The Tolkien Forum

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

Pope John Paul II 1920-2005

Status
Not open for further replies.

Barliman Butterbur

Worthy Keeper/Bree Roué
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
2,768
Reaction score
9
Location
Prancing Pony, Bree
Arthur_Vandelay said:
With all respect, I was raised a Catholic, and my family, extended family on my mother's and father's sides, and some of my friends are practising Catholics. I have even spoken to a few priests. I do see dissatisfaction. It shouldn't be ignored. I appreciate, nonetheless, that you don't see it.

But let's not dwell on it here. For your interest:

A pontificate of trouble (Australian)
Less preaching, more listening, say liberal voices (Sydney Morning Herald)
Legacy of unity comes at a high price (Guardian)
A Pope of unity but also division (Deutsche Welle)
Disconnect between US Catholics and Rome grows (abc News)
Pope's reign full of contradictions (CNN)
Bishops fear purge of liberals as Pell gives nod to conservatives (Sydney Morning Herald)
Remembering Pope John Paul II (ABC Radio National--The Religion Report)
Crisis in the Catholic Church: the Pope's contradictions (Der Spiegel)
First, thank you for all these useful links, which I shall definitely visit in due time.

That you have "revealed" :eek: yourself as a born-and-raised Catholic (but evidently have evolved to non-practicing status) reminds me of two old friends of mine. One was an athlete who, when we first met and struck up conversation, revealed to me in her dryly humorous style, that she was "a recovering Catholic." I knew just what she meant. :) Another old friend, one of the most brilliant women I've ever known in my life, was also born and raised a Catholic, including all of her education from elementary school right through university. We had many years of the most excellent wonderful and deep conversations about all the Perennial Questions and Issues. When I asked her what it was that moved her to drift away from the Church, she told me — with a wry smile: "It was the Jesuits. They made the mistake of teaching me how to think."

Barley
 

Barliman Butterbur

Worthy Keeper/Bree Roué
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
2,768
Reaction score
9
Location
Prancing Pony, Bree
Walter said:
From the inside of the well, the frog does not see all things which the eagles from the sky can easily descry.

It's all a matter of perspective... ;)
Is that a clever snideswipe of the French in favor of the Americans? ;) And yes, we are all the prisoners of our current perspectives, and if we wish to advance and evolve, we must needs overcome them...

Barley
 

Scatha

The dragon of wrath
Joined
Jan 13, 2003
Messages
1,166
Reaction score
0
Location
Ered Mithrin
Hmmm, why a topis for the pope and none for the longest reigning monarch in europe, who died last night at the age of 84 years, Prince Rainier of Monaco?
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
BB:
Your friend who thought the Jesuits made a mistake in teaching her to think underestimated them! They do want people to think, and they know that if that thinking leads them to reject the church then the church is not the place for them.
Walter's analogy of the frog in the well was a reference to my view of the church from the inside.

A_V:
It is a reasonable analogy too, except that I voluntarily went down the well from the upper ground not so long ago, and I still retain both perspectives!
Even the Guardian confirms my view:
"....the effect....has been to leave a church which, in the developed world at least, is considerably more compact and like-minded than when he came into office.
....out in the church at large, active Roman Catholics who do not share Karol Wojtyla's....vision of the world are fast becoming an endangered species."

Inder:
The French authorities honour not the religious leader in that role, but that leader in his other role, of Head of State of the Sovereign Vatican City State.

Scatha:
If Prince Rainier has made a significant contribution to the world I am sure there is space for an area here to consider his life too.
 
Last edited:

Manveru

(former)blue angel of GoT
Joined
Jun 12, 2003
Messages
1,070
Reaction score
0
Location
Edinburgh
Krakow isn't the same place anymore...

He was everything to us, hinc illae lacrimae.

:(
 

Arthur_Vandelay

Hipster Doofus
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
338
Reaction score
1
Location
Perth, Australia
joxy said:
A_V's analogy of the frog in the well was a reference to my view of the church from the inside.
Let's give respect where its due. It's a great analogy, but it's Walter's.

