|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Titanic struggle for the soul of the Catholic church
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Looking ahead to next year, The Guardian offers this prognostication in "Religion": quote:
The big global religious story will be the continuation of last year’s titanic struggle for the soul of the Catholic church between Pope Francis and the Vatican. I don’t know where you should put your bets
finishing up the paragraph with: quote:
Whichever way the decision goes this time, the losing side will be convinced that the winners have betrayed the gospel. Andrew Brown
Andrew Brown seems to be a relatively sensible observer of church and religion. Is this particular offering likely?
That last line sounds as if it would describe almost any church spat. Certainly works for the Anglicans in the UK and the evangelicals in the US.
[ 28. December 2014, 00:24: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Or maybe they're both the problem, the Curia of Trent and the ultramontane papacy of Vatican I. Before then Rome was perhaps redeemable, but since then it's probably too far gone.
[ 28. December 2014, 00:53: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Whichever way the decision goes this time, the losing side will be convinced that the winners have betrayed the gospel. Andrew Brown
So, we're all baptists now?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Andrew Brown seems to be a relatively sensible observer of church and religion. Is this particular offering likely?
Frankly, I expect that the "liberal" side has already put their best foot forward in the first round. They set up a totally biased organisation, (pre-)wrote summaries that summarised their opinions rather than the actual discussion, and tried to rush the event to a finish under the veil of unheard of secrecy. They basically tried to blitz the "conservatives". That will not be possible in the next round. I bet that instead of an even bigger showdown we will get a pre-negotiated "de facto annulment on demand" sold as pastoral streamlining of the current judicial process. That will save face for the conservatives, obey the letter of RC doctrine - though certainly not its spirit - and allow the liberals to further slide down the slippery slope to Protestant heresy and secular oblivion.
As for Pope Francis, if you ask me: "Pensionato subito!"
("Pensioner at once!" patterned after the "Santo subito!" - "Saint at once!" - cries at JPII's death...)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
I find the fact that the "liberal" side actually got a word in edgewise most refreshing. Having met the remarkably unpastoral Raymond Burke (Worst.Handshake.Ever.) several times, spoken to many who experienced him in concentrated form, and having been personally gazed upon by the dead-mullet eyes, I know that it took considerable doing.
My semi-serious concern is that Pope Francis might actually be in the kind of danger that John Paul I was rumored to have suffered. No, I'm not suggesting that Our Raymond might be capable of that, but the Vatican is being shaken up in a big way; privileges are being removed. The powerful tend not to like that.
At any rate, the annulment racket is a horrible thing that makes a mockery of the system and causes a lot of pain for the innocent. It's past time that it was cleaned up in favor of reality.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Rossweisse--
Yes, I like Francis very much, and I've been worried about his safety for a long time.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
IngoB, do you actually think there is any potential or need for discussion and a change in the Church's approach to Dead Horses from a conservative perspective? I ask this because I get the impression from friends of mine who hold similarly conservative Catholic views that there is not.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Rossweisse--
Yes, I like Francis very much, and I've been worried about his safety for a long time.
Don't worry. I'm laying money on him being the first person to be made a saint whilst still alive. Being Pope of Rome nowadays is an automatic path to sainthood.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
IngoB, do you actually think there is any potential or need for discussion and a change in the Church's approach to Dead Horses from a conservative perspective? I ask this because I get the impression from friends of mine who hold similarly conservative Catholic views that there is not.
I'm not quite sure what you are asking there... Is there a need to change doctrine? Nope, of course not. Is there a need to change the practice of annulment? Certainly. There shouldn't be more than perhaps a few hundred "ordinary process" annulments happening in the entire world per year. (So I'm not talking about "administrative" cases: defect of form, below legal age, and other things like that - though certainly the number of those should be pushed down as much as possible as well.) I'm not quite sure what exactly our beloved bishops are blaming for vast parts of the laity apparently being so confused about RC marriage as to have theirs invalidated (>99% of all "ordinary process" annulments in the USA are due to supposed "defect of consent"). But what I say to those bishops is this: 1. Bullshit! These are just convenient lies. Stop telling them to yourself and to others. "Not knowing" and "not giving a shit" are not the same thing. 2. Given the massive backlog of questionable marriages that were created under your watch (I use the term very loosely), (a) repent in sackcloth and ashes, for it is your responsibility to guard the sacraments and the doctrine, and to guide your flock; and (b) come down like bloody ton of bricks on each and every abuse and delusion of the faith that has led to this utterly untenable situation. And I mean right now, and with no further fudging, and if people feel that they have to leave over this then bloody well have them leave. Yes, it is messy and it hurts to lance a putrid, festering wound. But you let it get to this point, so you deal with it!
