The W
Views: 100758090
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.11.07 0621
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - New pope! Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3(350 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (49 total)
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple
Level: 114

Posts: 946/3844
EXP: 16210601
For next: 99016

Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 482 days
Last activity: 443 days
#41 Posted on 20.4.05 1842.22
Reposted on: 20.4.12 1842.48
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    Does anyone know if any other Christian faiths have a spiritual leader analogous to the Pope? I'm unaware of any, but I could be very wrong as my knowledge of Protestantism is relatively slim.


Off the top of my head, besides the Mormon example already mentioned, I'd say no. To Protestants, their relationship with God is personal. In other words, they don't need a leader to talk with God, because everyone does it.

Of course, the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Archbishop of Constatinople
http://www.ec-patr.gr/athp/index.php?lang=en
Here's a picture of him and JP2 hanging out.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/eastern-orthodox-ch/ecumenical.jpg
Sec19Row53
Lap cheong
Level: 78

Posts: 660/1579
EXP: 4305103
For next: 77142

Since: 2.1.02
From: Oconomowoc, WI

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 7 hours
Y!:
#42 Posted on 20.4.05 2120.20
Reposted on: 20.4.12 2120.23
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    Honestly through general lack of concern, I never knew the church thought the pope could communicate directly with God. Now with this knowledge, I ask, how can you "elect" a person to speak with God? I mean, one minute, the guy doesn't hear God's voice, then the Cardinals vote and all of a sudden the guy hears the voice?

I believe the story as I was growing up was that the vote was inspired by the Holy Spirit, such that God would direct the Cardinals to vote for who He wanted to be Pope, and would presumably communicate with him.

I think this is better phrased as 'God communicates to the Pope' -- I've never understood it to be a two way street.
Hogan's My Dad
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1317/2092
EXP: 6454652
For next: 196038

Since: 8.6.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 22 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#43 Posted on 20.4.05 2142.22
Reposted on: 20.4.12 2143.08
(deleted by CRZ on 21.4.05 0013)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1493/1528
EXP: 4098100
For next: 93048

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2861 days
Last activity: 2703 days
AIM:  
#44 Posted on 20.4.05 2309.14
Reposted on: 20.4.12 2310.02
(deleted by CRZ on 21.4.05 0014)
GodEatGod
Boudin rouge
Level: 48

Posts: 216/508
EXP: 780870
For next: 42678

Since: 28.2.02

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#45 Posted on 21.4.05 1332.18
Reposted on: 21.4.12 1334.46
I'm always irritated by the "if you disagree with a point of doctrine, find a better church" logic that I've often heard argued towards Catholics with a more progressive feeling regarding birth control, abortion, women priests, etc. The definition of "Catholic" is universal. To me, the Church should be the very definition of a big tent church. Feelings about fairly specific (and, in the breadth and depth of the faith, narrow) issues don't negate a belief in the Eucharist, in the rites of reconciliation and baptism. Not only that but, for many people, Catholicism is as much cultural as it is spiritual. Asking them to give up their faith and community because of a difference in political opinion doesn't make sense.

One of the elements of Vatican II is the idea that we are all subjects to our own conscience. From discussions with my own priest, my understanding is that we are free to disagree. While we are still expected to practice according to the Church's teachings, not to do so is a sin, but hardly the most mortal of them. If you really think you can only exist in a church where you agree with every single point of dogma, theology and politics, then most people will probably end up having about three other members of their congregation. Regardless of what the media says, there aren't only two possible opinions on any given subject.

To me, the Church is run by humans. They mean well and, I think, they do a good job for the most part. While I had strong disagreements with Cardinal Ratzinger (and with JPII), that doesn't mean I think that they're bad leaders or that they shouldn't be allowed to hold positions of authority. I personally hope that Benedict VXI will be more conciliatory in his new role. He's no longer the bulldog defender of the faith against heresy, but now the pastor to millions and millions of souls. That requires a softer touch, and I suspect he knows that. While I'm not a practicing Catholic anymore, I'll always feel like the Church is a part of me. I wish him the best.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 376/810
EXP: 1528909
For next: 48646

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 137 days
Last activity: 8 days
#46 Posted on 21.4.05 2306.04
Reposted on: 21.4.12 2308.15
GEG--Well put. As a pretty devout Catholic, I don't agree with all your conclusions. But, just like you, I hate when people use doctrine as a weapon and lose sight of what's important. Regardless, it's tough because some issues simply don't have a middle ground.

I think the relevant issue is not whether or not Catholics agree with everything the Church teaches. The issue is when they say 'The Church is wrong.' There is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreement, as long as it doesn't take the form of someone feeling they have a better grasp of moral issues than the pope or Church as a whole. For someone who was intellectually honest, the presumption of having greater moral awareness would be tough to reconcile while remaining Catholic. The key is disagreeing, but continuing to study the issue and praying for guidance with an open heart and mind.

