The New Pope

Parent Cafe
61

<p>Church Hierarchy:</p>

<p>Pope- elected by Church of Cardinals</p>

<p>Cardinals- group of 120 bishops elevated by Pope- split between those at vatican and those in major cities</p>

<p>Bishops- Priests nominated by other bishops and appointed by Pope</p>

<p>Priests and Deacons- ordained by Bishops</p>

<p>(from my Idiots guide to Understanding Catholocism)</p>

<p>some of the best Priests will never become Bishops or above, they don’t play the political game. And as we can see with any big entity, the cream doesn’t always rise to the top (not referring to new Pope cause we don’t know enough) but some of those Cardinals are pretty scary. ANd look at Law…</p>

62

<p>Irishbird, lending money for <em>any</em> interest was defined as usury by the Church in the medieval period. I’m not making stuff up. Btw, this thread surfaced in discussion with TheMom over dinner last night. She points out that St. Peter did just fine as Pope…and he was married.</p>

<p>Lhasa, otoh under Paul VI, theologians like Kung, Curran, et alia were tolerated and then some. Vatican II opened the windows and shutters of the Church, letting in fresh air… Emphasis on the hierarchy was diminished and the laity was elevated. As for contraception, it’s interesting…if there were women in the hierarchy, it would be a non-issue. </p>

<p>I’ll see if I can find a good link to a summary of Vatican II.<br>
Whatever, the atmosphere in the Church was very different then.</p>

<p>TheMom has a theory–and I think it’s a good one–that J2P2, growing up under Communism, had a “siege mentality” that was the only way he could survive under the Communist regime. But after he became Pope and the Communists fell, the outlook had become reflexive.</p>

63

<p>citygirlsmom -
thanks - so only priests are in the running, not those who were deacons or brothers or nuns. No princesses of the church.</p>

64

<p>TheDad, you misunderstood me. I am not saying the Church hasn’t made mistakes. Or presented one thing as “God’s law” and then a few centuries later condemned the exact same thing in the name of “God’s law.” Of course it has! However, what I AM saying is that the Church itself has always seen itself as infailable simply because it sees every decision that comes from Rome as coming directly from God. There’s no room for discussion or negotiation when something comes from God. (I am NOT saying I agree with this but this is what I have taken away from a very extensive study of the Church’s history and historical doctrine).</p>

<p>Bottomline: The Church has always had a take-it-or-leave-it approach. If you don’t want to take it, nothing you or I or any mere mortal is going to change things because we aren’t the recipients of the “word of God.” There are other churches out there that are much more open to change. Many of us “cafeteria catholics” might be happier in one. :)</p>

65

<p>The church hasn’t always had a take it leave it policy…because it has changed over and over again during the centuries. Vatican II is a prime example. So, an ebb and flow does happen in the church. But in the Catholic church movement is like lava…really slow What I do appreciate about the Church is the charity work. It is encouraged and emphasized. It is who we are.
.
I, as a Catholic, have many issues with the church. And I take what feels right. I have studied church history, early Christianity and am now learning about the reformation. I know the church is only as good as its leaders, and they have shown themselves throughout history to make mistakes, change their minds, and adjust. </p>

<p>Catholicism is not literal. Much is symbolic, and with that interpertation. I
ts gonna be intersting if the Church becomes more closed or more encompassing in the next few years. </p>

<p>That will determine alot, for our family. My Ds are already questioning soooo much and that is good.</p>

66

<p>Carolyn, the Church would not have evolved over the centuries if, at any given moment, those who didn’t like things as they were either acquiesced or departed.</p>

<p>This thread has again provided fodder for discussion with TheMom over the fixing of dinner. She points out that nothing that people are trumping up as issues now are rooted in essential doctrine, as in the Nicean Creed. </p>