But no, instead we will just fast-track the abuse and delusion, so we can pretend that all is well because we are faster at sweeping dirt under the rug than at producing it. Brilliant.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
IngoB, I realise you won't see these as a dichotomy, but if you were a bishop, which would comes first, protecting the purity of the sacraments or keeping alive the flickering faith of the sometimes rather less pure faithful?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IngoB, I realise you won't see these as a dichotomy, but if you were a bishop, which would comes first, protecting the purity of the sacraments or keeping alive the flickering faith of the sometimes rather less pure faithful?
The case we are discussing is an excellent demonstration that contra to soppy sentimentality it is the former, not pastoral fudging to achieve the latter, which in the long run keeps alive the faith. First draw clear lines in the sand, then accommodate all you want on the right side of them. If that's not enough to make some people happy, then they will just have to carry their cross.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
IngoB, do you actually think there is any potential or need for discussion and a change in the Church's approach to Dead Horses from a conservative perspective? I ask this because I get the impression from friends of mine who hold similarly conservative Catholic views that there is not.
I'm not quite sure what you are asking there... Is there a need to change doctrine? Nope, of course not. Is there a need to change the practice of annulment? Certainly. There shouldn't be more than perhaps a few hundred "ordinary process" annulments happening in the entire world per year.
That answers my question thank you. I was seeking to understand the discussion that Conservatives wish to have with the liberal elements in the Church. I'm not sure that I'll ever share your position but it clarifies it somewhat for an outsider looking in.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
That answers my question thank you. I was seeking to understand the discussion that Conservatives wish to have with the liberal elements in the Church. I'm not sure that I'll ever share your position but it clarifies it somewhat for an outsider looking in.
Mind you, I haven't exactly been elected the spokesman of Catholic conservatives just because I'm vociferous on SoF... I really would be more in the traditional than conservative camp, except that I'm not as deeply concerned with the liturgy and find that many trads I meet (virtually and in real life) are too ... well, sour-faced and cramped up. In my opinion the following by Hilaire Belloc must be true for you if you really want to be a traditional Catholic:
"Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s always laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!"
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I don't know what the current practice is, but I'm assuming that annulments cannot be granted for those who are currently in abusive relationships, those who have been subjected to marital rape, unfaithfulness and cases of marriage of convenience (which admittedly could cover a heck of a lot); but rather annulments are only currently carried out in cases very soon after the marriage has taken place and with sworn statements about the lack of consummation? Is this where it currently sits?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Is this where it currently sits?
IANACL & IANAP. So with a grain of salt: a marriage cannot be annulled just because it is abusive. Annulment is a judgement that a marriage was never contracted in the first place, not a judgement that the marriage has failed by some criterion, or that the spouses really don't want to continue with it. (It is of course allowed by RC canon law to physically separate, and indeed to civilly divorce, in the case of abuse. One does not have to suffer abuse in the name of marriage. However, this separation does not dissolve the marriage bond, only death can.)
Now, I guess it is possible that some canon lawyer will try to use the later abuse to show that at the time of marriage insufficient consent to the principles of Catholic marriage was present in the offending spouse. And if this insufficient consent is demonstrated, then indeed the marriage can be annulled, because it was never properly contracted in the first place. But it is just this sort of thing that I called a "convenient lie" above, and which has swelled the number of annulments a hundredfold.
In reality, that I piss all over a contract now does not at all demonstrate that I never understood the terms of the contract when I signed it. In fact, even if I signed a contract when it was to be expected by all (including myself) that I would likely break it, that should not generally make the contract void. It might have been terribly unwise then that this contract was signed under those circumstances, but that's different to saying that it didn't really happen. And as far as being informed about the terms is concerned, again one cannot just arbitrarily raise the bar on this. If I sign a contract, it is not expected that the very terms of this contract correspond to the deepest philosophy of my life that I wouldn't abolish even under the threat of death. It is sufficient that I have a basic grasp of the concepts being used, so that one can say that I knew what I was doing intellectually. Again, if I sign a contract without thinking things through and carefully investigating whether I truly agree with all the terms, then that might be highly imprudent of me. But if I knew enough (and more information was freely available, and I wasn't pressured into action), then my signature stands.
