Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

[historyb]

Interesting. I seen a lot of Star Trek and also read a lot of Doyle’s short stories, but I’m embarrassed to say that I never realized that those two quotes aren’t real quotes.

I’m pretty sure I at least remember a crew member saying “Scotty, beam me up.”

I wonder if “Elementary, my dear Watson” originated from the old radio programs? Or maybe the old films, for that matter?

I have the OTR Sherlock Holmes, many varieties and I believe I have heard that phrase there.

 

[historyb]

No, I just find it interesting that you have decided to determine when I was in mortal sin or not. When a person votes, they don’t generally just vote on one issue. I know I don’t.

Until Baby Murder is outlawed than all who profess themselves Catholic and Christian should be one issue voters. Life of the Baby trumps any other issue

 

[7_Sorrows]

i haven’t been a Catholic for very long, but i can say that after speaking and getting to know a number of Catholics, the majority that i have met do not agree with all of the teachings of the Catholic church - and it doesn’t seem to bother them very much. they consider themselves fully Catholic.

i am sure the Pope has seen what has happened within anglicanism and all of the different anglican groups, mainly in north america and does not want that to happen to the Catholic church. whether he will be able to prevent it, i am not sure.

isn’t there already an American Catholic church, that is not recognized by the Pope?

this century, anything could happen.

i am a former episcopalian and anglican - and i know how painful it was watching the controversy and arguments and i hope i won’t have to witness that in the Catholic church.

 

[elts1956]

i haven’t been a Catholic for very long, but i can say that after speaking and getting to know a number of Catholics, the majority that i have met do not agree with all of the teachings of the Catholic church - and it doesn’t seem to bother them very much. they consider themselves fully Catholic.

i am sure the Pope has seen what has happened within anglicanism and all of the different anglican groups, mainly in north america and does not want that to happen to the Catholic church. whether he will be able to prevent it, i am not sure.

isn’t there already an American Catholic church, that is not recognized by the Pope?

this century, anything could happen.

i am a former episcopalian and anglican - and i know how painful it was watching the controversy and arguments and i hope i won’t have to witness that in the Catholic church.

I, personally have not heard of an “American Catholic Church”. If there is one headed by a dissident Bishop, I am sure it is not recognized by Rome. However, there are groups of “lay” people who are trying to “change” the Church here in the U.S. I don’t know what this “change” consists of. They claim to be in accord with and follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. One such group calls itself, “The American Catholic Church” on its website. Another is called “Faithful Catholics”. I don’t know how legitimate either these, or other organizations who are trying to “improve” the Catholic Church here in the U.S. are.

accus.us/ and theamericancatholicchurch.com/ is one such one said to have been started in 1915. So uh, I don’t think it’s legitimate.

 

[GKC]

I have the OTR Sherlock Holmes, many varieties and I believe I have heard that phrase there.

No doubt you did. It occurs in many of them.

But Doyle never wrote it. The earliest occurrence I know of is in the first Holmes sound film, THE RETURN OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, 1929. There may be earlier ones.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Quite frankly, I’ve found the radio plays to be pretty lame. Same for Ken Greenwald’s book The Lost Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Based on the Original Radio Plays by Denis Green & Anthony Boucher.

 

[GKC]

Quite frankly, I’ve found the radio plays to be pretty lame. Same for Ken Greenwald’s book The Lost Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Based on the Original Radio Plays by Denis Green & Anthony Boucher.

Two of my hobbies combine here: Holmes, for about 50+ years, and old radio shows, for about 35 years; my age allowed me to actually grow up with the last 10 years or so of network radio, and I love it.

Most pastiches of Holmes, written or performed, are rather weak, IMO. And the adaptations of the original stories, as necessary for a radio performance, are compromised. The Sacred Writings remain the gold standard.

But one can find good (and atrocious) published pastiches (I am particularly fond of Adrian Conan Doyle’s and John DIckson Carr’s EXPLOITS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, and I enjoy the radio shows, as uneven as they are. Ironically, the Rathbone/Bruce series is not on of the strongest, Rathbone often sleeping walking through unreheased material.

