S
sandmountainsli
Guest
This Methodist is in complete agreement with the Anglican.
WP
- Status
WP
A
Allweather
Guest
So, you’re saying that this was a situation that existed during the time of the Fathers?
OK, I am not familiar with that, I will look it up. I disagree that it isn’t “any of the Pope’s business” what liturgies are being celebrated, but it seems hardly possible that the Pope, or a legion of Popes, would be capable of paying attention to that much detail. There is a cardinal, an African, I can’t remember his name, who oversees liturgical matters. Liturgical abuse is well-known, and has been reported endlessly in various papers, especially the more rightwing papers, who particularly fear such things. Personally, I favor a relaxed approach, and think that people should be allowed to have the liturgies that appeal to their cultural needs, and I believe the Church is very flexible in this area, within limits.
Not at all, I’m defining “serious Catholics” as Catholics who take their religion seriously. Many don’t, as I’m sure you know. It has nothing to do with right or left. Somewhere between liturgical free-for-all and boring conformity is the right approach. We surely don’t want either. Both are a problem.
I guess I’m not seeing any atrophy where I live, though I wouldn’t rule out that it is happening somewhere else. Where I live, the Catholic parishes are alive and growing fabulously. Our bishop runs the diocese, and I have never heard of any interference by Rome on any issue. As a general principle I totally agree that bishops should run their dioceses, but I do think they need to keep an eye on Rome for guidance. That’s why we have a Pope. That isn’t a weakness, it is a great strength.
What specifically is different between now and then? I was under the impression that the kernals of the faith are expressed in the Nicene Creed, and this is very ancient. Has something changed in there between then and now? The Bible is more ancient than the creeds, and yet I don’t see anything in Catholic practice that is contrary to what I read in the NT.
Well, I’m sure you know more about this subject than I do. About when did people, whether ordinary Catholics, or theologians, begin ruminating about the Immaculate Conception? Just as an example, I mean. This may be yet another instance of my ignorance.
On the other hand, we believe that God is guiding our Church, and so far that has proven to be true. Nothing else compares to it! A reasonably strong central authority must be the main reason, and this must be from God. I wouldn’t argue that the centuries of Papal involvement in temporal affairs of gov’t were a good thing. They may have been necessary as Christianity stood in for disappearing Rome, but eventually corruption set in and caused scandal for the Church. That has all changed. Since the mid-19th century the Church has wielded no power over governments, had no armies.
I agree! But, I thought you were saying that the Papacy was overgrown… Is Benedict dismantling the monarchical Papacy? What am I missing?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
the idea of this tweaking only contradict Jesus Christ’s promise that Hell shall not prevail against it…
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes.
There’s a lot of discussion of it over on the Tradictional Catholic board. I like the idea in principle–it annoys me that Catholic bishops think allowing the Tridentine Mass somehow threatens them. But I believe they should have the authority to decide what orthodox liturgies should be celebrated in their dioceses. The Pope should intervene only if the Faith is being denied (either by what is affirmed or what is omitted).
Well, a lot of Catholics who take their religion pretty seriously think the Vatican intervenes too much. You run into them a lot in academic circles. They may be wrong, but they are certainly serious.
I’m not arguing about contradiction, or denying that the kernels were there. To use the standard Catholic metaphor, the early Church was an acorn and the modern Church is an oak (maybe a young sapling for all we know). My point is that the acorn is not identical to the oak. There is continuity but there is also change. The DNA does not change, but nearly everything else does!
Catholics on this board tend to cite any reference to Mary as “immaculate,” and you get those very early (from the 3rd century at least). But I don’t think that counts, because nothing is being said about her conception being free from original sin (I suspect that many of the statements calling her “immaculate” are actually talking about her virginity). To get that, you need a doctrine of original sin, which didn’t really develop until Augustine. And sure enough, Augustine suggests that we really don’t know what grace God might have given Mary and so he’s going to leave her out of the discussion when it comes to original sin (I could try to find the reference, but I know it’s in one of the anti-Pelagian writings fairly late in his career–i.e., early 5th century). I think that’s the point where people started “ruminating” about it, but as you can see it was rather tentative–he didn’t affirm that she was conceived without original sin, but he didn’t want to say that she had any. This was debated right through the Middle Ages–most famously, Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, and the Dominicans followed him. Duns Scotus made a popular argument in favor of it, and the Franciscans followed him. The Council of Basel in the 15th century came down in favor of the IC, but that particular part of the Council was schismatic. Trent took Augustine’s position, refusing to dogmatize one way or the other. And so it remained until 1854. But by that time most Catholics had come to believe and celebrate it.
