Its not just the catholic Church that is moderating

[Andy_K]

Then think outside the box a little. What is the male priest’s relation to the male members of the Church supposed to be like. Sort of like a man marrying a man wouldn’t you say?

You’re misunderstanding the idea of the church being the bride and Christ being the groom. This is a theological thing, not a priest-in-a-relation-to-his-parishioners thing. The idea is that the priest, when performing (bad word choice, here, perhaps) the sacraments, represents Christ.

A priest does have duties as being the sheperd of his flock (his parish), but his far more important role is that of acting “in persona Christi” in performing his sacramental duties. Because of the theological underpinnings here (something that, I admit, could probably be explained far more effectively by another…such as Peter Kreeft ), we really WILL NEVER HAVE women priests.

Accept it now; it’s not changing, and it has nothing to do with women being “unworthy.”

 

[urbana]

The continued argument on this topic just doesn’t make any sense to me. With regards to the possibility of the Church changing its position on specific topics, such as homosexuality or women priests, those who believe in Catholic teachings are saying it can’t happen, and those who don’t believe keep arguing it will. The position of the former is guided by faith, and remains unconvincing to the latter. But, there is no need. Regardless of your opinion of the Catholic Church and whether or not it CAN change its teachings, it should be easy to see that it WON’T.

First, there are three options (really only one, but that requires knowledge from faith).

1. The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot alter the deposit of faith.
2. The Catholic Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit; but the Church leaders believe what the Church teaches, and believe it is.
3. The Catholic Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit; the Church leaders know it and are self-serving frauds.

Let us now examine whether Church Doctrine faces the possibility of change in each case.

Case 1: By definition, if case 1 is true, then Church Doctrine cannot change and hence will not.

Case 2: Church Doctrine is not protected by the Holy Spirit, and hence could change. However, Church leaders believe they are incapable (not just not authorized, but actually incapable) of changing it. As long as they believe this, they will not change it. If they stop believing this, then they no longer believe what the Church teaches, and hence we are no longer in case 2 but have moved to case 3 (Unless of course they make a magisterial announcement saying that the Catholic Faith is false; this would prevent their becoming a fraud, but would not change Church Doctrine; it would instead effectively disband the faith.)

Case 3: If the Church leaders are self-serving frauds, Church Doctrine could be changed. If they change Church Doctrine, this will prove that the Catholic Church does not have the teaching authority it says it has, effectively disproving the Catholic Faith. Faith in a false religion is possible; faith in a false religion that itself proclaims it to be false is highly unlikely. The Catholic Church would largely collapse, and the remnants would not be the same. Any self-serving fraud in charge would not want this to happen, and thus we can be quite sure that no fraud would dare to change those things that the Church has already said can never be changed.

Thus, pure logic dictates that whether or not Church Doctrine is guarded by the Holy Spirit (and hence cannot change), it will not change, or in the very unlikely event it does, the Catholic Church will not exist anymore. Thus, I can state with certainty that the Catholic Church will not teach differently 100 years from now than it does today.

 

[edwest2]

The Catholic Church cannot change. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I’ve heard commentators on the radio mention that Vatican II was worthwhile but it was not properly explained. This led to some confusion. I also believe that in the late 1960s, as a side effect of the radicals, Hippies and anarchists, some Catholics became seriously confused by a media that began to embrace some of the ideas proposed by these groups. The Body of Christ was slowly and gradually poisoned by a media that allowed first a little more suggestive dialogue and scenes, then a little more and then a little more; many people barely realized it. I have heard the phrase on Catholic radio about our “collective amnesia” about living as real Catholics these past thirty years. Can you honestly go to dinner and a movie today as you would in 1968? The food is the same but the movies are almost all unGodly.

I witnessed people gradually, slowly avoiding Church, living together and when No-Fault Divorce was made legal, divorcing. I have every compassion for men and women who are in abusive, dysfunctional relationships, but some are so hurt, they have turned away from the Church. Abortion became not a last resort but a “way out.” Can’t we all see that what happened over the past thirty years did not involve any “amnesia” but seeing more and more people around us following the solutions offered by the world and abandoning the solutions offered by the Church? Now I encourage you, brothers and sisters, return to the Church and accept her healing, and be healed and set yourselves back on the narrow path. The authorities you once respected are showing by the messaage they communicate that they are on the wide road that leads to destruction. By their fruit you shall know them. And what is the fruit of “modern” culture?