<p>The Church has twisted its collective knickers over sex and the current decisions are made by allegedly celibate men. Someone on another forum today remarked sadly about all the women and children in the Third World condemned because of the Church’s hang ups about condoms…I’m willing to bet that if Jesus had arrived today instead of 4. B.C., he’d be passing out condoms on the streets of Bombay and Soweto.</p>

<p>The root problem is that St. Paul, in particular, was a misogynist and collectively we’re still paying for it.</p>

<p>Cross-posted with CGM; good post, CGM.</p>

67

<p>TheDad…you are soooo right…Christianity, like Islam, can be twisted and turned to suit the needs of the leaders. And the Countries.</p>

68

<p>TheDad/Citysgirlmom: Yes, the chuch has changed over the years but the point is, the church believes those changes were divinely inspired. ANd, most importantly, one of the underlying principles that has NOT changed is that it is a “top down” approach: The Pope receives divine guidance, he passes it to the Bishops, they pass it down to the priests who pass it on to the lay folks. The church does not, never has, never will, be a “bottom up” church. I know you would like it to be, but it ain’t going to happen.</p>

<p>You might suggest to TheMom that she get out herCatechism of the Catholic Church (or buy one if you don’t have one)which is, indeed, doctrine of the Catholic Church, and read up on this. One relevant quote:</p>

<p>“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of biships, enjoys infallibility in virture of his office,when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful, he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals…The infallibility promised to eh Church is also present in the body of bishops, when together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in the Eucemenical council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine"for belief as being divinely revealed” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered towith the obience of faith.”</p>

<p>By the way, the Catechism of the Catholic Church that I quote from was written AFTER Vatican II. What many people don’t realized, especially if they haven’t studied church history in depth, is that Vatican II wasn’t this great “liberalization” of Church doctrine. Yes, it opened some parts of the religion to make it more accessible to lay folks (i.e., eliminating the Latin mass) but it did not really intrincsically change the underlying DOCTRINE of the Church all that much. In fact, it reaffirmed the doctrine of infallibility of the pope and his bishops due to their divine connection with Christ. </p>

<p>So, on the one hand you can, like citygirlsmom, say the “church can be twisted and turned to suit the needs of the leaders” BUT the church leaders will tell you that they are not suiting it to THEIR needs but to the needs of the Holy Spirit which is directing them. It’s an important difference of doctrine and faith.</p>

<p>I struggle with this, don’t always believe it, but, again, there is no way that the Catholic Church is ever going to move to a bottom up way of making decisions. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, as much as you and I might like it to be. Unfortunately, anyone not comfortable with that and willing to accept that should probably look for another church because to think that the Catholic Church is going to change simply because lay people want it to is wishful thinking. N</p>

<p>ow, if the divine spirit, Jesus and God hear the prayers of the faithful they might pass the message along to the Pope…but the Pope is only going to take direction from them, not from us. :)</p>

<p>And, as for St. Paul being a misogynist, again, the Church and its leaders see him as infallible as well because Church doctrine says Jesus was directing St. Paul, walking beside him, helping him make all of the decisions he made. And same thing with current Popes. Again, you or I can say it is wrong, that we disagree or call St. Paul names, but that is never going to change the doctrine of the church that he, and all of his successors, were infallible.</p>

<p>Now, the Catechism of the Church does indicate that the Church sometimes has taken wrong turns but it very carefully adds that even those wrong turns CAME from God and are part of God’s mysterious plan for mankind. To me, that’s very different from admitting that you are wrong — it’s saying “Yep, we made a few mistakes but God must have wanted us to do so.” How can one argue with that type of thinking or influence it?</p>

<p>Again, no one is being asked to LIKE any of this, only to accept it as a matter of being part of the Catholic Church. If you don’t like it or can’t accept it, look elsewhere because as much as we can sit here and argue this, the Catholic Church is never going to change on its view of itself as infallible.</p>

<p>Here is a link you might find interesting because it addresses this issue and others from the perspective of non-Cafeteria Catholics:
<a href=“Catholic Faith, Beliefs, & Prayers | Catholic Answers”>Catholic Faith, Beliefs, & Prayers | Catholic Answers;

