<p>I remember being surprised that a deacon, not a priest, would baptize my son. All these changes</p>
<p>these aren’t changes. anyone can baptize…</p>
<p>He might be a nice man but I don’t see anything changing anytime soon. Like in our lifetime.</p>
<p>The types of changes that some want won’t be happening in anyone’s lifetime.</p>
<p>But they should.</p>
<p>The “changes” that some want just aren’t possible to be consistent with Doctrine. And, those can’t change.</p>
<p>As a non-Catholic could you let me know which changes are not consistent with Church Doctrine?</p>
<p>Lots and lots of unchangeable doctrine has changed. The mortal sin of eating meat on Friday is probably the most famous/recent one. There were married priests for the first three or four hundred years of the Church. Slavery is now contrary to doctrine, but that change is only a couple of hundred years old (popes used slave galleys). Lending money at interest used to be contrary to doctrine. Here is a review of Judge Noonan’s leading book on the subject: <a href=“'A Church That Can and Cannot Change': Dogma - The New York Times”>'A Church That Can and Cannot Change': Dogma - The New York Times;
<p>^ I always thought it was ironic that the Church of the Middle Ages constantly opposed the Jews; yet the Church prohibited lending money with interest, which opened the way for Jews to establish a power base through banking.</p>
<p>Pope Francis’ first act of communication was to write to the chief rabbi of Rome.</p>
<p>Thank you for trying again with this thread. We were trying to have a respectful discussion on the other one but it only takes a few to ruin it.
One of the questions I had asked on the other thread was what kind of reform do practicing Catholics hope for (if any).
Some of you have answered that a bit here.
</p>
<p>I think for some this may be true but for others, like myself, it doesn’t matter.
I was raised Catholic but have left the church. I haven’t drifted away. I have left it. I don’t identify myself as Catholic any longer. I don’t believe in the doctrine and the stance on social issues are opposed to my own. I spent years as a “cafeteria Catholic”, like many, if not most Catholics do. It just didn’t work for me because I finally came to a place when I asked myself “why am I doing this?” Some say that the good outweighs the bad for them but for me, I needed to feel authentic in an area of my life that really should be the most important area.</p>
<p>I hope this Pope realizes the hopes and dreams of the practicing Catholics. For me, he holds little significance other than as a world influence.
In response to Mom2collegekids asssertion that some things won’t change, 3bm103 responded
</p>
<p>I disagree. If the rules and policies of the church are an honest reflection of the doctrine of the church, why should it change? Some stuff will never change. As in any relationship, whether with another person or a large organization, you can only control what YOU do. So, if you don’t like the doctrine, rules and policies, do what I did and leave!</p>
<p>Hanna,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These were never doctrine. There’s a difference between practices and doctrine. </p>
<p>The rules about fasting and abstinence changed over time. You were expected to follow the Church’s rules, but it wasn’t doctrine. It’s a practice. Indeed, I grew up as a military brat and we had a dispensation. We could eat meat on Friday except during Lent. Obviously, if this were a “doctrine,” we could not have been granted a dispensation. The rules on this also vary among nations. </p>
<p>The rules regarding celibacy only apply to the largest rite in the Church, the Roman or Latin rite. There are lots of other Catholics who follow other rites in the Church. See <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches</a> Most of them allow priests to marry. For example,outside North America, the Maronite rite, which is part of the Catholic Church, has permitted its clergy to marry. Married Anglican priests who want to " convert" are accepted as priests and can stay married. There are at least dozens of former Anglican and Episcopal priests who are married who have joined the Catholic Church and are now working as Catholic priests here in the archdiocese of New York. </p>
<p>The celibacy of priests is a practice; it is not a doctrine. Even those adamantly opposed to married clergy don’t think the Church couldn’t change the rule. While the rule is in effect, it must, of course, be obeyed. But changing the rule doesn’t affect doctrine. </p>
<p>Slavery and usury are more complicated. But, for complex reasons, IMO, these involve practices or interpretations, not doctrine. There is still a sin of usury, for example.</p>
<p>EPTR–I agree. No one should stay in a church when they disagree with the doctrine.
I’ve been a lifelong Catholic. I think that JP II had a huge and mostly very positive influence on the worldwide church. Oh, my Polish grandmas were SO PROUD the day he was elected.
I was happy with Benedict, though he wasn’t the charismatic media friendly figure that JPII was in his younger days. I attend the “Extraordinary Form” of the Mass (Latin mass), which I love for its reverence, beautiful music, and historical connections. (I didn’t grow up with the Latin Mass), and Benedict lifted some restrictions on the old mass–which will help the church preserve its liturgical treasures.</p>
<p>I was surprised at the election of Pope Francis and am interested in finding out more about him. I love the fact that he has chosen a “new” name of a great saint. I like what I’ve heard about his humility. I was expecting someone younger, but we’ll see how many years Francis has to do the good work he intends to do. I hear that he is expected to do some housecleaning in the Vatican administration and run the place more efficiently?