But most Holmes is good Holmes. I added about 100 mixed Holmes shows (many duplicates of shows I have in other formats) to the Mp3 collection last week.

GKC

 

[tomarin]

Two of my hobbies combine here: Holmes, for about 50+ years, and old radio shows, for about 35 years; my age allowed me to actually grow up with the last 10 years or so of network radio, and I love it.

You have interesting hobbies, GKC.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Source? ** You asked, with this, the source for my contention that ordinary people who are or may be overburdened with debt will be obliged to pay in full while billionaires get discounts on those very obligations. I don’t think there is a source saying it quite that way. But both the TALF and PPIP programs do that automatically. You have to be a very big player to participate in either one. The purpose of the exercise is to sell “toxic assets”. They are called “toxic” because they are not believed to be worth face value, and almost certainly are not. That’s part of what the “stress testing” was all about; trying to measure how much the banks are “short” of equity because the loans and security assets they have are not really “worth” face value. However, when a purchaser of debt instruments gets them owned, they will always collect them in full if they can. Some debtors will file bankruptcy. Some will not. Some will be foreclosed. Some will not. Those who hold onto their homes will pay 100% for a mortgage which the investor paid substantially less than 100%. That’s how it works. No source is needed to understand discounting of debt instruments. **How is he cutting Medicare? ** We don’t know for sure yet. He has said he will cut $600 billion from Medicare expenditures. How he will do that is not yet disclosed except to the extent there are vague promises of “cost effectiveness”, which many have taken to mean, e.g., not approving procedures whose presumed benefits would outlast the expected lifetime of the patient. But no one, perhaps not Obama himself, knows for sure how Medicare is going to be cut.**I haven’t heard that.

BTW, I doubt you’re liberal. Not from what I’ve read of your posts. You actually sound like a political conservative. If that’s the case, then I must be conservative, and I by no means consider myself politically conservative, I consider myself liberal. Depends on what a person means by “liberal” or “conservative” I suppose. In my mind, providing for the very neediest is the first priority, and I believe this society does an absolutely miserable job of that, and this administration is no different from past administrations in that regard. It is not my belief (nor is it the longstanding position of the Church) that government should provide for those who are able to provide for themselves. People can, and do, disagree about who, exactly, can be deemed able to “provide for themselves”; not an easy determination when one considers how much people vary in their concept of “necessities”. Is an annual vacation to Cancun a “necessity”? Some would think so. Others would not. Is a vacation a “necessity” at all, or is it simply something we have come to think of as our right, because we’re used to doing it. Is a new car a “necessity” or a luxury? Is a big screen tv a “necessity”? Is a full wardrobe of “casual” clothing a “necessity”? Is a new house a “necessity” if I can afford lesser housing with sufficient utility? Is it “liberal” or “conservative” to discourage consumerism and the dependency on wage labor that it engenders, and vice-versa?

Well, that’s fine. That’s him. He’s supporting choice. At least he’s consistent. The mere fact that someone is consistent does not mandate my support for, or approval of, that person. Eichman was “consistent”. Stalin was “consistent”.

I sometimes think political “consistency” is a serious societal flaw. Those who think of themselves as “conservative” sometimes think that mandates upon them the view that, e.g., the disabled needy are lazy and should shift for themselves. Sometimes conservatives think they should, e.g., support a war like that in Afghanistan, simply out of patriotic duty, rather than consider whether the thing really serves a good purpose.

Sometimes those who think of themselves as “liberal” think they have to drink the whole drink; support middle class welfare just because all welfare is “good” from a “liberal” standpoint; support abortion by their support of abortion-supporting politicians; oppose wars that might, in fact, be perfectly just in purpose, cause and effect, or perhaps support a politician who is bound and determined to expand a war just because the poltiician is “liberal” in reputation.

It has long seemed to me that the Catholic Church in the U.S. (and perhaps elsewhere) has been afflicted by political self-identifications, and that many in the Church think they have to support this or that political view simply because aspects of that view “ring a bell” with some of the things they consider moral. The Church is, and should be “its own way”; a separate view. Unfortunately, “liberation theology” and its “lite” offspring in the U.S. has made it very difficult for a truly Catholic view to be even communicated, let alone followed. In my view, those who accept abortion on demand because they think somehow that other things they consider the “moral choices” will be served by their doing it, have been seriously misled. Right now, the Republican party is hardly blameless in all kinds of ways. But when it comes to the most seriously morally flawed view, nothing can really compare with the Democrat party which, after all, enshrines abortion right in its own platform and mightily discourages truly prolife people from even being Democrats.