Christ is the answer and the Church will take you back.

In Love, God bless,
Ed

 

[tvdxer]

I have seen constant changes in the Church in the past fifty years. When I was a boy in the 1950’s, Mass could not be started after noon and Catholic weddings started in the morning or at noon.

Yeah, that

We were taught that limbo was real; now teaching on limbo has been rejected.

Theology (excluding established dogma) is a science. There are developments in science.

Cremation was never allowed, now it is being accepted.

I’m not sure why this is.

We received communion on the tongue, never in the hand.

Perhaps not in the 1950’s, but during the early church this was practiced.

Suicides were never interred in the Catholic cemetery.

Modern psychology has shed a lot of light on suicide as being an act (however horrible) prompted by severe chemical imbalances, thus possibly limiting the freedom necessary to be culpable of such a tragedy.

Annulments were hard, and I mean h a r d to get; now they have become almost routine. Divorced and remarried persons who had not obtained annulments were refused communion. Now many divorced people routinely receive communion.

I agree annulments are very easy today, kind of like a “Catholic divorce”. Whether they should be very hard to get or somewhat easier I don’t know for sure.

Not everybody received communion because Catholics who had not confessed sins believed it was sacrilege to receive; now everybody goes up.

I suppose this isn’t just a matter of believing or not believing it is a sacrilege, but also the result of the faithful being poorly catechized as to what is a mortal sin and what is not. A common belief today seems to be that only truly, obviously grievous things like adultery, murder, etc. are mortal sins. I’m sure if you quizzed Catholics as to whether the Sunday obligation bound under mortal or venial sin only a small percentage would answer correctly - even practicing Catholics .

Catholics who got divorced went somewhere else to church. We did not eat meat on any Fridays, not just Fridays during Lent.

Although it might seem more lax today, the bishops replaced the meat abstinence rule with a “fast of your choice equivalent or greater than it”. Few Catholics seem to know that. I suppose it’s much easier just to say “Don’t eat meat on Fridays”.

We fasted before going to Sunday Mass. There was no Saturday evening Mass - that was unheard of. Saturday evening was for confession and the lines were long.

Goes back to being poorly catechized in moral issues. However, it’s possible that there was perhaps too much emphasis on sin and damnation at times pre-V2, where today there is far too little in many parishes.

There was no group reconciliation.

There’s not today either, except in truly confused and deviant parishes.

There was no concelebration of marriages with protestant clergy. I never saw a married priest; now there are quite a number. I never saw an altar girl until much later. This list seems endless.

As for the married priests, married Eastern Catholic men have been allowed into the priesthood for a long time (I think). I really have to wonder if allowing altar girls has really done any harm.

 

[BillP]

And it would look pretty darn stupid if it were to turn around at any point in the future and say otherwise about women priests.

It wouldn’t be the first time (or the last) that the Church has looked stupid.

In fact if you think it’s already made changes of this magnitude then I’d question why you’ve even remained a Catholic, and moreover say you look like an fool to be staying a Catholic.

Unless of, course I AGREED with changes, which, of course I do.

Clearly you believe the promises of Christ to guide the Church mean absolutely nothing.

I believe that when the Church changes with the times, as human understanding increases, its BECAUSE Christ (through and with the Holy Sprirt) IS guiding the Church toward greater perfection.

In effect Christ’s promise is made to us: He’s saying “Don’t worry too much about these boneheads who appear to be screwing up OUR Church, I promise it will all come right in the end”

Don’t worry about a little snarkiness here and there, it happens when people are passionate about their beliefs.

 

[BillP]

You call yourself a Catholic and how dare you think that the Church would do such a thing. The CC cannot change these. She has no authority under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Gruff looking little frowny faces notwithstanding who died and left YOU arbiter of who gets to call himself Catholic?

I “dare” to call for change because change is needed.