Even the Guardian confirms my view:
But the abc News report ("Disconnect between US Catholics and Rome grows") contradicts it--at least in the US context. And the other reports--including the Guardian's, which also points out that "[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]millions of Catholics stopped attending mass during the reign of John Paul II . . . in many cases . . . because they were unable to square their lives with his teaching, particularly on contraception[/font]" (indeed, the Guardian's obituary, where it discusses the Pope's relationship with the Jesuits, Franciscans, Carmelites, and numerous "dissenting" theologians, is worth reading)--point to disaffection among members of the clergy and the laity regarding the traditionalist and authoritarian orientation of the Church during the last papacy. Is this disaffection uniform? Of course not--and I never claimed that it was. But it is there, nonetheless. As I said, I appreciate that you have a different view, and I accept that there may be a great many Catholics--perhaps even a majority (though to overstate the significance of this would be to advance an argumentum ad populum)--who do hold with the Pope's views on abortion, homosexuality, the role of women within the church and in society, and contraception. That is not in dispute. But there are, at the same time, many others who feel alienated, for various reasons. All I'm saying is that it would be wrong for the Church to say of these people: "they don't count"/"they are wrong"/"they're not worth listening to"/"they should go and find another Church." It would be unfortunate--and in my opinion to the detriment of the Church--if it were to adopt such an attitude under the next papacy.
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
As a person born into the Roman Catholic Church who became an Orthodox Christian in 1961, I also mourn the death of the Pope. He was a very good man who was totally unafraid to witness to his faith in a world that has become increasingly secular and even anti-religious. He was especially willing to use the Church as a moral force in the political forum, working tirelessly towards the downfall of Communism, the premiere athistic secular force of the 20th Century.

For those who believe that most Catholics want a more "liberal" Pope - and by that, I assume we are speaking of doctrines involving moral and gender issues - it is well to remember that the Pope represents the Church and not vice versa. True, in the past some Popes have "done their own thing" and totally ignored Christ, Scripture and Church teachings, but they have been known as "bad" Popes and certainly no true Catholic - even if he or she disagrees with some aspect of Church doctrine - wants a Pope who, for the sake of political correctness, will abandon those doctrines that make the Catholic Church representative of Christianity.

I have always believed - as have my many Catholic friends - that if someone cannot live with Church doctrine, they would be much more honest seeking out a denomination in which they feel comfortable rather than trying to force the Catholic Church (or any other religious group for that matter) into their own image. When I became unhappy with certain aspects of Catholicism, I went looking and found Orthodoxy. I would have considered it to be the highest form of prelest to demand that the Catholic Church bring Herself into line with my beliefs. In the same way, those people who oppose Church doctrine on the issues in question should stop trying to make over the Church to suit them and find themselves a denomination which embraces their beliefs. God knows, they are out there!

Of course, it will be a real problem for many liberals if a conservative black Cardinal is elected Pope! On the one hand, his conservatism will make him unpopular. However, on the other hand, his race will make it difficult (if not impossible) for many liberals to be as critical as they might have been with a conservative Pope had he been white. In any event, it promises to be an interesting time ahead and I wish only the best for my Catholic friends and their Church.
 

Barliman Butterbur

Worthy Keeper/Bree Roué
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
2,768
Reaction score
9
Location
Prancing Pony, Bree
Mrs. Maggott said:
...those people who oppose Church doctrine on the issues in question should stop trying to make over the Church to suit them and find themselves a denomination which embraces their beliefs. God knows, they are out there!
Assuming that the Church is the True Word of God (which it is decidedly not) why aren't you rushing back to be in it once again?

Of course, it will be a real problem for many liberals if a conservative black Cardinal is elected Pope!
Yeah — sort of a religious Clarence Thomas, huh? That would be a problem, and not just for liberals.