In my opinion we have to avoid this kind of circular judicial nonsense where only the functional, happy marriages end up being deemed indissoluble, whereas all the unwise, imprudent marriages, and/or those that are dysfunctional and unhappy, are being deemed non-existent and dispensable. This is attempting a judicial end run around human fallibility, and declares pointlessly that that which is not being put into liquid is indissoluble. The very point of saying that something is indissoluble is of course that when one tries to dissolve it, then it still doesn't. It is precisely under the acid test of human misfortune that indissolubility is a meaningful statement. We do not need to make claims about that which is not being tested to the breaking point anyhow.
But we have to pussyfoot around this endlessly because modernity cannot allow anybody any longer to risk their lives on something. But that's what RC marriage is, it is "marriage or bust". And yes, the natural reaction to this is recorded in the scriptures, from no lesser authorities than the apostles. Still, it is what it is. If you don't like it, become an eunuch for the kingdom, and you will have done even better.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
First draw clear lines in the sand, then accommodate all you want on the right side of them.
That expression - lines in the sand - carries an implication of arbitrariness. Doesn't much matter if you draw the line here or there - it's just a boundary for the sake of having a boundary.
And I put it to you that that desire for clear boundaries, clear rules, is a north European cultural thing. Alles in Ordnung - everything in order.
Whereas good red wine is a south European product...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
First draw clear lines in the sand, then accommodate all you want on the right side of them.
That expression - lines in the sand - carries an implication of arbitrariness. Doesn't much matter if you draw the line here or there - it's just a boundary for the sake of having a boundary.
And I put it to you that that desire for clear boundaries, clear rules, is a north European cultural thing. Alles in Ordnung - everything in order.
Whereas good red wine is a south European product...
Best wishes,
Russ
Hang on. How is that arbitrary? The line in the sand is what one happens to believe, in the case of this thread what the RC has traditionally believed. If one happens to be on the srong side it's because they don't believe the same thing. I don't see how that's arbitrary.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There is no risk to Francis any more than there was to JPI. I.e. none apart from the whack-job risk realized in JPII.
IngoB will get his wish, Francis doesn't have long and his successors will copy his style and even substance. People like me will continue to be impressed while nothing else changes for a thousand years.
The arc of the moral universe is very, very long indeed.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
That expression - lines in the sand - carries an implication of arbitrariness. Doesn't much matter if you draw the line here or there - it's just a boundary for the sake of having a boundary.
Then you are using it wrongly. It actually means to establish a condition or principle (the line) which cannot be broken (stepped over) without facing serious consequences. It is hence generally the opposite of "arbitrary", and rather indicates the point from which on someone will consider further accommodations and negotiations impossible. This usage is historical (wait past the US bit, it is actually a Roman expression). It is consequently a slur to say that someone is arbitrarily drawing lines into the sand, because it basically means that someone has no principles and merely threatens for the sake of bullying. Not that you would be particularly worried about claiming that, I guess...
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And I put it to you that that desire for clear boundaries, clear rules, is a north European cultural thing. Alles in Ordnung - everything in order. Whereas good red wine is a south European product...
This is merely an ad hominem - yes, thanks, I do know that I am German and no, sorry, the Catholic doctrinal and dogmatic system did not primarily develop under Northern European oversight. But as it happens, both Belloc and I - as Northern Europeans - were playing with these cultural stereotypes to make a point.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Speaking as a Lutheran I find the Roman Church is at a crossroads. It can continue to be so rigid that it becomes obsolete; or it can become so loose it can run into secular oblivion as pointed out above.
Personally, I think there is a third way--staying true to the gospel while removing obstacles to the reception of the gospel. The discourse about annulments is a good example. Of course, this gets into the discussion of whether marriage is a sacrament or not.
I actually see the Roman Church now having to come to terms with what Luther raised over 500 years ago.
I find the Pope quite refreshing. He just may bring about a great reformation within the Roman church.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IngoB, I realise you won't see these as a dichotomy, but if you were a bishop, which would comes first, protecting the purity of the sacraments or keeping alive the flickering faith of the sometimes rather less pure faithful?
The case we are discussing is an excellent demonstration that contra to soppy sentimentality it is the former, not pastoral fudging to achieve the latter, which in the long run keeps alive the faith. First draw clear lines in the sand, then accommodate all you want on the right side of them. If that's not enough to make some people happy, then they will just have to carry their cross.
IngoB,
Can you justify that with reference to the Gospels?
What is the point of keeping the sacraments pure in an empty church?