69

<p>If it is by works that we are known, and I am not a catholic, nor will I ever be, the charity work of the church saved the life of a niece and her baby. Where there is one there are many: for that I excuse much of this silliness. There are many dedicated catholics doing great things for people. It is through them that Jesus works.</p>

70

<p>I can’t hellp thinking that when Catholics I know say they’re Catholic they mean it more in a cultural way…they do go to church regularly and are raising their kids in the church, but they don’t agree with maybe 99% of what the church stands for…in fact, they tell me that they “correct” the CCD teachers afterwards: “Well, in our family we have our own values, and we don’t really believe that, but…” As an Episcopalian I scratch my head and wonder why they don’t just come over here to what we call “Catholic Lite”, but I realise that being Catholic is what they and their forebears (forebearers?) have known, and it would never occur to them to leave…their identity is rooted in their Catholicism. Maybe they hope it will change, but the things that they want to see change I highly doubt will be in their lifetime.</p>

71

<p>I’m not Catholic, but I didn’t care for the love it or leave it approach in the 60s and I can’t believe that all Catholics would care for it now. People have the right to make the choice to stay within an organization and try to change it from the inside, even if it’s probable that those changes won’t come about, immediately or ever. And, in my opinion, it is healthier for an organization to tolerate some dissent within it and perhaps even to pay attention to some of that dissent than to try to stamp it out or to expel the dissenters. It’s not so long ago that the Catholic church changed from a Latin mass to a vernacular one and I find it hard to believe that that had nothing to do with people complaining that they wanted to be able to understand their own service.</p>

72

<p>Carolyn,
Can the Holy Spirit work through the people (including all of our sex) at the bottom of the hierarchy? Or is it restrained to whispering in the Pope’s ear?</p>

73

<p>It may be apropos to consider the history of all of our historical institutions in the light of the history of Catholicism. Most of the attacks on the institution of the church are little more than clever canards IMHO.</p>

<p>The Catholic Church, along with all other historical religious faiths, did not exist to ratify particular secular institutions, like say slavery, or usury or the role of women or science in society, but rather to put them in a spiritual context. This was not only true of Jesus but of Moses, Abraham, the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Mohammed, etc.</p>

<p>The church itself does not create these secular institutions but rather uses them to illuminate deeper and eternal truths–as do poets at a more secular level.</p>

<p>Galileo was a good case in point. Of course he is now a saint and martyr to those who wish to misunderstand the role of religion in human affairs, but in point of fact, Galileo was a hard a s s who believed it was his way or the highway. </p>

<p>His way of course was not the true-way, just a technologically better way at that particular time. His theories were largely in error (ellipsis not a circular motion) though materially more accurate than the ones that were then current. So the church gave Galileo the option of remaining humble and publishing his new fangled theory of the solar system/universe as long as he did not claim that it was the only true theory to the exclusion of all other theories/beliefs as this would have consequences amongst the laity not in possession of the latest in telescope technology.</p>

<p>This was more than Galileo could bare, and we know the rest. At the same time, the church in its totality is an organization of men–not angels-- dedicated to a spiritual understanding of life-lived in a material-technological-political world.</p>

<p>ddad said:
“I’m willing to bet that if Jesus had arrived today instead of 4. B.C., he’d be passing out condoms on the streets of Bombay and Soweto.” </p>

<p>I’d take that bet if were not in such poor taste to bet on something so tragic. Somehow, I’m inclined to think Jesus would have focused on spiritual solutions rather than technological solutions to this tragedy. </p>

<p>It is the same with those who saw Jesus as a champion of the poor (which he was) believing that Jesus would have been a Marxist and manned the barricades in Paris and Moscow to fight bourgeois oppression, or those in his own day who may have believed he had come to liberate the Jews from Roman oppression instead of freeing them from the sins of this world spiritually and universally (“my kingdom is no part of this world”).</p>