Barley
 

Gothmog

Lord of Balrogs
Staff member
Joined
Sep 10, 2001
Messages
1,849
Reaction score
83
Location
Cardiff, United Kingdom
Mod's Comment
I do not want this thread to turn into a religious battle. Please take care with your posts.

End Mod's Comment.

That being said:
I am under the impression that according to Christian belief it is the Bible that is considered to be the "True Word of God" and the Church is the institution charged with the disemination of the Word. Therefore it would seem that it is a question of being happy or unhappy with the method of this disemination is the point being made.
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
A_V: I have corrected that misattribution of the allegory of frogs and eagles, and
BB: I have only just now "got" your comment about the allegory - we don't go in for that sort of symbolism so much over here!
Also to BB: I can't argue with your assertion that "the Church is NOT the True Word of God" - who said it was?
The quotation is: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God" - that's what (Who) the Word actually is.
You ask Mrs M why she isn't "rushing back to be in it <the Catholic Church> once again?". Why should she do so, having made the careful decision to join the Orthodox, with whom we are so closely associated, due to the fervent ministrations of the Pope. Had the choice, in practical terms, been open to me when I joined the church, it might well have gone to Orthodoxy, alone among the other "denominations".
Gothmog: Nor can I disagree with your comments on this subject of the Word, though I have to add that the bible is not considered exclusively to contain that Word.
I see no dissatisfaction with the way in which the dissemination of the whole word is being carried out by the church, and specifically by its priests and bishops.
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
Just a few points:

1. The Church created the New Testament, not the other way round. Check history if you doubt this. It was the various Church Councils that decided which "books" would be included in the New Testament and, indeed, that process was not completed for many years after Pentecost, the recognized "birthday" of the Church.

2. The Church is much more than a mere "disseminator" of Christ's teachings. She is His "Bride"; He is the Head and She the Body. He acts in the world through the Church. The Church is the "ark of salvation" in the world established by Christ for His followers.

3. Is the Church "infallible"? Patently, not all the time or even most of the time. The claim of "infallibility" can be made only at certain times. In the early Church, infallibility was invested in Church Councils which were called both locally and ecumenically (over all the "Sees" of the Church) to determine such things as the final wording of the "Creed" and to deal with the uprising of various heresies and other matters; this is still the way of the Orthodox Church today. Until the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the West - which is, historically speaking, recent - it required a Church Council to make pronouncements as to various issues affecting the Faith. The "infallibility" of any Council was determined by only one criteria - the passage of time. Members of the Councils prayed for the descent of the Holy Spirit to enlighten them so that they would make decisions that were correct and pleasing to God. If after several hundred years, a Council's decrees - such as those of the First Seven Ecumenical or Great Councils - proved to be right and true, the Council was embraced by the Church and considered "infallible". However, many Councils were later repudiated (the one that established the iconoclast heresy, for one) as being at best wrong and at worst, heretical (iconoclasm).

4. If a person disagrees with seminal doctrines of his faith, then he should seek another church that embraces whatever he believes rather than trying to "remake" his present church in his own image. It is a matter of unbridled egotism to demand that everyone change to accommodate oneself. What right has anyone to insist that any Church embrace such changes - especially changes of great moral and theological importance - in order to "please" supposed 'believers" or to meet the standards set by the world. Indeed, the Church is supposed to reject worldly standards, not embrace them and believers are supposed to embrace the beliefs of their Church - not work diligently to change them - or else why belong in the first place!

The Church is not a "democracy" or even a "republic". It is a "Theocracy" whose ultimate "King" is God Himself and He doesn't take opinion polls nor is He concerned about popularity. And certainly, there is enough that has been written over the centuries to determine what God wants for His Church in the way of doctrine. Of course, some later denominations have determined that He really didn't mean what the Church has for centuries (millenia?) decided in Councils that He meant. These modern "theologians" know better, after all - and that's fine, I guess, for those who wish to follow the innovators. However, as noted above, since there are "churches" for people who don't like the "old" doctrines - quite a few, actually - it seems extremely selfish of them to demand that those who want the original doctrines accept the changes that they want. I know in my case, I went to where I found what I wanted. I did not insist that the Roman Catholic Church change to suit me.