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
That expression - lines in the sand - carries an implication of arbitrariness. Doesn't much matter if you draw the line here or there - it's just a boundary for the sake of having a boundary.
Then you are using it wrongly. It actually means to establish a condition or principle (the line) which cannot be broken (stepped over) without facing serious consequences...
The serious consequences would be to the Roman Catholic Church as an institution, would they not, since breaking the boundaries would weaken the church's authority, and peoples' respect for that authority - if the church could go 'soft' on this matter of principle, then what matters of principle can it uphold?
In fact, it would have the effect not only of 'cheapening' marriage as a sacrament, but of cheapening the eucharist, by lowering the bar of entry to the sacrament, so basically, the Church would lost out both ways.
[ 28. December 2014, 19:05: Message edited by: Holy Smoke ]
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Going back to the OP after this tangent on annulment, is there a reasonable chance that the present Pope can make any significant change in the attitude of the Curia?
Whatever the theological points you can waste time on as you debate, there is no question that there is a problem in the hierarchy, almost the same as the one that drove Luther 500 years ago - the problem of the pomp, fancy clothes and ornate buildings making the hierarchy uninterested in the world they live in and have influence on. All the pages IngoB can write are very interesting, but do not address the rot at the center.
Financial misdoing, avoidance of responsibility, attempting to hide misdeeds - all these are strictly opposed to the Message of Jesus. Is there any hope that the ponderous mass of the Curia can avoid the iceberg that is going to pull the rivets from the hull-plating and sink the unsinkable?
The priests and nuns trying to do their best out IRL are not being supported by their managers. How long, in this time of reveal-all, before the whole structure lists?
Annulments and divorces are only a symptom, not a root problem. Much of the "gay" problem would be reduced if simple pastoral care were allowed, whether or not those gays were to be allowed to approach the altar.
Is there a solution to the root problem?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Going back to the OP after this tangent on annulment, is there a reasonable chance that the present Pope can make any significant change in the attitude of the Curia?
Whatever the theological points you can waste time on as you debate, there is no question that there is a problem in the hierarchy, almost the same as the one that drove Luther 500 years ago - the problem of the pomp, fancy clothes and ornate buildings making the hierarchy uninterested in the world they live in and have influence on. All the pages IngoB can write are very interesting, but do not address the rot at the center.
Financial misdoing, avoidance of responsibility, attempting to hide misdeeds - all these are strictly opposed to the Message of Jesus. Is there any hope that the ponderous mass of the Curia can avoid the iceberg that is going to pull the rivets from the hull-plating and sink the unsinkable?
The priests and nuns trying to do their best out IRL are not being supported by their managers. How long, in this time of reveal-all, before the whole structure lists?
Annulments and divorces are only a symptom, not a root problem. Much of the "gay" problem would be reduced if simple pastoral care were allowed, whether or not those gays were to be allowed to approach the altar.
Is there a solution to the root problem?
Denounce Trent and Vatican I. Before then Rome was still. Before then Rome was still redeemable.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Holy Smoke, don't look now; but in the Western World the people's respect for the authority of Rome has all but disappeared. In Latin America the continent is fast becoming Protestent. The Roman church no longer speaks to them.
The Church does not stand or fall on whether marriage is a sacrament. It stands on the testimony of the Resurrection of Christ. It is through that prism all things stand or fall. If a current practice takes the people's eyes off the Resurrection, why not relegate it to history?
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Holy Smoke, don't look now; but in the Western World the people's respect for the authority of Rome has all but disappeared. In Latin America the continent is fast becoming Protestent. The Roman church no longer speaks to them.
The Church does not stand or fall on whether marriage is a sacrament. It stands on the testimony of the Resurrection of Christ. It is through that prism all things stand or fall. If a current practice takes the people's eyes off the Resurrection, why not relegate it to history?
2 reasons, really. The charitable one is that they genuinely believe what they're saying to be true. The second, more prosaic, reason is that admitting that this teaching can change puts up for debate a lot of things the RCC isn't willing to risk, most of all its own claims to authoritative teaching. They've balanced the authority of the church precariously on far too many teachings, particularly on social issues, that don't stand up to scrutiny. It worked for a time as a means of backing up their decisions, but now the teachings have become so obviously detrimental they cannot let them go without the whole edifice crashing down.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
If someone is sincere in learning about the goings-on at the Vatican from a trustworthy source then why is he reading Andrew Brown when he could spend his time much more profitably by reading journalists like John Allen, Rocco Palmo, and Sandro Magister instead?