Also, not to quibble, but I don't follow your comment about not following the Church's teachings ("While we are still expected to practice according to the Church's teachings, not to do so is a sin, but hardly the most mortal of them"). If someone violates Church teachings on a grave matter, with full knowledge and deliberate consent, then they have committed a mortal sin. Otherwise, it's not mortal. The 'most mortal of sins' would be eternal sin and only happens when someone blasphemes against the Holy Spirit.

As a reference, Catechism of the Catholic Church 1776-1802 concern conscience and CCC 1854-1864 differentiate between mortal and venial sin.

DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1373/2704
EXP: 8963586
For next: 25233

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#47 Posted on 22.4.05 0725.57
Reposted on: 22.4.12 0726.46
    Originally posted by Corajudo
    Also, not to quibble, but I don't follow your comment about not following the Church's teachings ("While we are still expected to practice according to the Church's teachings, not to do so is a sin, but hardly the most mortal of them"). If someone violates Church teachings on a grave matter, with full knowledge and deliberate consent, then they have committed a mortal sin. Otherwise, it's not mortal. The 'most mortal of sins' would be eternal sin and only happens when someone blasphemes against the Holy Spirit




This is where non-Catholic Christians can have problems. Growing up in the Disciples of Christ denomination and presently a Methodist, our understanding is along the lines of obeying Christ's teaching. The church is important and mandated in the Gospels but we recognize it as an institution of human beings and as such prone to the error of human arrogance. We simply feel we can have a more direct connection to God without the filter of the Pope. Not meant as criticism just a major difference.
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 288/449
EXP: 649360
For next: 10809

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 576 days
Last activity: 443 days
AIM:  
#48 Posted on 22.4.05 1357.36
Reposted on: 22.4.12 1357.44
    Originally posted by DrDirt
      Originally posted by Corajudo
      Also, not to quibble, but I don't follow your comment about not following the Church's teachings ("While we are still expected to practice according to the Church's teachings, not to do so is a sin, but hardly the most mortal of them"). If someone violates Church teachings on a grave matter, with full knowledge and deliberate consent, then they have committed a mortal sin. Otherwise, it's not mortal. The 'most mortal of sins' would be eternal sin and only happens when someone blasphemes against the Holy Spirit




    This is where non-Catholic Christians can have problems. Growing up in the Disciples of Christ denomination and presently a Methodist, our understanding is along the lines of obeying Christ's teaching. The church is important and mandated in the Gospels but we recognize it as an institution of human beings and as such prone to the error of human arrogance. We simply feel we can have a more direct connection to God without the filter of the Pope. Not meant as criticism just a major difference.


Yes, I agree with what Hogie said.

In relation to criticising the Catholic Church for some of their teachings (such as concerning woman holding an inferior place to men) is that I believe the number one role of all Christians should be to bring ourselves and others closer to God. When you discriminate against an entire group, this is going to prevent many people from walking closer to God. Thus I feel the Catholic Church (and the more fundamental Protestant faiths) are turning many people away from Christianity and, though some find other faiths, many others do not. This is a travesty to me and worthy of criticism.

The quote that somes up all of my Christian beliefs is as follows: "When in doubt, err on the side of grace". When an issue is clearly arguable (such as whether women should be discriminated against inside the Church walls), you, I, the Pope, the Church, should always err on the side of love and acceptance.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 377/810
EXP: 1528909
For next: 48646

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 137 days
Last activity: 8 days
#49 Posted on 22.4.05 1656.06
Reposted on: 22.4.12 1656.08
Yes, I agree with what Hogie said.

Which comment? The unsubstantiated statement that the Church should be bashed because it's dangerous? Or, the statement that was deleted by the admins? If it's the first, please provide a little more substance or context.

In relation to criticising the Catholic Church for some of their teachings (such as concerning woman holding an inferior place to men). . . When you discriminate against an entire group, this is going to prevent many people from walking closer to God. Thus I feel the Catholic Church (and the more fundamental Protestant faiths) are turning many people away from Christianity and, though some find other faiths, many others do not.

Women not being able to be priests does not mean women are inferior. Priests are not superior. In fact, they are servants of the faithful; it is/should be a position of humility and sacrifice. You made a pretty explosive assertion. Present evidence, using the Catechism or some official Catholic document such as an encyclical, where the Church has indicated women hold an inferior position to men. By my judgement, no mortal, living or dead, has a more esteemed position in the Catholic Church than the Virgin Mary.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2 3Thread ahead: The "special relationship"
Next thread: A poem from my brother stationed in Iraq
Previous thread: What is warfare without irony?
(350 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - New pope!Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.26 seconds.