The Only Female Cleric at the Synod

  • Thread starter Thread starter ComplineSanFran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKMotley said:
What makes you think I don’t know a little about Picky? What makes you think you do?
Click to expand...
I don’t know anything about Picky, G.K. AFAIR, this thread is the first time he/she and I have had an exchange, and he/she reveals nothing, not even gender, in his/her profile. If you know more than I, so be it.
GKMotley said:
As to your opening sentence, what makes you think Picky has a theological point to make in the discussion, or a dog in the doctrinal fight?
Click to expand...
As I said, I know nothing of Picky outside what he/she commented in this thread, which seems to represent a modern ecumenical point of view.

Again you are implying that there is such a thing as “having no dog in the fight”, and indeed that that such an aloofness needs to be pointed out. Me, I do not aim for aloofness, nor do I admire it in others, or even care to detect it.
 
Bear with the title.

http://www.episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/priestesses.html

Or, if like me (as you know), reading from printed sources (and possessing those sources) is the desideratum, GOD IN THE DOCK/Essays in Theology and Ethics contains it. There is a US (1970) and a British (1979) edition of the title. The US is preferable, since its covers are further apart.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
I imagine all the clerics selling indulgences and behaving in a corrupt manner, to which Hus objected, damaged the faith of the faithful too
Click to expand...
I don’t recall Hus discussing indulgences. He did say there was no Pope. He also said that if a prelate or civil leader is in a state of mortal sin then he no longer has authority. One can easily imagine how such teaching would absolutely disrupt society.

Something interesting to note is that Hussites orginally insisted that all mortal sin be punished by the state. So this isn’t an issue if the mean old Catholic Church using the power of the state to uphold its religion against a free religion group. The heretics also wanted to and did accomplish using the state to uphold religion.
 
GKMotley said:
I certainly endorse your opening sentence.
Click to expand...
I’ve no idea what you’re talking about anymore. Your last few posts do not seem to address the topic of the thread in any way. I’m a simpleton, G.K.

I am going away now.
 
Can you provide a logical reason for a Pope offering an official apology on behalf of the Church for something the Church bears no responsibility for?
 
There are lots of reasons this could happen. We live in an age when a man is expected to apologize for his ancestors. The sins of the father is a real thing we hold to strongly.
 
exnihilo said:
There are lots of reasons this could happen. We live in an age when a man is expected to apologize for his ancestors. The sins of the father is a real thing we hold to strongly.
Click to expand...
Thank you for responding, however, your answer is somewhat distressing to me. You are actually saying that a Pope would do something as serious as that for political reasons or the approval of man? Would he not consult and rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in important statements like an apology on behalf of the only one true Church?
 
Popes are human too. They can make mistakes. I am not saying this was wrong or a mistake. I am saying this could have occurred for many reasons and yes, that would include political. What exactly was the statement by the way?
 
exnihilo said:
I don’t recall Hus discussing indulgences
Click to expand...
Huh? Jan Hus gave a whole address in 1412 called “Quaestio magistri Johannis Hus de indulgentiis” which among other things condemned the Church sale of indulgences. His teaching on this led to three of his followers being executed over the indulgence issue and they are considered the first Hussite martyrs. There are multiple sources discussing this on the Internet alone.
 
Last edited:
I said I don’t recall. That meant I don’t recall. Apparently he did address indulgences. Apparently the work you cite was just literally repeating Wycliffe. But pointing out abuse isn’t license to preach heresy. And as far as I know the condemnations of Hus didn’t have much, if anything, to do with indulgences.
 
Well, if you want to just discount things Hus said that don’t fit your narrative, it’s pointless to try to have a balanced discussion. I’m out, have a nice day.
 
I’m not discounting it at all. I am sure corruption did harm the faithful. But Hus himself taught things that harmed the faithful and civil order. He was part of the problem and not the solution.
 
exnihilo said:
Popes are human too. They can make mistakes. I am not saying this was wrong or a mistake. I am saying this could have occurred for many reasons and yes, that would include political. What exactly was the statement by the way?
Click to expand...
I googled “what apology was made by a Pope for burning Hus” and was given quite an extensive account. I won’t try to paraphrase, you also can look it up for yourself.

I should warn you though, if you want to stay within the comfort of your state of denial don’t look it up.
 
They address the content of some of your recent posts, specifically the unfounded assumptions you make, as to a certain poster.

Have a safe journey.
 
My state of denial? That is hardly fair at all. What was the quote though? Surely you can quote it since you are defending it.
 
It is lengthy and I don’t want to misrepresent anything by what might be my interpretation. Do yourself a favor and look it up.
 
I won’t. It isn’t really important to me. I’m not a big fan of apologies for past actions that someone else did. It really isn’t central to my point that Hus was a danger to civil order during his time and that his own followers wanted to themselves maintain a religious order via the state.
 
Wow! Catholics who know better than their Popes and are not willing to pull their head out of the sand are sure interesting!

Even I as a non-Catholic want to believe the Pope is following the direction of the Holy Spirit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top