Instead of the link in the OP, read this:
quote:
In a media environment in which everything the pope says and does is a sensation, we have the opposite problem — a surfeit of bogus or minor stories treated as big news, aided and abetted by a news cycle in which no one seems to have time for fact-checking.
In that spirit, here’s a rundown of my picks for the Top 5 “Over-Covered Vatican Stories of the Year.”...
The rest is here: The Top 5 Over Covered Vatican News Stories of 2014.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Holy Smoke, don't look now; but in the Western World the people's respect for the authority of Rome has all but disappeared. In Latin America the continent is fast becoming Protestent. The Roman church no longer speaks to them.
The Church does not stand or fall on whether marriage is a sacrament. It stands on the testimony of the Resurrection of Christ. It is through that prism all things stand or fall. If a current practice takes the people's eyes off the Resurrection, why not relegate it to history?
2 reasons, really. The charitable one is that they genuinely believe what they're saying to be true. The second, more prosaic, reason is that admitting that this teaching can change puts up for debate a lot of things the RCC isn't willing to risk, most of all its own claims to authoritative teaching. They've balanced the authority of the church precariously on far too many teachings, particularly on social issues, that don't stand up to scrutiny. It worked for a time as a means of backing up their decisions, but now the teachings have become so obviously detrimental they cannot let them go without the whole edifice crashing down.
To be fair to the RC, only in the eyes of secular society, which as it happens is indistinguishable from most of modern Christianity whose guide is the spirit of the age.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
To be fair to the RC, only in the eyes of secular society, which as it happens is indistinguishable from most of modern Christianity whose guide is the spirit of the age.
You seem to be defining secular society to be everyone except the hierarchy of the RCC. Even your own Orthodox tradition allows for divorce in certain circumstances.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Holy Smoke, don't look now; but in the Western World the people's respect for the authority of Rome has all but disappeared.
Actually, people's respect for Rome has taken an tiny upswing with the election of Pope Francis. Whether it'll continue its trajectory depends on a lot of factors, not least of which will be the ability of the Pope to speak over the heads of the Curia and address the ordinary Catholics in the streets and favelas.
I should really start praying for the man.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
To be fair to the RC, only in the eyes of secular society, which as it happens is indistinguishable from most of modern Christianity whose guide is the spirit of the age.
You seem to be defining secular society to be everyone except the hierarchy of the RCC. Even your own Orthodox tradition allows for divorce in certain circumstances.
But the Christ allows for divorce under circumstances. The Church, whatever or whoever one believes it to be, has to engage with modernity (otherwise how is the Church expected to spread the Gospel?) but in the process it cannot, must not, conform to it. Unfortunately that is exactly what most modern Christians have done.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Ad Orientem: quote:
Denounce Trent and Vatican I. Before then Rome was still. Before then Rome was still redeemable.
So Rome was "still redeemable" before that pesky Luther pointed out that the Emperor (and the Pope) had no clothes. But the point is that neither Trent nor Vatican 1 dealt with the issues that were at hand, just as IngoB and others demand now.
We could still have the joy of men in skirts praising the auto-da-fe as a means of delivering sinners a bit early for God's judgment, the threat of the Pope actually financing armies to spread his power structure, and the rejection of all science and most art from the last 500 years, all in order to say that Church always is right, even when it is wrong.
Congratulations. I hope you enjoy the stake, because there would be nothing to protect you from any accusation whatsoever. The Church then had as little to do with treating people as "equals in the sight of God" as the Curia does now. I guess some people haven't learned much from the last 500 years, except to bewail the vanished Golden Time that never was.
Oh, and for those who think that the Church has earned the right to moral persuasion, try the report that points out that 0% of British RCs look to religious leaders for guidance in decision-making: report from last year.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But the Christ allows for divorce under circumstances. The Church, whatever or whoever one believes it to be, has to engage with modernity (otherwise how is the Church expected to spread the Gospel?) but in the process it cannot, must not, conform to it. Unfortunately that is exactly what most modern Christians have done.