I am one of the children of God. Together me and more than a Billion others like me ARE the Church. The Church isn’t the Hierachy, the Church isn’t the Pope, or the Cardinals or the Curia. Its US, the common people who do the living and dying and praying and paying on a daily basis. The days when a bunch of out of touch old men in Rome ruled the daily lives of millions of people without the slightest understanding of those lives is OVER. Folks who aren’t comfortable with that are in for a difficult time.

 

[BillP]

The teaching on Divorce have not ever changed. Annulment is not the same thing as divorce. Its a statement that one was never married to start with.

Slavery - catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html

Priestly Celibacy catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp
One by a gasp Married Priest!
crisismagazine.com/october2006/ryland.htm

Usary - catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=646

The current rules on Annulments and the examples you gave above are classic examples of what will happen.

The Church hierarchy will come up with some incredibly obtuse, complicated rationalization for why “The Church isn’t changing” even as its changing, or else theyw ill lie outright about what they used to teach.

The Church herself and Popes individually once held slaves. Yet you come here with a straight face and assert that the Church never condoned slavery. Right. Pull the other leg, it plays Jingle Bells.

The Church once condemed Usary which it defind as collection of interest (not excessive interest mind you but interest of any sort). Now you come here with a staright face and say “No, no, usary means collection of EXCESSIVE interest from POOR PEOPLE, the Church NEVER taught against reasonable and proper interest from those able to pay!!” Yeah right, there goes that Jingle Bells leg again.

Frankly, I don’t care what CYA nonsense the old fellas in Rome come up with to justify to themselves doing what they should have done years ago.

 

[Ender]

Together me and more than a Billion others like me ARE the Church. The Church isn’t the Hierachy, the Church isn’t the Pope, or the Cardinals or the Curia. Its US, the common people who do the living and dying and praying and paying on a daily basis. The days when a bunch of out of touch old men in Rome ruled the daily lives of millions of people without the slightest understanding of those lives is OVER.

You don’t have a very firm grip on how the Church is ordered. It is true that all Catholics constitute the Church but, unlike some other Christian denominations, we have no say whatever in determining the teaching of the Church. JPII in Dei Verbum: “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.” The opinions of the billion of us who make up the Church are irrelevant; this is one reason the changes you confidently forsee will never happen.

Folks who aren’t comfortable with that are in for a difficult time.

I would leave the Church if she ever instituted any of the changes you hope for as it would demonstrate that the claims she makes about herself are untrue. It is fascinating to me that people want the Church to change without realizing that to do so would destroy its very foundations. How long will you wait before you conclude that your anticipated changes will never occur?

Ender

 

[BillP]

You don’t have a very firm grip on how the Church is ordered.

And you in turn lack a firm grip on the History of the Church. The ENTIRE concept of Papal Infallibility was promulgated by Pius IX to try to ram his Syllabus or Errors down the throat of the Church.

The fact that JPII thought he was infallibile doesn’t concern me. God will straighten his Church out in his own good time.

It I would leave the Church if she ever instituted any of the changes you hope for as it would demonstrate that the claims she makes about herself are untrue.

Well, you’d better start packing then because the Church has already recognized Divorce, and Contraception. Oh sure they claim that they don’t, but the FACT is that if you’re married and don’t want to be, you can get out of that marriage and into another.

And if you’re Catholic and married and want to have sex but not kids then thats okay too. Oh sure there’s a bunch of intellectually dishonest foolishness about each act being “open to life” but the FACT is there is sex without consequences, if we do it “the Church’s” way.

So the quesiton is not “how long am I going to wait for the inevitable changes”, its how long are you going to pretend that they aren’t happening?

 

[Ignatius2000]

Its threads like this that make me want to give up converting.

Thank God there are good people out there, who are not afraid or too selfish to obey God’s word.

NFP is way different than contraception. Sure, people CAN use it to not have kids even if they can afford them and have no reason besides selfishness to not want them. But thats their problem and sin, not mine. Just because the Church has a natural way for married couples to abstain and maybe prevent getting pregnant if they have a valid reason to not have children(finances/illness) doesn’t mean they are fine with contraception. The day they are is the day I realize them being Christ’s Church is a lie. The fact that so many Catholics go against life and obeying God to fulfill their own pathetic wants/ideas about how things should be and shut God off from their lives doesn’t make it okay.