True (well, the army part except for the Swiss Guards, and it hasn’t had direct power, but it still has influence!). But the monarchical model continued–in fact in some ways it was liberated by the loss of the Papal States and the breakdown of Catholic monarchies. The Pope exercised more direct control over the Church precisely because he didn’t need to engage in a lot of political negotiations (as I understand it, it is only at this point that the Pope began directly and regularly appointing bishops throughout the Latin Church, but I could be wrong). As I see it, only with Vatican II did the Papacy really begin to back off from this model, and JPII was so charismatic and energetic (and inherited so many crises) that in some ways he moved toward greater centralization again (some would disagree there).
Not in any obvious or dramatic way. I may be engaging in wishful thinking based on the differences in personality between him and JPII. But having read some of his theological writing, I think he is moving quietly toward a more modest and truly traditional exercise of the papal office.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
How? How does hell prevail if tweaking is necessary? You are setting the bar for hell not prevailing way too high. This opens you to the counter-charge that a Church whose leaders have sometimes been sinful and corrupt is a Church over which hell has prevailed. I don’t believe that, but I would sooner believe that than I would believe what you are claiming.
Edwin
A
Allweather
Guest
I’m confused. Earlier, you said this about the era of the Fathers:
““If you start with the assumption that the Pope is the CEO and the bishops are his delegates, then sure. But I don’t think that’s how the Fathers saw it. It never would have occurred to them. The Pope didn’t give bishops discretion in running their dioceses. The dioceses were just there and the bishops were their leaders, and when a crisis broke out that couldn’t be solved locally people looked to Rome to speak for the Church as a whole.””
I thought you’d said that in the early Church, the bishops had autonomy and were NOT dominated by the Popes. But it seems as though you’re saying that this dominance wasn’t a later development, but actually existed very early on. I must be missing something.
He’s definitely not JP. I’m sure he’s very secure in himself, but it must’ve been difficult coming on-stage following such a flamboyant act. Presentation-wise, he’s the exact opposite of JP. If the Lord tarries long enough, maybe we’ll get back to a long string of Italian popes who don’t get around much anymore.
BTW thanks for the historical info on Immaculate Conception.
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m saying that primacy existed but was exercised in terms of a communion among bishops rather than a monarchical structure where the bishops are directly accountable to the Pope and even (in modern usage) appointed by him.
True. I like him even better than JPII but I think I’m in the minority there!
Edwin
A
Allweather
Guest
I’m with you on this, I think Benedict is going to prove the more significant Pope. David Gibson wrote a book titled The Rule of Benedict that discusses the two men in some detail. Gibson is apparently a liberal, and has some serious issues with both Popes, but I thought that the information he put into the book was very useful, including a lot of historical perspective. He says that JPII was too much the showman, and that things around the Vatican suffered because of this. He doesn’t much care for Benedict because he feels Benedict is too conservative, and represents a step backward. Myself, I tend to be religiously conservative, so I am happy to have a conservative Pope, but one who once was liberal, so he can see things from more than one point of view.
C
Contarini
Guest
I don’t think he’s changed as much as people think. His emphases have changed but it seems to me that his basic theological views have not changed much. He was never very liberal, and he’s not as conservative now as people think. For instance, he says casually in Truth and Tolerance that exclusivism (the view that only Christians can be saved) is basically dead and the theological debate is between inclusivism (the view that non-Christians can be saved through Christ even if they don’t explicitly know him in this life) and pluralism. That would make him a liberal at the evangelical college where I teach–inclusivism was one of the reasons my predecessor was fired and people warn me not to be too open about my inclusivist views.
Edwin
K
Keikiolu
Guest
I love agreeing with you, Karen…!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
But,… you’re not going believe that, or even understand that, because it’s “illogical” to you, which makes me utterly unintelligible to those who don’t agree that God invalidates gods, and that God exists a priori.
Agreed, that I do not accept as a valid starting point that a) the God of Abraham is necessarily any different in substance from all other Gods despite His claims or b) that the revelation of Abraham is intrinisically superior to and should be judged by criteria different than any other religious revelation. Without those base assumptions, you are right, I am not going to “believe that.”
This is well-plowed ground between Keikiolu and me, yessian, and was directed squarely at me. Don’t worry, your rep as a Christian is safe.
You have the guts to be real, and show the actual differences between your kind and my kind.
