if we take the axioms of secular liberalism for granted then this assumption makes sense. If we assume the Church sincerely believes that the male only priesthood is divine revelation then cries of sexism cease to be meaningful.

So, unless there is some evidence in Scriptures that this is the case, I must conclude that this is just what the RCC made up. And they made it up, because they are probably sexist. Can you imagine the Holy Spirit whispering in the pope's ear saying "psss, man is good, woman is not. You need to have that chromosome difference to turn a wafer into the other third of Us, otherwise it will never work". C'mon, what God would ever do that?

In other words. If God exists he sees the world as a good western European.

Anyway, about the crashing down thing. Are you sure? Hasn't that ever been a case where two popes spoke ex-cathedra saying contradicting things? And even if not, the Holy Spirit could change Its mind. After all, stoning children, and forcing a raped girl to many her rapist, was Ok back then, but sort of suboptimal today, so why not?

Whether or not the teachings of the current Magisterium can be completely squared with what has been authoritatively taught in the past is actually the topic of the OP. But in terms of formal ex-cathedra statements there has been no contradiction by the recent popes. Ex-cathedra infallibility has only been invoked a handful of times in the Church's two thousand year history.

On the contrary, I think the RCC will crush down soon if It does not do anything. So, inaction is more dangerous. You are losing people at such a rate, that you will get extinct in a generation or two, at least here in Europe, if you do not act on that.

If the Church is right, it will survive one way or the other because God promised it will. Matthew 16:17-19

If the Catholicism is a false religion then good riddance to it.

I suggest:

1) Allowing gay couples to be blessed, or even married. I mean, if weapons get a blessing, why not people loving each others?
2) Allowing clergy to marry. Also to reduce sexual tensions going astray and causing bad press
3) Allowing women same status. Including the capability to administer the sacraments
4) Allowing condoms and other means of procreation prevention. Possibly, allow abortion, too
5 Allowing euthanasia, or assisted suicide

Number 2. could actually happen. The rest could not without the formal defection of the Church. Which (assuming Catholicism is true) God promised would never happen.