<p>This is to the point when we are talking about the political uses of religion: Jesus was not running for office and he did not come to head the United Nations; his mission was not limited to our linear ideas of space and time but was rather an eternal perenial message of love and redemption that transcends our political-social concerns.</p>

<p>At least that’s how I understand it.</p>

74

<p>Woodwork: I’d take the same bet with you re: Jesus appearing today and handing out condoms. He never did represent the “technical solution” as you aptly described. I truly believe that Jesus today will still challenge people to respect themselves and others, demand more from themselves and others, in all aspects of their life - spiritual, physical/sexual, and practical - our everyday learning & working & doing. </p>

<p>I’m always struck by the fact that people today usually have no qualms about encouraging teens/young adults/“old” adults about “stop smoking/over eating/drinking too much/drugging, it’s bad for your body & your development”.
But if you ask them to respect themselves & others by not engaging in sexual promiscuity, which also can be harmful to them physically & emotionally, it’s considered like you overstepped your bounds. Like “you know they won’t listen…they’re gonna do it anyway; they can’t control their hormones, etc.”</p>

<p>Well, I guess I just think that Jesus today will still be telling us…“I want you to respect yourself, love others, don’t engage in actions that will harm you, (fill in any of the 10 commandments)” even if we may not always live up to that challenge. </p>

<p>Jesus’ message isn’t gonna change, even if all the faithful & the priests and cardinals storm Heaven with prayers saying "they’re gonna do it anyway Lord…maybe we should just give “em what they want.”</p>

75

<p>Woodwork,</p>

<p>You sure you meant to say this? -
“The Catholic Church, along with all other historical religious faiths, did not exist to ratify particular secular institutions, like say slavery, or usury or the role of women or science in society, but rather to put them in a spiritual context.”</p>

76

<p>What a lot of folks are missing here is giving examples of dogma or doctrine changing. For example, you will never see the Catholic Church change the dogma of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or the Trinity, or a myriad of other always held dogmas. You will see the Church’s attitudes and practices change, as they ALWAYS HAVE.</p>

<p>I found this debate online:</p>

<p>[“Popes have changed their dogmas a few times.”]</p>

<p>This really depends on the defination of the word “change”. In comon usage it means that something can vary and even reverse itself. Doctrine and Dogma can develop, we can come to a better understanding of something. But Doctrine and Dogma can NEVER reverse itself. What is true today cannot be false tomorrow and what is false today cannot be true tomorrow.</p>

<p>[“Here are examples of dogmas that were changed:
They said that non-Catholics (even Christians who believe in Jesus)cannot be saved and will go to hell. Now, they say it’s possible for all believers of Jesus to go to heaven.”]</p>

<p>This is a good exapmle of this misunderstanding. The Church never said as Dogma or Doctrine that non-Catholic Christians or non-Christians cannot be saved. Over time it has said that those who intentionally turn away from the Catholic Faith knowing that the Catholic Faith is true, risk their salvation. It has said that “Outside the Church there is no Salvation” and it still does. What has changed is our understanding of exactly who is “in the Church”.</p>

<p>[“They believed the Earth was the center of the universe and they changed that dogma. They believed in Creation and they changed that dogma. It’s important to note that many major contributions to our evolution theory were Catholics and some of them were priests. They believed the Earth is flat since it was biblical and they changed it.”] </p>

<p>The Church does not proclaim as Divinely revealed Doctrine or Dogma the technicalities of science. The Church has never defined the process of Creation. Only that God is the Creator of all! How He did it is unfolding as science.</p>

<p>[“The Catholic Church added Purgatory in 1600’s.”] </p>

<p>As already noted many of the early fathers speak of Purgatory well before the 1600’s.</p>