That's not the case. Most (if not all) Christians I know expect fidelity in marriage, chastity prior to marriage and consider divorce to be undesirable but sometimes a necessary last resort. Modern society expects promiscuity before marriage, has a very broad definition of fidelity when it has one at all (and accepts any number of excuses where it is lacking) and prefers divorce to working to save a marriage. In other words the Christians I know seek to respond in accordance with the value's Christ taught to the changes in the world, asking "what would Christ's response to this look like?" It IS fraught with the risk of conforming to the world, but fear of that should not lead us to commit the opposite error, of clinging to the spirit of the previous age as if the public morality of the 1930s (or indeed the 930s) was exactly in accord with Christianity, or turning Christ's message of love into a rulebook the Pharisees would have been proud of.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
In point of fact, the Roman church has changed a number of teachings when it finds its previous doctrine is no longer tenable. Three examples: it used to teach the earth was the center of the universe--no longer (it has also embraced the scientific method long ago). It used to allow for slavery--again no longer. And it used to ban usuary, now it allows for reasonable loan rates.
Technically speaking, while Augustine talked about the marriage as a sacrament, it did not officially become a sacrament until 1184 in the Council of Veronica. Even then, it is not at the same level as Baptism, Confirmation, or the Eucharist. That did not happen until 1215 in the Fourth Lateran Council. So, for much of the Roman Church's life marriage was actually no more than a social contract in which two parties agree to the marriage.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
As I understand it there are certain things the RCC has nailed colours to the mast over (e.g. women priests) and others where it has made clear it is a discipline of the church and not doctrinal (e.g. married priests). Additionally, unless I've misunderstood, when marriage was declared to be a sacrament it was considered to have always been a sacrament, it was just only now being formally recognised, just as the recognition of a saint would not mean that person only entered heaven at the time of recognition.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I've asked this question before, and nobody has ever produced a convincing answer.
Why does it matter whether we classify marriage as a sacrament or not? Whether we say that marriage is a sacrament or whether we don't, why does that have any bearing whatsoever on whether we say a marriage CANNOT be dissolved (RC teaching) or SHOULD NOT be dissolved (everybody else's teaching)?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Ad Orientem: quote:
Denounce Trent and Vatican I. Before then Rome was still. Before then Rome was still redeemable.
So Rome was "still redeemable" before that pesky Luther pointed out that the Emperor (and the Pope) had no clothes. But the point is that neither Trent nor Vatican 1 dealt with the issues that were at hand, just as IngoB and others demand now.
We could still have the joy of men in skirts praising the auto-da-fe as a means of delivering sinners a bit early for God's judgment, the threat of the Pope actually financing armies to spread his power structure, and the rejection of all science and most art from the last 500 years, all in order to say that Church always is right, even when it is wrong.
Congratulations. I hope you enjoy the stake, because there would be nothing to protect you from any accusation whatsoever. The Church then had as little to do with treating people as "equals in the sight of God" as the Curia does now. I guess some people haven't learned much from the last 500 years, except to bewail the vanished Golden Time that never was.
Oh, and for those who think that the Church has earned the right to moral persuasion, try the report that points out that 0% of British RCs look to religious leaders for guidance in decision-making: report from last year.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I presume the RCC considers that sacraments, requiring the action of God, cannot be reversed. You cannot unbaptise or unconfirm or unordain or unabsolve or unanoint someone, you cannot deconsecrate the Eucharistic elements (whereas many Protestants would consider them no longer important once the service is over). Presumably, therefore, you cannot unmarry someone. To me it seems far too mechanical for a God of compassion and miracles.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
You do not stop being someone's biological child, but adoption is possible.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I was present at a conference where Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and other Orthodox delegates were broadly welcoming of what looked set to be an impending relaxation on the RCC approach to this issue.
There was strong disagreement from some of the RC delegates present and a robust discussion ensued.
I have to say, I was impressed by the quality and conduct of the debate on both sides.
In conversation with some of the RC priests afterwards, they told me that they thought Bishop Kallistos's position was 'weak' - despite their overall admiration and respect for him as an individual and for his Church as a whole.
Perhaps my spiritual DNA puts me in an invidious 'via media'position, but it did strike me that there was equal scope for relaxation in some areas and for greater definition and clarity in some areas - on both sides.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Arethosemyfeet - as far as I understand it, the Orthodox were arguing that each case should be judged on its own merits, that 'ekkonomeia' should apply and that whilst there are good grounds for tolerance and grace - there are 'limits' - as it were.
Consequently, the Orthodox Church will countenance up to three successive marriages - but if you come back for a fourth they'll take a pretty dim view ... In a Lady Bracknell kind of way, "To have three 'failed' marriages for whatever reason is unfortunate ... to enter a fourth implies carelessness ..."
Whatever the case, they seem able to combine a 'high' view of marriage as a sacrament with the understanding that these things don't always work out in practice and that, for whatever reason, some marriages will fail.
