B
bones_IV
Guest
Some of my essays are more grizzly than this.Hey Bones! Now you sound like Mother Angelica and you are in good company (including myself of course…Code:). God bless you! :dancing:
- Status
M
Melissa
Guest
Anyone else notice that line? Considering he’s got to be one of the ‘controversial theologians’ of their first point, it seemed significant that he’d declined to participate.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Still won’t be any problem. He doesn’t have to have micromanaged the Church and all the sins of the members don’t devolve upon his head, so we can probably look forward to a process that will take about as long as that of the Little Flower.
I’m actually looking forward to the howls of the REALLY radical “traditionalists”, the “more Catholic than the pope” types, who are going to be just as upset as the liberals. I hope I live to see the proclamation of “Saint John Paul the Great.”
Might even go to Rome to stand in the square.
S
shannin
Guest
My words exactly. If they don’t want to follow the rules are free to leave. In fact,** I WISH they WOULD **leave.
B
bones_IV
Guest
And join the wishy washy Episcopalian Church with their same-sex relationships, women priests, and gay Bishops perverting it. I wonder if any any of those dissenting theologians took the word of God seriously. The battle of the Church vs anti-Church is just beginning.
M
manualman
Guest
So far, the facts you have provided do not contrdict my statement. Canonization by acclamation may not have occurred for a long time, but I believe it was JPII who actually took the possibility of its use ‘off the books’ so to speak. Further, he put considerable thought and consultation into the matter before deciding upon a 5 year MINIMUM waiting period.
In case you hadn’t noticed, it hasn’t been ONE year yet.
Don’t get me wrong all. I think he’s a shoe-in. I just think it is MORE respectful to go about it the way HE would have wanted it done.
A
Arba_Sicula
Guest
As for myself, I want to see Pius XII canonized before John Paul II, and am willing to wait for the proper procedures to be followed.
Canonization ought not be a popularity contest.
A
Arba_Sicula
Guest
Same can be said about our conservative Catholics, too. Gotten drunk last weekend, Mr. Never-Miss-Mass? That’s not following the rules. Get out of the Church. Masturbated, young man? That’s not following the rules. Leave the Church. Committed the sin of fornication, Miss? That’s not following the rules. Leave the Church. Committed any number of other sins, Mrs. Conservative? Why, that’s not following the rules. Out with you, too.
If we get rid of all the conservatives and liberals who commit sins, why, we’d have the perfect church all for ourselves.
S
shannin
Guest
Yes, but they WON’T leave because they still want to call themselves Roman Catholic - only problem is they want to make up their own rules and do whatever the heck they want :banghead: :banghead:
S
shannin
Guest
Arba Sicula:
Uh, but isn’t there a distinction between sinning (we all sin) and and outright deliberate disobedience towards Papal Authority? I think you call the later “heretics” http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon8.gif
B
bones_IV
Guest
You tell him.
B
bones_IV
Guest
And they also trashed God’s beautiful Churches and replaced them with brick walls, carpets, crosses, cushened pews and have turned the mass into a great big orgy. And publicly blaspheme God. This is how modernists worship Christ. Like the pharisees in the temple and Roman Soldiers of the cohort they beat Christ’s priests and the Pope as if they were criminals and spit in God’s face and laugh at it and feel no shame. They are a bunch of Judases unbelievers, because Judas didn’t believe.
M
manualman
Guest
Holy smokes! That’s ONE mass I’ve never seen!
I tend towards getting worked up myself, but… wow!
The church would surely be empty without sinners. But sadly, it is currently populated by a disturbing number of people who no longer seem to believe in the very CONCEPT of sin (except to redefine SIN to have the same definition as ‘judgemental.’ )
I think Jesus said quite plainly that we would rather have the company of sinners who KNEW they were sinners and were sorrowful about it than sinners who thought themselves blameless. There are some of the latter in BOTH factions in todays church in America. If you haven’t been to confession in a while, it might be worth wondering where you stand…
B
bones_IV
Guest
The point is that many people don’t think they’re in sin. Many people take the Church for granted.Holy smokes! That’s ONE mass I’ve never seen!
I tend towards getting worked up myself, but… wow!
The church would surely be empty without sinners. But sadly, it is currently populated by a disturbing number of people who no longer seem to believe in the very CONCEPT of sin (except to redefine SIN to have the same definition as ‘judgemental.’ )
I think Jesus said quite plainly that we would rather have the company of sinners who KNEW they were sinners and were sorrowful about it than sinners who thought themselves blameless. There are some of the latter in BOTH factions in todays church in America. If you haven’t been to confession in a while, it might be worth wondering where you stand…
P
Petergee
Guest
Would you please provide some evidence of this? It’s the first I’'ve heard of it.
And he felt free to break that rule in the case of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta. In fact he reportedly wanted to beatify AND canonize her in the same ceremony in 2002 but his senior advisers finally persuaded him against it.
I don’t think anyone is calling for him to be canonised right NOW. But B16 has begun the process and everyone has a right to make submissions to it, even if we strongly disagree with them. In fact I think it’s very important that objections to a proposed candidate for sainthood are carefully considered.
I think he’s a shoo-in too. But I’m sure “what HE would have wanted” is for the process never to be opened at all. He spent his whole papacy trying without much success, to get people to focus on his message rather than himself.
D
Darrel
Guest
The question I seriously have about very liberal Catholics is … why do they not just become protestants?
-D
-D
A
Arba_Sicula
Guest
That’s not what you said. You said that if “they don’t want to follow the rules, they should leave.” The pimply-faced masturbator, the drunken churchgoer, and the dissident are all not following the rules in one way or the other. You didn’t restrict your statement to overt heretics.
A
Arba_Sicula
Guest
What do you mean by a very liberal Catholic? Do you include perfectly orthodox Catholics who happen to be politically liberal?
There are Catholics who don’t follow Church teachings on abortion and such, and are also politically conservative. Do you refer to them as conservative Catholics?
Why not just use the term heterodox Catholics for those who are dissidents regardless of their politics?
D
Darrel
Guest
Arba Sicula:
Apples and oranges, the issue is liberals dissenting not your average sinner in need of repentance. The Church calls sinners home. It is it’s primary function and mission.
-D
This sounds like you are playing a game of** ‘twist the quote’** to me. The poster makes reference to liberals dissenting and you turn the question against the poster by ‘turning’ it towards sinners and away from liberals.
Apples and oranges, the issue is liberals dissenting not your average sinner in need of repentance. The Church calls sinners home. It is it’s primary function and mission.
-D
D
Darrel
Guest
Arba Sicula:
Arba Sicula:
Arba Sicula:
-D
I mean Catholics who spend all of there time trying to turn the CC into something more along there line of personal preference. People who can’t understand the need for simple obediance to mother Church. People who attach modernism to the Church of Christ as if it is an American corperation. In other words, people who lack vision and lack truth in it’s fullness.
Arba Sicula:
The topic is Church not politics. Sorry but I’m not gonna bite. This is just more issue ‘turning’.
Arba Sicula:
Are you Catholic? It says 'N/A’ in your profile. Just curious.
-D
- Status