<p>Docmom here again. I think TheDad is still not speaking about dogmas of the church, or changes in the Deposit of Faith. He is correct that the Catholic church absolutely changes, and will change again, but WHAT it changes is the point. Popes and Bishops often preach their personal opinions, which are opinions relevant to the times (although obviously not agreeing with everyone) and should at least gain our respect and our ear. </p>

<p>While Pope John Paul II did not specify he was speaking Ex Cathedra (from the seat), he has stated, publicly, that it is IN the Deposit of Faith that women are <em>not</em> called to the priesthood. This one public pronouncement comes extremely close to being declared “dogma”, and affects future decades, if not centuries. An extremely liberal Catholic priest (and friend) told me this one just ain’t happening, at least never in our lifetimes and probably not in our children’s, either, if at all. Married clergy, already happening (and NOT a doctrinal change), and it will be interesting to see what the Church does on birth control, considering there is a line in the catechism that states (not verbatim): “For a variety of reasons a couple may validly delay pregnancy…” So it’s okay to “delay” pregnancy, but how the delay is accomplished is the point of contention. To date the Church has been quite vocal in its opposition to artificial birth control, and this easily continue to be the Church’s position. Still not a dogma of the church.</p>

<p>I still don’t understand why someone, in the fullest of personal conscience, would remain in the Catholic Church if they didn’t believe the Church’s dogmas and doctrines were unchanging. Habit? Family? My personal integrity and my gut would not stand for it, and if I look at those who misrepresent the Catholic faith (on this forum, for one example), they seem agitated about the Church and almost gleeful in proving it wrong. It certainly is a subject that brings out the best in them :wink: The voracity of the comments makes me wonder about the motives. Are we concerned with our will or God’s? Are we even trying to discern God’s will, even if it means we are wrong? Or do we really, inside, believe we are just more smart, more clever, than God?</p>

77

<p>'“Im always struck by the fact that people today usually have no qualms about encouraging teens/young adults/“old” adults about “stop smoking/over eating/drinking too much/drugging, it’s bad for your body & your development”.
But if you ask them to respect themselves & others by not engaging in sexual promiscuity, which also can be harmful to them physically & emotionally, it’s considered like you overstepped your bounds. Like “you know they won’t listen…they’re gonna do it anyway; they can’t control their hormones, etc.””</p>

<p>I am very liberal- I agree with your first statement- i encourage my kids to take care of themselves- but I also encourage them to take care of themselves sexually and emotionally. They both channel their sexual energies away from behaviors that could be considered promiscous for their own health. I have spoken to them many times about how sexual behaviour can make you feel a greater connection to someone than you would otherwise and open the door for a relationship that you wouldn’t continue if you hadn’t had sex.
They are responsible for their sexual fulfillment and know that they don’t have to rely on 2nd party to release energy. They will be involved when they are ready and when it is appropriate.</p>

78

<p>Docmom,
this is a very interesting thread, but I’m just not getting some of the logic. "The Church never said as Dogma or Doctrine that non-Catholic Christians or non-Christians cannot be saved. "</p>

<p>Under what category does this put the Inquisition?</p>

79

<p>

</p>

<p>Jesus did very practical things like healing on the Sabbath, for which he was condemned by the Pharisees. As one our priests said, “There are some who say our Church should not be so Pharisaical.” I’m one of them.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And there are those content to lead unexamined lives, murmuring empty pieties, smug in self-righteous embrace of the current orthodoxy. </p>

<p>To quote from the article I linked earlier:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The Church can be, must be, and will be questioned. And there’s an awfully long line of people far better equipped than I am to make the case…it’s just my lot to be here and now. If you think we’ll quietly submit, quietly defer, quietly depart, have another think. </p>

<p>Gauntlet flung.</p>

80

<p>Actually Archbishop Hunthausen from Seattle was ahead of the pack in reaching out- of course the Catholic church couldn’t put up with that and Cardinal Ratizinger wrote a scathing letter to the Pope re: Hunthausen
and he was effectively sacked.</p>

<p>

</p>