I am an example of the latter. Born and raised Democrat, I was a party officeholder and a “true believer”. I am not a Republican. I’m not anything. I refused to support the party and its candidates when abortion became its primary cause. I still don’t. And I won’t.

 

[GKC]

You have interesting hobbies, GKC.

Thank you.

They keep me off the streets.

Mostly it all revolves around books. Lots and lots of books.

No, more books than that.

GKC

 

[ClementRome]

No, I just find it interesting that you have decided to determine when I was in mortal sin or not. When a person votes, they don’t generally just vote on one issue. I know I don’t.

Yes, people should vote for Hitler,not because he kills jews,but because he has good political policy. It’s not just one issue you know. sarcasm

The Catholic Church condemns one wrong making a right.

I didn’t determine whether* you *were in mortal sin or not. I had said that people who support abortion are probably in a state of mortal sin because you are supporting something that the Church considers a grave mortal sin. The church also denies the term “pro-choice”, so you obviously aren’t following church doctrine…

 

[bobzills]

Yes, people should vote for Hitler,not because he kills jews,but because he has good political policy. It’s not just one issue you know…

I think that Hitler was way off in more areas than one. I would never vote for Hitler and I don;t know why anyone would advocate such.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

QUOTE=ClementRome;5353006]****

wait a sec. It makes you an ultra conservative if your aligned with Rome? ALL Catholics are aligned with Rome. You break with Rome you cease to be Catholic.

The precise point was that some in the Vatican are claiming that the far right in the American church is out of step with the Vatican itself and more conservative than it is, thus giving a false impression. It has nothing to do with being aligned with Rome, plenty of more “middle of the road” Catholics are quite possibly well within the teachings of the Church. I think most Catholics would agree that they were.

There are Catholics, and then there are heretics/schismatics. By going against Church teaching and the bible, by definition, you become a heretic or a schismatic and bar yourself from communion unless you repent. The “majority” as you call them are simply taking communion while in a state of mortal sin arrogantly thinking that they are so special that the bible and Church doctrine does not apply to them. That is pride, not “following your heart”.

That certainly seems the opinion of some Catholics.

There are the true Catholics who follow what the Church says, and then there are the dissenters and heretics. There won’t be an “American Church” if it breaks with Rome. It will just be another protestant denomination outside of communion with the Church.

That’s not the problem really. The majority we think are fully happy and content. It is the far right that is unhappy with many Catholics who don’t agree with them on the following of certain doctrines like birth control for instance. Since the majority is not leaving and certainly isn’t intending to form a new church, will the minority do anything? It seems impossible for them to leave obviously, since this would unalign them, and so far they aren’t interested in having the rolls “purged” if you will. That is the discussion we have been having.

And who cares what the majority does. Christ said not many will enter the kingdom of heaven. All it does is show how many people have been deceived by the power of sin and weakly break under its temptations. And in order to validate those temptations and sins, they must change Church doctrine. Sorry, church doctrine is binding, some of which even the Pope cannot loose. Who do these dissenters think they are to have the authority to change the precepts of the Church?

Some do seem to care, since they speak about the poor catechizing of the faithful a good deal, poor priests coming from bad seminary training, etc. But you state the position of some well, judging that those who don’t appear to follow your beliefs are heretical. I don’t pretend to know.

This is horrible advice as the bible says the heart is deceitfully wicked and that no one can understand it. The corrupt heart cannot understand the things of God fully. To use that as your guide is foolish considering anyone could “use their heart” to justify particularly any sin they want. The exuse “follow your heart” is nothing more than an excuse to not follow what the bible and the Church commands nor come to terms with them.