5. There is apparently something wrong with some(?) liberals that causes them to read into statements things that were never said and respond most inappropriately to things that were said. That is the only way I can fathom our good innkeeper's response to my post. Maybe if he can't or won't understand what I write, he should do what he has threatened to do - use the "ignore" button and save us both a lot of time and effort.
 

Gil-Galad

in love
Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Messages
3,179
Reaction score
6
Location
Plovdiv,Bulgaria/Leuven,Belgium
I thought that was a thread about a great man who deserved our appreciation and respect.Even from us,the Orthodox,and we showed it sending most ot our Patriarchs to his funeral,something that happened for first time,but it happened because even we appreciate some of his actions.
...but let's stick to the topic or just clos it.

Let's not turn this thread into a religious discussion.
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
Gil-Galad said:
I thought that was a thread about a great man who deserved our appreciation and respect.Even from us,the Orthodox,and we showed it sending most ot our Patriarchs to his funeral,something that happened for first time,but it happened because even we appreciate some of his actions.
...but let's stick to the topic or just clos it.

Let's not turn this thread into a religious discussion.
Come, folks! This is not a "religious" discussion. The thread was opened to discuss the passing of John Paul II. A point was made that many Catholics would prefer a "more liberal" Pope as his successor. The rejoiner was made that it is the Pope's responsibility to represent his Church, not to change doctrine to serve a particular "interest group" within it. A further point was made that those persons who want the Catholic Church "liberalized" would better serve themselves and the Catholic Church by seeking another denomination more in keeping with their particular points of view.

There is nothing "religious" in any of these points; they merely make comments regarding the late Pope and the responsibility of the Papacy in general. They also point out that people have no right to demand that a particular religion accommodate their particular points of view if those points of view are in opposition to Church doctrine. Again, these are matters of rational debate. They might just as well be directed at any organization with a leader who is legally and/or morally committed to upholding the aims and goals of the organization.

If the forum does not wish to discuss anything that could be remotely considered "religious", then threads like this should not be opened since it is bound to involve discussions regarding the organization (Church) of which that person was in charge and, eventually, certain facts and circumstances surrounding the organization. Once that happens, if the person is the leader of one of the largest - if not the largest - Christian denominations in the world, what on earth can one expect if not some kind of "religious" discussion??

To me, a "religious" discussion involves debate about the relative truth between and among the various religions including atheism and humanism as well as the legitimacy of various "religious" claims. That is a "religious" discussion, not the types of comments that have been exchanged here.
 

Arthur_Vandelay

Hipster Doofus
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
338
Reaction score
1
Location
Perth, Australia
Mrs Maggott said:
A point was made that many Catholics would prefer a "more liberal" Pope as his successor. The rejoiner was made that it is the Pope's responsibility to represent his Church, not to change doctrine to serve a particular "interest group" within it.
A matter of perspective. In not pandering to one particular interest group (progressives, modernists), the Church hierarchy under Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger has pandered to another interest group (conservatives, traditionalists). The next Pope should rise above such pandering. Not treating every critique as dissidence or as an assault upon the Church would be a good start.

. . . the various religions including atheism and humanism . . .
You may find this interesting.

The Church is not a "democracy" or even a "republic". It is a "Theocracy" whose ultimate "King" is God Himself and He doesn't take opinion polls nor is He concerned about popularity.
In a practical sense, the ultimate "King" of the Church is the Pope--a human being, with all that that entails. That's what makes theocracy so disturbing.

It boils down to this, really:

Are democracy and the free exchange of ideas good things in themselves? If so, why are they not good for the Church? Or are they only good in certain contexts? Why those contexts, and not others?

Is authoritarianism a bad thing in itself? If so, then why is not bad for the Church to operate upon such lines--as it has done so particularly under Pope John Paul II's reign? Or is it only bad in certain contexts? Why those contexts, and not others?
 