So few atheo-agnosto-polytheists are willing to take a stand, for fear of having to make a definitive statement,… which you so fearlessly do…!
Nothing gets people off the fence better than when there is clarity of position.
See 'ya around, I’m sure…!! <smooches!>
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Wow, try putting that on a form somewhere. Now since I don’t see how “atheo” can really meaningfully modify “polytheist,” can’t claim that one. “Agnosto-” only in the sense that I believe we cannot fully know the Gods, else we would also be Gods. “Polytheist” --yes, certainly.
M
mapleoak
Guest
That’s the beauty of the unchanging Catholic faith. Needs no tweaking. It is fine the way Jesus founded it.
In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak
K
Keikiolu
Guest
“Atheo-” modifies the “-the(o)-” portion of the “-polytheist”,…
…rather like “non-” modifies the “-green” portion of “non-blue-green”.
Polytheism is a form of atheism, in that it nullifies the actual meaning of “theos”, since what polytheists describe as “gods” are in fact “spirits” (pneuma).
They inflate “spirits” into “gods”.
That causes “problems”.
But,… they’re used to having those kinds of problems, and their entire existence is centered around “solutions” for those problems,… which amounts to “do what you want and expect retribution in response greater than you do”.
…which sounds rather like Karen’s “sig”, doesn’t it?
(( In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences. - Robert Green Ingersoll ))
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
K
KarenNC
Guest
**“Atheo-” modifies the “-the(o)-” portion of the “-polytheist”,…
…rather like “non-” modifies the “-green” portion of “non-blue-green”.**
In other words, incorrectly? In your example “non-” modifies the adjective “blue-green” not the word “green” independently. I suppose one might conceivably say “apolytheist” which would mean someone who does not believe in many Gods, but not “atheopolytheist.” It is simply not a word with meaning in the English language.
Polytheism is a form of atheism
No it isn’t. They are mutually exclusive.
** in that it nullifies the actual meaning of “theos”, since what polytheists describe as “gods” are in fact “spirits” (pneuma).**
Well, let’s see. “A-” is a prefix from the Greek meaning “not,” “poly-” is a prefix from the Greek meaning “many,” and “theos” is a word from the Greek meaning “God” (and one would reasonably understand that it would mean “God” in the way that the ancient Greeks understood the Gods, which was certainly not monotheistic, much less Christian). So how, linguistically, could “poly-” nullify “theos?”
It is not possible to say “I see many sheep/Ferraris/coconuts” and expect one’s hearer (if the hearer speaks the English language) to understand it to mean “I see no sheep/Ferrari/coconuts.” Perhaps there is a language in which the word for “many” and the word for “none” are equivalent, but I do not know of it.
But,… they’re used to having those kinds of problems, and their entire existence is centered around “solutions” for those problems,… which amounts to “do what you want and expect retribution in response greater than you do”.
Basis for this? Please cite the source so that we can get to the root of this continual misunderstanding.
**…which sounds rather like Karen’s “sig”, doesn’t it?
(( In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences. - Robert Green Ingersoll ))
**
No, it doesn’t.
…rather like “non-” modifies the “-green” portion of “non-blue-green”.**
In other words, incorrectly? In your example “non-” modifies the adjective “blue-green” not the word “green” independently. I suppose one might conceivably say “apolytheist” which would mean someone who does not believe in many Gods, but not “atheopolytheist.” It is simply not a word with meaning in the English language.
Polytheism is a form of atheism
No it isn’t. They are mutually exclusive.
** in that it nullifies the actual meaning of “theos”, since what polytheists describe as “gods” are in fact “spirits” (pneuma).**
Well, let’s see. “A-” is a prefix from the Greek meaning “not,” “poly-” is a prefix from the Greek meaning “many,” and “theos” is a word from the Greek meaning “God” (and one would reasonably understand that it would mean “God” in the way that the ancient Greeks understood the Gods, which was certainly not monotheistic, much less Christian). So how, linguistically, could “poly-” nullify “theos?”
It is not possible to say “I see many sheep/Ferraris/coconuts” and expect one’s hearer (if the hearer speaks the English language) to understand it to mean “I see no sheep/Ferrari/coconuts.” Perhaps there is a language in which the word for “many” and the word for “none” are equivalent, but I do not know of it.
But,… they’re used to having those kinds of problems, and their entire existence is centered around “solutions” for those problems,… which amounts to “do what you want and expect retribution in response greater than you do”.