 

[LilyM]

And if you’re Catholic and married and want to have sex but not kids then thats okay too. Oh sure there’s a bunch of intellectually dishonest foolishness about each act being “open to life” but the FACT is there is sex without consequences, if we do it “the Church’s” way.

OF COURSE there are consequences - the consequences are married couples using NFP CAN’T have sex just exactly whenever they want, unlike those using ABC. There’s a good chunk of each month when they can’t, in fact. Any couple who uses NFP can tell you that!

And heaven help 'em if medical problems develop such that pregnancy is not an option or a highly dangerous one. Even then it’s a grave/mortal sin to use any form of contraception or sterilisation or any other artificial method of fertility control.

 

[goofyjim]

OF COURSE there are consequences - the consequences are married couples using NFP CAN’T have sex just exactly whenever they want, unlike those using ABC. There’s a good chunk of each month when they can’t, in fact. Any couple who uses NFP can tell you that!

And heaven help 'em if medical problems develop such that pregnancy is not an option or a highly dangerous one. Even then it’s a grave/mortal sin to use any form of contraception or sterilisation or any other artificial method of fertility control.

So if medical problems develop that pregnancy is not an option they have to abstain from sexual activity? Sounds like an unfair teaching not to mention an impossible one since they are married and entitled at that point to marital relations. Unless, of course the Church would rather see the wife then get pregnant and die from it.

 

[LJN21]

The current rules on Annulments and the examples you gave above are classic examples of what will happen.

The Church hierarchy will come up with some incredibly obtuse, complicated rationalization for why “The Church isn’t changing” even as its changing, or else theyw ill lie outright about what they used to teach.

The Church herself and Popes individually once held slaves. Yet you come here with a straight face and assert that the Church never condoned slavery. Right. Pull the other leg, it plays Jingle Bells.

The Church once condemed Usary which it defind as collection of interest (not excessive interest mind you but interest of any sort). Now you come here with a staright face and say “No, no, usary means collection of EXCESSIVE interest from POOR PEOPLE, the Church NEVER taught against reasonable and proper interest from those able to pay!!” Yeah right, there goes that Jingle Bells leg again.

Frankly, I don’t care what CYA nonsense the old fellas in Rome come up with to justify to themselves doing what they should have done years ago.

Yeah since I didn’t link one article written by Rome.

If you think its nonsense then I guess we are done here since you don’t agree with basic fundamental teaching of the church you claim to belong too.

Good luck with your waiting for the Church to change.

 

[LJN21]

So if medical problems develop that pregnancy is not an option they have to abstain from sexual activity? Sounds like an unfair teaching not to mention an impossible one since they are married and entitled at that point to marital relations. Unless, of course the Church would rather see the wife then get pregnant and die from it.

Theres about a billion threads in one from or another on this.

The entitlement to marital relation only goes so far. It is not a bioligical right for anyone.

 

[LilyM]

So if medical problems develop that pregnancy is not an option they have to abstain from sexual activity? Sounds like an unfair teaching not to mention an impossible one since they are married and entitled at that point to marital relations. Unless, of course the Church would rather see the wife then get pregnant and die from it.

What makes you think marital relations are ever an entitlement? They’re not. Never. If they were, a husband would be entitled to basically rape his wife - take his ‘entitlement’ by force, whether she wanted to or not.

By an extension of this logic, think of the Pandora’s box that would open if one of the partners became quadriplegic, for example, and thus permanently unable to give his or her partner this ‘entitlement’.

It could potentially justify the mortal sin of adultery (with a prostitute or other lover). In fact even a relatively temporary physical impairment affecting sexual function would give the same justification. So much for swearing fidelity (before God no less - remember he’s the third partner in every Christian marriage) for better or worse and in sickness and health!

 

[Dauphin]

Well, you’d better start packing then because the Church has already recognized Divorce, and Contraception. Oh sure they claim that they don’t, but the FACT is that if you’re married and don’t want to be, you can get out of that marriage and into another.