Walter

Flamekeeper
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
3
Location
Austria
Mrs. Maggott said:
Just a few points:

1. The Church created the New Testament, not the other way round. Check history if you doubt this. It was the various Church Councils that decided which "books" would be included in the New Testament and, indeed, that process was not completed for many years after Pentecost, the recognized "birthday" of the Church.
I can only second most of which is said here, though I would add that the process was not begun for many years- or decades - after Pentecost and was not completed for many centuries...

2. The Church is much more than a mere "disseminator" of Christ's teachings. She is His "Bride"; He is the Head and She the Body. He acts in the world through the Church. The Church is the "ark of salvation" in the world established by Christ for His followers.
This paragraph is IMHO more debateable than the one above, it still remains to be proved that the replacement and altering of the role of women – as "body" and "bride" - in religion by the church was what Christ intended (if we suppose for now that he indeed ever existed). And even more so that any one of today's Christian churches comes even close to what he intended as the outcome of his teachings....


3. Is the Church "infallible"? Patently, not all the time or even most of the time. The claim of "infallibility" can be made only at certain times. In the early Church, infallibility was invested in Church Councils which were called both locally and ecumenically (over all the "Sees" of the Church) to determine such things as the final wording of the "Creed" and to deal with the uprising of various heresies and other matters; this is still the way of the Orthodox Church today. Until the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the West - which is, historically speaking, recent - it required a Church Council to make pronouncements as to various issues affecting the Faith. The "infallibility" of any Council was determined by only one criteria - the passage of time. Members of the Councils prayed for the descent of the Holy Spirit to enlighten them so that they would make decisions that were correct and pleasing to God. If after several hundred years, a Council's decrees - such as those of the First Seven Ecumenical or Great Councils - proved to be right and true, the Council was embraced by the Church and considered "infallible". However, many Councils were later repudiated (the one that established the iconoclast heresy, for one) as being at best wrong and at worst, heretical (iconoclasm).
History also shows that the role of the Christian church – as an heirloom of Saulus/Paulus and Simon/Peter – always was more a political one than a religious one. It – apparently, IMO – only survived because of Saulus/Paulus' was quite involved with the Roman officials and Herodian kings and because Constantine in the 4th century found the new church convenient for his own plans and goals and thus decided to support them. But that IMO at no point justifies talking about "infallibility" at their side....


4. If a person disagrees with seminal doctrines of his faith, then he should seek another church that embraces whatever he believes rather than trying to "remake" his present church in his own image. It is a matter of unbridled egotism to demand that everyone change to accommodate oneself. What right has anyone to insist that any Church embrace such changes - especially changes of great moral and theological importance - in order to "please" supposed 'believers" or to meet the standards set by the world. Indeed, the Church is supposed to reject worldly standards, not embrace them and believers are supposed to embrace the beliefs of their Church - not work diligently to change them - or else why belong in the first place!
Given what is said above about the Christian church and in the light of all its crimes in the name of God – or Christ – throughout the millennia, must it not be legitimate to try finding again what may have been the quintessence of Christ's teachings, and - in the event - try to re-establish those in the communities which claim to spread Christ's word? The findings of Qumran (the publication of some of which has been quite successfully suppressed, delayed and blurred by the Dominican order of Jerusalem and its leaders) and Nag Hammadi – but also the quasi-historical writings of Josephus - show us quite different aspects of the peaceful Hellenistic countryside with Galilean fisherman teaching and preaching only faith and peace. The Christian church has made quite some efforts throughout its history to suppress and extinguish everything that does not go well together with its political doctrines at a given time. To give now all those, who are quite dissatisfied with such policies (which btw. remain intact to a certain degree even in today's Christian churches) the "consilium abeundi" may be the most comfortable choice for the leaders of these communities, but is it the right one?