Basis for this? Please cite the source so that we can get to the root of this continual misunderstanding.
**…which sounds rather like Karen’s “sig”, doesn’t it?
(( In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences. - Robert Green Ingersoll ))
**
No, it doesn’t.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Whatever,…"Atheo-" modifies the “-the(o)-” portion of the “-polytheist”,…
…rather like “non-” modifies the “-green” portion of “non-blue-green”.
In other words, incorrectly? In your example “non-” modifies the adjective “blue-green” not the word “green” independently. I suppose one might conceivably say “apolytheist” which would mean someone who does not believe in many Gods, but not “atheopolytheist.” It is simply not a word with meaning in the English language.
Polytheism is a form of atheism
No it isn’t. They are mutually exclusive.
in that it nullifies the actual meaning of “theos”, since what polytheists describe as “gods” are in fact “spirits” (pneuma).
Well, let’s see. “A-” is a prefix from the Greek meaning “not,” “poly-” is a prefix from the Greek meaning “many,” and “theos” is a word from the Greek meaning “God” (and one would reasonably understand that it would mean “God” in the way that the ancient Greeks understood the Gods, which was certainly not monotheistic, much less Christian). So how, linguistically, could “poly-” nullify “theos?”
It is not possible to say “I see many sheep/Ferraris/coconuts” and expect one’s hearer (if the hearer speaks the English language) to understand it to mean “I see no sheep/Ferrari/coconuts.” Perhaps there is a language in which the word for “many” and the word for “none” are equivalent, but I do not know of it.
But,… they’re used to having those kinds of problems, and their entire existence is centered around “solutions” for those problems,… which amounts to “do what you want and expect retribution in response greater than you do”.
Basis for this? Please cite the source so that we can get to the root of this continual misunderstanding.
…which sounds rather like Karen’s “sig”, doesn’t it?
(( In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences. - Robert Green Ingersoll ))
No, it doesn’t.
I’ve given the various reasons that I’ve stated the wacky things that I state time and time again, and while I’m not asking you to agree with them, I think your pat answer of “Nah AHHHHH…!” is getting a little old.
But then,… so is my incessant proclamation that only if you know and agree with, at least in principle, the difference between the God and a god, can you make any sense of ANYTHING that I say,…
…which distinction you SAY you understand but which you refuse to prove that you understand by seeing how I could say what I say.
For the (probably not) last time,… I’m not asking for you to agree with my conclusions,… just that you agree that my conclusions are valid given that which I “invoke” to formulate them.
I know we’re not going to agree with each other’s conclusions, but I expect a sensible person like yourself to agree that we each hold our respective beliefs for good reasons.
I absolutely KNOW your reasoning is flawless, given your premises.
Not granting me the same courtesy is just not nice, and if you’re gonna be that way, my Mommie told me that I ought’a pack up my tea set and find another friend to play with,…
…so there…!!! Phhhhtttttttttttttttttttttttt…
(( Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh,… Am I a dork, or WHAT!?.. ))
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
K
KarenNC
Guest
** But then,… so is my incessant proclamation that only if you know and agree with, at least in principle, the difference between the God and a god, can you make any sense of ANYTHING that I say,…**
Sorry, I won’t agree with you that your religious standpoint gives you license to totally rework the language and use it in ways that simply say nothing. Honestly, I expect better from you and am not prepared to cut you that much slack.
Sorry, I won’t agree with you that your religious standpoint gives you license to totally rework the language and use it in ways that simply say nothing. Honestly, I expect better from you and am not prepared to cut you that much slack.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
You’re quite right.
I do indeed take liberties with the language, usually to “emphasize” a point of difference between the “usual” meaning and my meaning, in some special case, of any particular word.
It’s a very “compact” way of tweaking my partner-in-conversation into thinking about why I’m being “obtuse” about “that particular” word or concept.
My assumption is that people will come back at me with an objection about my “misuse” of terms, as they see it, and that’ll energize the discussion into clarifying the aspect of our discussion that hinged on the word(s) in question.
I’ll guarantee you this,… I NEVER say nothing.
…it may be meaningless to those hearing it, because we disagree on terms, but once the terms are clarified, what I said WILL make sense,… though not necessarily the “logical” sense of those whom I’m conversing with.
The key to living together is not agreeing on conclusions, but agreeing that each other’s logic is sensible based on their base premises.
Once we come to THAT agreement, we will know where we can “touch” each other so as not to violate each other’s premises.
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.- Status