The RCs at the conference I mentioned were keen to stress the damage that divorce does to children caught up in them - and that was acknowledged by the Orthodox - who equally put forward instances where they believed that the parents staying together would have inflicted more damage on the child ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Whoever would think that practical concerns carried any weight when there was a matter of "principle" involved. Having "principles" allows one to totally ignore any collateral damage whatsoever, sort like destroying Vietnamese villages in order to "save" them.
Actually, come to think of it, the Vietnamese villages were in exactly the same position as most of those people who were burned at the stake: People in power decided that mere human lives were just a matter of policy informed by rigid thinking. This didn't do much for the reputation of either the US or the Vatican.
Let's see: false war in Iraq or false war on divorce? Both kill people for reasons of "principle" without any concern for humans.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I daresay if we wait long enough we'll have a Hitler reference soon ... if we haven't had one already.
I can only speak as I find, and for all the strong feelings on either side of this one, what I found at the conference I attended was debate that was both robust and respectful at the same time.
Not that this issue was the actual theme of the conference as such, but it did come up -- and on neither side did I pick up a sense of, 'This is the party-line and we're sticking to it whatever collateral damage it causes ...'
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I daresay if we wait long enough we'll have a Hitler reference soon ... if we haven't had one already.
Perhaps, but not from Horseman Bree - because Hitler wasn't American.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
What is the point of keeping the sacraments pure in an empty church?
Without pure sacraments the Church simply ceases to be. An empty Church can fill again, but no human power can resurrect a Church that has died.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Much of the "gay" problem would be reduced if simple pastoral care were allowed, whether or not those gays were to be allowed to approach the altar.
I won't bother with your spewing of prejudice and trash-talking. But this is mildly interesting. What precisely did you have in mind there that is supposedly being denied now?
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
In Latin America the continent is fast becoming Protestent. The Roman church no longer speaks to them.
True enough. Problem is that Protestantism is just a half-way house to secularism and post-Christianity. And unlike in Europe, where it took centuries for this development, in South America all this will happen way faster.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Three examples: it used to teach the earth was the center of the universe--no longer (it has also embraced the scientific method long ago). It used to allow for slavery--again no longer. And it used to ban usuary, now it allows for reasonable loan rates.
All of these claims are wrong. Geocentrism was never an official doctrine of the Church in spite of what happened to Galileo (and the usual way this affair is recounted is very one-sided), and the Church was one of the greatest supporters of scientific development. There is a very long history of the opposition of the RCC to slavery (though yes, not at the level modern standards would require). And usury remains a mortal sin. This gives me the opportunity to link to Zippy Catholic's usury FAQ, which I find enlightening on the subject.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
So, for much of the Roman Church's life marriage was actually no more than a social contract in which two parties agree to the marriage.
This is a complete misunderstanding. The sacrament is the contract, and it didn't need declaring to become one. As usual, the Church was defending ancient practice by these declarations. Sacramental marriage rites are well documented from the early Church in both East and West.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why does it matter whether we classify marriage as a sacrament or not? Whether we say that marriage is a sacrament or whether we don't, why does that have any bearing whatsoever on whether we say a marriage CANNOT be dissolved (RC teaching) or SHOULD NOT be dissolved (everybody else's teaching)?
Marriage is as ancient as humanity, and does not require the Church as such. Saying that marriage has been raised to a sacrament by the Lord is shorthand for saying that Christians are not free to avail themselves of "natural" marriages, but rather are bound to the teachings of Christ in this matter, and have to live by the rules He reinstated for His faithful. It is however correct that saying "sacrament" does not as such mean "indissoluble", this rather follows from the actual teachings.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Ad Orientem: quote:
Denounce Trent and Vatican I. Before then Rome was still. Before then Rome was still redeemable.
So Rome was "still redeemable" before that pesky Luther pointed out that the Emperor (and the Pope) had no clothes. But the point is that neither Trent nor Vatican 1 dealt with the issues that were at hand, just as IngoB and others demand now.
We could still have the joy of men in skirts praising the auto-da-fe as a means of delivering sinners a bit early for God's judgment, the threat of the Pope actually financing armies to spread his power structure, and the rejection of all science and most art from the last 500 years, all in order to say that Church always is right, even when it is wrong.
Congratulations. I hope you enjoy the stake, because there would be nothing to protect you from any accusation whatsoever. The Church then had as little to do with treating people as "equals in the sight of God" as the Curia does now. I guess some people haven't learned much from the last 500 years, except to bewail the vanished Golden Time that never was.