The Church is not a "democracy" or even a "republic". It is a "Theocracy" whose ultimate "King" is God Himself and He doesn't take opinion polls nor is He concerned about popularity. And certainly, there is enough that has been written over the centuries to determine what God wants for His Church in the way of doctrine. Of course, some later denominations have determined that He really didn't mean what the Church has for centuries (millenia?) decided in Councils that He meant. These modern "theologians" know better, after all - and that's fine, I guess, for those who wish to follow the innovators. However, as noted above, since there are "churches" for people who don't like the "old" doctrines - quite a few, actually - it seems extremely selfish of them to demand that those who want the original doctrines accept the changes that they want. I know in my case, I went to where I found what I wanted. I did not insist that the Roman Catholic Church change to suit me.
This all stands and falls with the use of the word "original" and the ability to read God's mind. And those who pray and preach loudest may not always be those who are the devoutest – in God's eyes. As for the mythological aspects of the God/King relationship throughout history of human culture – and also the very role of Christ in this aspect - I would suggest the lecture of Frazer, Campbell, Graves etc.. Many of the Christian myths as presented in the Old and New Testament are not quite as unpreceded or unique as the church wanted them to be...

In my previous post I said "de mortuis nihil nisi bene", thus I am not going to blame John Paul II for all that happened during his "reign." But I cannot fail to notice that he has appointed and in part inaugurated servants for our country, who have been involved in cases of paedophilia, bishops who today still see women as "unclean" - and thus refuse to have them as servers during mass - and bishops who refuse an ecumenical mass for the bereaved families after an incident with some 150 casualties.

I see much room for John Paul's successor to improve things in the Catholic church, and I, for one, would wish for these improvements to come true...
 

Gothmog

Lord of Balrogs
Staff member
Joined
Sep 10, 2001
Messages
1,849
Reaction score
83
Location
Cardiff, United Kingdom
Mod's Comment

Mrs. Maggott said:
To me, a "religious" discussion involves debate about the relative truth between and among the various religions including atheism and humanism as well as the legitimacy of various "religious" claims. That is a "religious" discussion, not the types of comments that have been exchanged here.
This may be your idea of a "religious discussion" but the fact is that a religious discussion involves the discussion of religious beliefs, doctrine and/or practice either within a single church or between different churches or religions.

The nature of this thread is such that a certain amount of such religous discussion with respect of the Catholic Church was to be expected and accepted. However, there is also expected a certain level of courtesy from all posters.
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
Re: Mod's Comment

Gothmog said:
This may be your idea of a "religious discussion" but the fact is that a religious discussion involves the discussion of religious beliefs, doctrine and/or practice either within a single church or between different churches or religions.

The nature of this thread is such that a certain amount of such religous discussion with respect of the Catholic Church was to be expected and accepted. However, there is also expected a certain level of courtesy from all posters.
Wherein have I been discourteous? I have simply pointed out certain historically factual events (that Scripture proceeded from the Church and not vice versa), that the Church has a far greater meaning that many today actually understand - She is the Bride of Christ as Scripture itself defines her - and that it is unreasonable (and selfish) for people to try to remake their particular denomination to suit their own cherished beliefs if those beliefs are in direct contrast to the doctrines of their church.

As for the Pope "pandering" to conservatives: I will believe that when someone can show me what Catholic teaching(s) the Pope abandoned or changed for the sake of these "conservatives". I think you will find it more a case of the Pope being true to the teachings and dogmas of the Catholic Church - something which pleased conservatives - rather than him "pandering" to them. If, on the other hand, in order to please liberals, the Pope must change and/or abandon time honored Catholic doctrines, then that is really a case of "pandering" to a particular interest group.

This is a situation in which I am reminded of Ronald Reagan's comments to people who criticized some groups who approved of him. Reagan simply said that he said and did that in which he believed. If people approved of what he said and did, that was fine. On the other hand, he did not do it or say it to gain their approval. In the same way, John Paul II did what he did because he was honor bound as Pope to uphold the Catholic Church. He didn't do it to "please" conservatives or "diss" liberals.