Your belief is that the heart is “deceitfully wicked”? I thought Jesus resided there myself. I thought the Spirit attempts to guide each of us to truth and love. I guess the CCC and the popes in their pronouncements on primacy of conscience were incorrect. So God gave you a mind for no other purpose than to ask the Church what to do? Interesting analysis.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You put this in a response to me. I don’t remember making such a statement, can you find the post where I said this, please?

I said that “some” in the Vatican were concerned over the strident behavior of the American Catholic right, or words to that effect.

I said this GodIG. He conflated part of your comment and mine. I provided sources early on in this discussion and various other people, Catholics as I recall, added some others. I’m not about to go back and look for them. That is up to CG to do if he is desireous.

 

[Matariel]

I think it depends on which teaching you are talking about. For example, the current practice in the USA of easy to get marriage annulments seems pretty liberal to me.

True, but that’s probably because of lax marriage tribunals, not dogma of the Church… either way, you still have to “jump through more hoops”, so to speak, than the various Protestant denominations, which as far as I know don’t even have annulment procedings or anything like we do.

 

[emeraldcoast]

**Originally Posted by GodIsGracious
And some of us who are pro-choice ARE NOT pro-abortion. We are NOT. That is said to confuse the issue and attempts at making someone feel badly.

Not all of use who are pro-choice wanted a take over of the auto, banking, or tobacco industry either.

And liberals don’t JUST vote on pro-choice either.**

God forbid you feel badly for supporting a procedure that rips a human life apart literally. Heaven help us if you feel badly about supporting a politician that encourages and protects clinics that destroy innocent little babies that can’t fend for themselves. There is no gray area on this. You’re either for abortion or against it.

And when you vote for a guy like Barack, big government, huge socialist regulatory schemes, high taxes, gov’t meddling in our lives, punishing the rich, redistribution of wealth, and pandering to the gays and abortion lobby are a package deal. Surely you knew that when voting for this guy?

It’s like saying, “wow, I didn’t know that gun owner’s rights, pro-life, lower taxes, and lots of $$$ spent on defense all came with this Republican Bush guy?” They come in packages like cable or satellite plans. You don’t get a la carte!

Gurney,

You speak like someone that voted for Barack…Oh, that is right you did…

God Bless!

 

[VARC]

You can watch the news, listen to the anti-Catholics, and nitpick over the details til you turn blue in the face, but when you get right down to it, the vast majority of the Parishes in this country are perfectly happily in communion with Rome.

.

That’s because they simply ignore the pope when he teaches things they don’t agree with.

 

[VARC]

The CC doesn’t tell its members how to vote.

Dependes which CC you go to. One bishop said it was a mortal sin to vote for Obama. Just see how you would be treated there with a big “O” bumper sticker on your car in that diocese.

 

[elts1956]

The precise point was that some in the Vatican Please show your source. They are probably the ones “out of line” with Vatican teaching. are claiming that the far right in the American church is out of step with the Vatican itself and more conservative than it is, Not possible.thus giving a false impression. It has nothing to do with being aligned with Rome, plenty of more “middle of the road” Catholics Describe please. What are their beliefs?/COLOR]. are quite possibly well within the teachings of the Church. I think most Catholics would agree that they were. There is no such thing as the American Catholic Church. The media plays this out very well. There is no American Catholic Culture, just Catholic Culture. There are dissidents/schismatics who have taken the wrong path and broken with Rome because of either a doctrinal or dogmatic disagreement. There is only ONE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH and the head of this group is called the POPE and he lives in Vatican City Rome Italy./FONT]

That certainly seems the opinion of some Catholics.A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it. A truth is still a truth even if no one believes it.

That’s not the problem really. The majority we think are fully happy and content. is the far right that is unhappy with many Catholics who don’t agree with them on the following of certain doctrines like birth control for instance. They can be as blindly happy as they want to be. My concern is that many more will “blindly” follow them. Since the majority is not leaving and certainly isn’t intending to form a new church, will the minority do anything? It seems impossible for them to leave obviously, since this would unalign them, and so far they aren’t interested in having the rolls “purged” if you will. That is the discussion we have been having. What I “think” will happen, many Catholics will wake up to the fact they have received poor Catechesis and begin to follow those Bishops who do indeed speak the truth out loud and strongly. They won’t leave the Church, but will become stronger in their Faith/COLOR].