Oh, and for those who think that the Church has earned the right to moral persuasion, try the report that points out that 0% of British RCs look to religious leaders for guidance in decision-making: report from last year.
Redeemable in that they still hadn't set their worst errors in stone. Trent and Vatican I (and Vatican II is merely a symptom of both) did that though and are irreversible (at least in the eyes of Rome) except that the Holy Spirit should bring Rome to repentance and that it confess the orthodox faith.
As for Luther and the Reformation in general, it might well have been inevitable but, lacking a proper model (for the East was but a long lost memory in the mind of the West) what followed was also inevitable: protestantism => rationalism => atheism.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Odd (but probably inevitable) that in a thread on the struggle for the soul of the Catholic church, the blame is squarely placed at the feet of those rascally Protestants.
I never knew we had such power to bring such an august and perpetual institution to its knees...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As for Luther and the Reformation in general, it might well have been inevitable but, lacking a proper model (for the East was but a long lost memory in the mind of the West) what followed was also inevitable: protestantism => rationalism => atheism.
No, I'm pretty sure the reformers were well aware of the East, that's why the 39 articles feel the need to point out that the church in the east has erred as well as Rome. I also seem to recall that the non-juring Bishops approached the Orthodox with a view to pursuing unity in the 18th century but were rebuffed once the Orthodox realised they wouldn't get the whole CofE and CofS this way.
It's interesting to speculate what might have happened had the intended reunion come about.
[ 29. December 2014, 15:57: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's a bit more complicated than that, Arethosemyfeet ...
The Reformers were certainly aware of the East and intially some of them thought they'd find an ally in those quarters ... here were Christians who weren't under Papal jurisdiction ...
There was some fascinating correspondence between Melanchthon and the Ecumenical Patriarch which gradually fizzled out with the Patriarch asking the 'learned Germans' not to write again other than to send peaceful greetings ...
A polite way of telling them to ....
King Charles I had diplomatic relations with the Patriarch and I've read an account of a religious debate he is said to have had with the RC Marquis of Worcester at Raglan Castle (in the aftermath of Naseby) written by Worcester's chaplain (who later became RC himself). The King is keen to cite the Orthodox against Rome until the Marquis points out that the Orthodox go in for iconography and the veneration of relics and so on, and the invocation of Mary and the Saints just as much as the RCs did ...
I think what Ad Orientem means is that Orthodox practice and belief was largely forgotten in the West - not that the West had forgotten that the Orthodox existed ...
There are also some fascinating accounts of the dialogue between the Non-Jurors (and others) with the Orthodox in the early 18th century. Both sides depart shaking their heads, 'This lot are no better than the Papists ...' / 'This lot are no better than the Lutherans ...'
You're right that the Orthodox expected the CofE and CofS to simply roll over and accept their authority and become fully Orthodox.
I don't think they've changed their tune on that one ...
But what struck me, when reading the accounts, was how surprised some of the Anglicans were to find that the Orthodox were into relics, icons and the invocation of Mary and the Saints. It's as if they weren't expecting this at all ... as if they were expecting them to be Protestants of some kind simply because they weren't under the jurisdiction of Rome.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
IngoB: quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Much of the "gay" problem would be reduced if simple pastoral care were allowed, whether or not those gays were to be allowed to approach the altar.
I won't bother with your spewing of prejudice and trash-talking. But this is mildly interesting. What precisely did you have in mind there that is supposedly being denied now?
Well, for starters, stop proclaiming that people who are, after all, made "in the image of God" like everyone else, are unredeemable sinners, that they are a danger and a source of sickness to those who come in contact with them, and that they are responsible for the collapse of our society, which is what we hear coming from too many in the hierarchy.
Gays are simply people, not symbols of discord and disfunction. Most parish priests are aware of this, but the published statements of too many bishops would appear to describe gays as "not-quite-human".
For instance: Stop throwing gay organists out of the church when they dare to admit in public that they are partnered. If they were good enough to touch the musical instruments of the church one day, and nothing has changed, why are they not good enough the next day?
Stop accusing teens of being irredeemably sinful, and offer them pastoral advice and care, just as you would for the rest of us. Making them scapegoats for your (generic) insecurity is not the way of the Kingdom.
Yes, there may be impediments to Communion, just as there are for many straights who are allowed to receive (but no-one says anything about THEIR sins). Be consistent.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