Indeed, this is why I mentioned that the Church is not a "democracy". Doctrines are not predicated on "majority rule" or the approval of the faithful. The faithful are in the Church because they agree with Her doctrines. If people do not "believe" in thos doctrines and dogmas then they don't belong in that Church. Attempts to change doctrine - and the operative word here is change - to suit the times or a particular ideological group is frankly, heretical (the word heresy means "change"). As there are plenty of "churches" with decidedly liberal moral and philosophical agendas, anyone who rejects what they consider to be Catholic "conservatism" is free to go elsewhere and find a more congenial faith setting. This is not a "liberal vs. conservative" issue. It is a matter of existing Church doctrine and dogma that some people want changed or abandoned to suit themselves. I can only pray that the next Pope defends the Faith with as much moral strength as the last in the face of such heretical demands.
 

Confusticated

Registered User
Joined
Apr 19, 2002
Messages
4,438
Reaction score
5
Location
USA
Re: Mod's Comment

Mrs. Maggott said:
Wherein have I been discourteous? I have simply pointed out certain historically factual events (that Scripture proceeded from the Church and not vice versa), that the Church has a far greater meaning that many today actually understand - She is the Bride of Christ as Scripture itself defines her - and that it is unreasonable (and selfish) for people to try to remake their particular denomination to suit their own cherished beliefs if those beliefs are in direct contrast to the doctrines of their church.
I didn't see Gothmog accuse anyone of being discourteous.

"There is apparently something wrong with some(?) liberals that causes them to read into statements things that were never said and respond most inappropriately to things that were said"

And some(?) conservatives too?

Why did that remark have to be directed at liberals, if not because you see a connection between being a liberal and reading things into statements and making inappropriately replies? And why is there any question as to whether or not it is some or all liberals that have "something wrong with" them which causes them to do those things.

Maybe some people do think that these little jabs at liberals are discourteous though.

I wonder if it is assumed that those Catholics mentioned in this thread who would like a more liberal Pope are all wanting changes that do in fact (not in opinion) go against the Church's doctrine.
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
The implication was there after a quote taken from myself.

I was responding to a certain "response" to something I didn't say - and, yes, the inability to get past one's ideology is not limited to liberals. However, most conservatives do try to respond to what actually has been said rather than to an interpretation of what has been said that is frequently diamentric in nature.

Having been more than "jabbed" and certainly in ways that left nothing to the imagination regarding my particular philosophy (conservative), I do not believe that pointing out errors in liberal interpretations of my points to be "discourteous". Of course, in the "p.c." culture, there are different standards for criticism of liberals and conservatives (right wing demogogues, that is).

And, again, I ask what "changes" do liberals want to see a Pope make? Married priests? That is a matter of "tradition" with a small "t" since the early Church had both celibate and married priests and the Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics still do. Is it women priests? Ah, that is more in the nature of Tradition with a capital "T" since the early Church never had women priests - although they did have women deacons under certain highly restricted circumstances. Is it acceptance of abortion? That is straight doctrine, not even Tradition. Abortion has been condemned since the Church began contrary to what many try to purport. Is it birth control? Is it "alternative lifestyles"? When the changes being demanded are set forth, then we will all know just what liberal Catholics want. Consider this, however: the Catholic Church has already abandoned many of its fasting disciplines as well as other pious practices since Vatican II so there can't be too much left for people to want changed regarding such things.

And consider one more thing: where the Church has been "liberalized" - Europe, the US, Canada - it is not growing or at least not growing all that much. Where She has remained "conservative" - Africa, Latin America - She is growing. It would seem that serious Christians want a serious Church and not just another social organization doing "good works".
 

Gothmog

Lord of Balrogs
Staff member
Joined
Sep 10, 2001
Messages
1,849
Reaction score
83
Location
Cardiff, United Kingdom
Mrs. Maggott said:
Wherein have I been discourteous?
As Nóm has already pointed out your point 5 of post 31 is a problem, this point was an un-necessary answer to a prior post which could result in an argument between two posters that will cause the thread to be closed, this is discourteous to the other posers on this thread. I am aware of, and myself answered the prior post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Thread suggestions

Top