I don’t expect or hope for any big changes in the church–a focus on spirituality, simplicity, humility, helping the poor, etc. is what we all need.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just a slight clarification, with apologies for the digression: that was an important reason for Jewish involvement in moneylending but was only one of many factors, along with prohibitions against Jews participating in many other occupations; the decline of Jewish involvement in international trade, especially with the Middle East, and especially once the Crusades began; the need for Jewish communities to raise money to be able to pay the exorbitant taxes extracted from those communities by the rulers of many countries in exchange for allowing them to remain; the increasingly greater need for those rulers to raise money for trade and to conduct wars; the fact that on a small scale Jews were often the only ones willing to lend small amounts of money to peasants, farmers, shopkeepers, etc.; and so on. In any event, there were always Christian bankers who charged interest regardless of what their religion provided; the amounts of money that passed through the hands of Italian bankers in medieval times far exceeded anything Jewish people ever were involved with, until perhaps the era of the Court Jews, centuries later. And I think it’s something of an exaggeration to call it that much of a “power base,” since Jewish people were always liable to be expelled from different countries, to have their property confiscated, to have all debts to them canceled, and so on, even apart from the general violence to which they were often subjected – violence against which a number of Popes and bishops did their best to protect them (as in the repeated papal rejection of the blood libel, and of the claims that Jews were poisoning wells during the Black Death), not that any of that always did that much good when it came to stopping mob violence by Crusaders (especially the Peter the Hermit types, from whom the bishops in a number of towns on the Rhine tried to give Jews shelter) and others. It’s extremely complicated; the subtleties of the distinction between the Church’s rejection of Judaism (and its self-definition, in part, by distinguishing Christianity from Judaism) on the one hand, and its efforts to protect Jewish people from elimination (partly for theological reasons; see Augustine) on the other hand, were lost on a great many people!</p>
<p>EPTR
Though coming from a different place I had the same sentiments about this thread. It has held on to civility better than previous threads though(by and large)</p>
<p>“I disagree. If the rules and policies of the church are an honest reflection of the doctrine of the church, why should it change”
(sorry…4 years later and I still haven’t learned how to quote…)</p>
<p>Penn Gillette, an avowed athiest, has a position not too far from what I understand you to be saying
[Penn</a> Jillette Destroys Modernist “Catholic” Piers Morgan - YouTube](<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube)</p>
<p>
Which of these is doctrine that cannot change and which are rules?</p>
<p>I think they are all rules. But I still say they will not change. Again for me it doesn’t matter too much as I don’t believe in the doctrine either.</p>
<p>I guess I wonder, and again, I ask this question respectfully without judgement, how does one reconcile the teachings of the church when they are in conflict with one’s own values and belies.
Here’s an example. I believe that gay people should have the right to marry. I cannot, in good conscience stay in a church that feels and teaches differently. But I know a LOT of people who share my feelings and yet, go to church each week. They pick and choose what they will and won’t subscribe to. Why? It is my feeling that to remain not only hurts me but contributes to the hurt that is inflicted on those that are marginalized by the church. I don’t want to try to have it both ways. I see no value in that for anyone. So I am curious if others who consider them practicing Catholics struggle with this. Do you turn a deaf ear to the teachings on birth control? I’m guessing most Catholics do as most of them don’t have 12 kids. Do you support gay rights but sit in silence during a sermon that espouses the sanctity of traditional marriage?<br>
Again, I’m not judging. Most of my good friends and family are in this category and I get it. I used to do it. My search for some semblance of authenticity in this, my only life (presumably Lol) won’t allow for it._</p>
<p>Can someone list what is doctrine, what are rules or practices. Thank you</p>
<p>I am not a religious scholar, but since no one else has answered you yet, I’ll share what my H offers up: He says it would be more precise to say discipline rather than rules or practices. It’s not just that certain certain "rules’ are put in place arbitrarily, but that certain disciplines are institutionalized to further our understanding and love of God. Disciplines are not universal. For example, it’s still a discipline to not eat meat on Good Friday, but for health reasons, Catholics under or over certain ages are not subject to the discipline. </p>
<p>Doctrines are universal and unchanging. Examples of doctrine include believing in the Trinity and the virgin birth. </p>
<p>Others here will be more informed than I am, but one “cheat sheet” might be that the majority - but by no means all - of doctrines are shared with other Christians. I believe the Apostle’s Creed is an example of a statement of doctrine shared by both Catholics and most Protestants. Other examples of doctrine shared with Protestants are the Trinity and the virgin birth. Examples of doctrine not held by mainline Protestants are the immaculate conception, male-only clergy, the assumption of Mary and transubstantiation. </p>
<p>Again, others may correct me, and I hope they do if I have stated something incorrectly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s interesting. Any idea of content?</p>
<p>[Pope</a> Francis reaches out to Roman Jews - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57574529/pope-francis-reaches-out-to-roman-jews/]Pope”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57574529/pope-francis-reaches-out-to-roman-jews/)</p>
<p>Thanks, ZM :)</p>
<p>from my facebook feed</p>
<p>Breaking News:</p>
<p>Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople has announced that he plans to attend the inaugural Mass of Pope Frances on March 19.</p>
<p>The appearance by the Ecumenical Patriarch–the “first among equals” of all the world’s Orthodox leaders–is an unprecedented gesture. The Patriarch of Constantinople has not attended a papal installation since 1054, when Constantinople split from Rome.</p>