Some do seem to care, since they speak about the poor catechizing of the faithful a good deal, poor priests coming from bad seminary training, etc. But you state the position of some well, judging that those who don’t appear to follow your beliefs are heretical. I don’t pretend to know. It depends on what they believe and don’t believe. If they don’t believe in the Absolutes the Church teaches, then they are schismatics./COLOR]

Your belief is that the heart is “deceitfully wicked”? I thought Jesus resided there myself. I thought the Spirit attempts to guide each of us to truth and love. I guess the CCC and the popes in their pronouncements on primacy of conscience were incorrect. So God gave you a mind for no other purpose than to ask the Church what to do? Interesting analysis. Yes, the Spirit “attempts” to guide. It is up to the individual to listen.

 

[elts1956]

Your first point is well taken. I stand corrected. “Many” members. I’m not sure what you mean by theologically constant. Is not faith ever evolving? . The Vatican has a good many theologians and biblical experts always at work. They are adding to the faith presumably. Are you really saying that there is never a correction in any doctrine because the RCC claims it cannot error ever? I’m not sure, so won’t go further.

What I mean by socially more liberal, is that I find the RCC, and please correct me if I am wrong, taking a strong position on protecting the immigrant especially in the US. It has at least through it’s Popes made faith strong statements against the death penalty and war in general, not inclined to find just war. I think that whatever you think about Liberation Theology, the RCC has acknowledged that the Latin American peoples have suffered unjustly for decades under dictatorship, and it has endorced a “preferential option for the poor.” It seems to be moving rather to the left on issues of the environment. I see those as “liberal” notions.

Theological liberalism to me is a willingness to offer up the best analysis to date. I think the RCC, and this is surely my opinion, drags its feet on even what is produced by Catholic theologians and biblical experts which differs with historical claims by ECF and councils of centuries past. I assume this comes from “no error” can be possible by us.

I also think, and again, it is an opinion, that some statements in the past are now clearly wrong and and thus the RCC is somewhat hesitant to make any statement now to the contrary until “all the evidence is in.” Being burned as it were on the Galileo issue (I realized that some RC’s now dispute this, but the Pope did in fact apologize), the Jewish issue (again another apology), and evolution seemingly proven even to Vatican satisfaction, causes it to be reluctant to speak until they are 99% sure of being correct. No doubt some RC’s would disagree. But you asked my opinion.

SO in the end, I find the RCC theologically conservative in that sense, and socially liberal.

Individual faith is ever evolving, hopefully in the right direction. However the Church has stated there are no new Doctrines or Dogmas that will be added now, or in the future.

Now this is where it gets tricky. The Church also allows room for a greater understanding, evaluation and interpretation of doctrine and dogmas by the Pope and magisterium. No individual opinions allowed. For instance, and this is one that comes to mind, the Doctrine of “No Salvation outside the Catholic Church”. Now in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II gave a different slant on the meaning of “Church” stating that ALL churches have SOME element of the truth, some element of what is taught by the Catholic Church. He expanded the meaning of “Church” in such a way as no religion (can’t think of an exception right now) has truly ever left the Mother Church, the Catholic Church. While they do not have the FULL TRUTH, they do have some of the beliefs and truths. I do believe, however, he narrowed this meaning of Church down to those churches which have a lineage which can be traced back to the Catholic Church. One of the first requirements, I know, is that a church must follow the form of Triune baptism and possibly another, which I am not sure of, is the church must also have Bishops who can be traced back to their orignal faith, the Catholic Church.

Because of this, we cannot say all Protestants are outside the Church, but we do say they do not have the FULLNESS of truth. That is, it would be more difficult for those without this fullness to attain salvation. Harder, but not impossible.

Instances of changes such as this, have led many to believe the Church has changed its position regarding Doctrine and Dogma. For many ultra conservative Catholics, concepts such as these are hard to accept.

Now as to the other Religions which have never had a direct connection to the Catholic Church, such a Islam and Jewish, I know he stated the Jewish religion, in particular, still had a covenant with God and those members of that Faith would be judged accordingly by God. Again, we could not say, they are OUTSIDE the Faith. I “think” that’s what he said.