And if you’re Catholic and married and want to have sex but not kids then thats okay too. Oh sure there’s a bunch of intellectually dishonest foolishness about each act being “open to life” but the FACT is there is sex without consequences, if we do it “the Church’s” way.

So the quesiton is not “how long am I going to wait for the inevitable changes”, its how long are you going to pretend that they aren’t happening?

You’re going to have to do a lot better than that! You’re going to have to demonstrate that the magisterium has contradicted itself in its teaching on annulment and NFP. It’s not enough to say that they’re essentially equivalent to divorce and contraception. You’re making the claim that the teachings are incompatible with previous Catholic teachings, which they are not.

The distinction between annulment and divorce is quite clear. You can see this article for a definition: catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909fea2.asp

If annulment is abused by some officials within the Church, this does not alter the strict definition of an annulment anymore than a Catholic official condoning abortion alters the Church’s teaching on abortion. The official involved has sinned if they abuse the teaching of the Church. Annulment is in no way the equivalent of a divorce.

Concerning NFP, you have yet to indicate where the contradiction with past Catholic teaching lies (where the change has occurred). I would be very interested if you could produce any Church document which indicates that a married couple may not engage in sexual intercourse during infertile periods of the menstrual cycle.

Thanks!

 

[rien]

And you in turn lack a firm grip on the History of the Church. The ENTIRE concept of Papal Infallibility was promulgated by Pius IX to try to ram his Syllabus or Errors down the throat of the Church.

The fact that JPII thought he was infallibile doesn’t concern me. God will straighten his Church out in his own good time.

Well, you’d better start packing then because the Church has already recognized Divorce, and Contraception. Oh sure they claim that they don’t, but the FACT is that if you’re married and don’t want to be, you can get out of that marriage and into another.

And if you’re Catholic and married and want to have sex but not kids then thats okay too. Oh sure there’s a bunch of intellectually dishonest foolishness about each act being “open to life” but the FACT is there is sex without consequences, if we do it “the Church’s” way.

So the quesiton is not “how long am I going to wait for the inevitable changes”, its how long are you going to pretend that they aren’t happening?

Exactly and this is one reason I left the catholic church. Annulments are granted with “no problemo” if you are prominent or wealthy. It is a joke - come on folks let’s be real about this.

Plus denying communion to those who support abortion. it does not happen so if I am to beleive what the church teaches about communion then abortion is not a real factor or issue.

The facade is collapsing and ironically Benedict seem so far to y be facilitating it.

 

[Ender]

The ENTIRE concept of Papal Infallibility was promulgated by Pius IX to try to ram his Syllabus or Errors down the throat of the Church. The fact that JPII thought he was infallibile doesn’t concern me. God will straighten his Church out in his own good time.

You don’t seem to understand the concept of infallibility; it certainly doesn’t mean that everything a pope says is infallibly correct. Additionally, JPII’s comments in Dei Verbum were not new claims about the Church but simply an explanation of what she has always claimed about herself.

And if you’re Catholic and married and want to have sex but not kids then thats okay too. Oh sure there’s a bunch of intellectually dishonest foolishness about each act being “open to life” but the FACT is there is sex without consequences, if we do it “the Church’s” way.

The Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is immoral. That’s not the same as teaching that the only purpose of sex is for procreation. Sex without conception, within marriage, is a positive good so long as there are no artificial barriers to conception.

You say that God will straighten out his Church in time but it seems quite clear that the Catholic Church you describe is not worthy to be called his Church. So - where is his church now?

Ender

 

[BillP]

If you think its nonsense then I guess we are done here since you don’t agree with basic fundamental teaching of the church you claim to belong too.

None of these are fundamental teachings of the Church.

Here are the fundamental teachings of the Church:

*We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. **We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Throughhim all things were made. For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became a man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended intoheaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. *
*We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. *

• We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. *

EVERYTHING else is ancillary.

Good luck with your waiting for the Church to change.

Look around, it already has.

 

[LJN21]

None of these are fundamental teachings of the Church.

Here are the fundamental teachings of the Church:

EVERYTHING else is ancillary.

Look around, it already has.

How about actually refuting the arguments that teaching on infallible teaching has never changed instead of constantly topic hoping.

PS bad translation on the Creed btw