My changing views of religion

There is nothing wrong with reforming the Church, however in the article you are referencing, speaks of the democratizing of the Church, married priests, Same-sex marriage, and divorce after remarriage is all heresey. The same nonsense is going on in Austria, where the Church there is practically in schism with the Holy See.

 

Heresy – what an old-fashioned word. Undoubtedly the theologians who signed the letter I referenced would have risked being burned at the stake a couple of hundreds of years ago. These days they just diminish their chances for a career, risk their teaching licence being withdrawn and priesthood revoked for expressing their opinion.

How anybody could hope for reform without free expression is beyond me. Thus I tip my hat to any Catholic scholar who dares to express dissenting opinons.

The ‘nonsense’ as you like to call it may be strongest in German speaking countries – ironically where the current Pope is from – but it’s wider spread than you may think:

http://www.we-are-church.org/joomla...5th-anniversary&catid=12:imwac-news&Itemid=21

Basically what these Catholics want is to get the Church back on the track of the Second Vatican Council whose progressive thinking has been systematically blocked and overturned by the last two Popes. Maybe it’s those Popes who concerning the topics mentioned are prone to ‘heresy’ – in the sense of perverting the teachings of Christ - rather than the activists of "We are Church".

 

There is no such thing in the Bible as a Christian in isolation. The scripture says we should not forsake the assembling of ourselves. Only a deceived person would think he or she can be a Christian by themselves.

 

not going to church is far from bring isolated, many good Christians do just fine without the church

 

Do they? Or is that what they tell themselves?

But, your previous posts do make the point for me. You are all about the righteous loner, but all that really leads in the long run is a loss of faith (so its little wonder that atheists select this alternative). But the alternative is to stay within the church and advocate change. However, do you see how you treat those who take that option? THeir efforts are meaningless, the Austrian church is in schism .... well, that would not be the first time that has happened in Catholic History, and, as we see the Church survived, and reformed.

A man or woman gets no points for a righteous retreat from that which they hold most dear due to .... disagreement.

 

Then that person is not a "Bible believing" Christian. For once I'm in agreement with BFSmith! Imagine that! )

 

actually they are bible believing just not church believing Christians

 

F, you do understand that the one of the many points of fellowship is accountability. Many people read the Bible, but they rationalize their conduct and in many cases wind up well short of the goals they set for themselves.

There are many different churches on this earth for a reason, and if you profess to believe in Christ and the Bible and cannot find a congregation in this wide and wonderful world that is a close approximation to yours .... perhaps, just maybe, the problem is with you - not everyone else.

I agree with Fel on this one.

 

Yes, despite the obvious differences, Protestants and Catholics still have much to agree on.

 

If they were they would not be doing what the Bible says they should not be doing.

 

I was able to watch the video directly at YouTube. But I was not surprised in more than one way. She was a Catholic and it seems as if a lot of people that have fallen out of that Church assume that other Church are like the Catholic Church. And also, because her son is a homosexual she cannot accept the fact that homosexuality is a sin. And like any sin that one has committed, they must repent of it.

 

Jesus tought and preached in the synagogues, he founded a Church. In the Gospels, Jesus is referred to as the bridegroom. Paul's letter to the Ephesians mentions The Church as the bride of Christ, mirroring the spousal relationship in the OT between Yahweh and Israel. The idea of "individual" Christians not part of any Church is frankly, a modern invention, and not very Biblical.

 

Many disciples walked away from Jesus due to a "hard teaching" also (read John 6--that part is toward the end). People walking away from a faith because they find a teaching "hard" is not unusual--and the Catholic Church, which has the courage of conviction, is one many walk away from because they don't "like" what its teachings (Jesus' teachings) call them to be...it's "too hard."

Well....too bad, IMO. Bible says, "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

 

I suggest you start reading at John 6:25 if you want to find out which of Jesus' teachings exactly was found hard. It was neither the advocacy of authoritarian structures, nor celibacy for priests, nor male supremacy, nor the condemnation of homosexuality – all things that – according to the gospels - Jesus never preached.

For further understanding you may want to view John 6:25ff with the help of 1. Corinthians 1:22-25:

Yes, Jesus didn’t fulfill the expectations His then audience had for the Messiah. It must have been tough for his followers to accept that He is the Messiah anyway even though he didn’t let Mannah rain down from heaven and did not even attempt to be a victorious earthly King restoring occupied Israel to earthly glory.
And what is to be held against the Church (in pretty much all its denominations) is that from the point that Christianity became Roman state religion many of its leaders often abused the Lord's name to selfishly accumulate earthly riches and power rather than heavenly riches.

As for being perfect: As you yourself have already nicely pointed out in this thread the Bible shows us an amazing learning process of people trying to get a grasp of God. They started off as a minor desert tribe who saw their God pretty much as other tribes saw theirs: a warrior-God leading them into successful battles and demanded sacrifice to be pacified in His wrath. And it ends with God revealing his love and mercy for all people in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, a God who’s our father in heaven the love for whom is shown in how we love each other. The learning process is ongoing and our love does indeed still need perfecting. The Catholic Church has already learned enough to apologize for former transgressions. Hopefully one day the Catholic Church (and other denominations) will have learned enough to apologize for their homophobia and other failings.

 

It was his Flesh and Blood. The Eucharist. Hard teaching....among many others--remember the young man who was told to leave his possessions? Another hard teaching. We all love our little gods and often make ourselves our own altar of worship, don't we?...

In the story of the paralytic, he cured the paralytic to show that man has the authority to forgive sins--(Matt9). Also, in Matt12, the twelve were given authority over unclean spirits. It's BULL that authority structures are not CLEARLY evident. There are many more places that obviously outline a hierarchical Church structure.

celebacy for priests is a discipline, not Dogma. It follows after Paul's suggestions in the NT.

I don't know what THAT means, Catholics are condemned for the degree of honor given the Blessed Virgin who is God's greatest creation. Seems ridiculous to be accused by Protestants of being misogynists and Goddess worshipers..HEY! We're neither.

Jesus was Jewish. You really think he accepted homosexual practice? How you figure? The scribes FREAKED that he cured blindness on the Sabbath--you really think Jesus went around embracing unrepentant "Sodomites?"


Get past your blind hate of a Church you have no concept of.

 

Paul was a strange duck and the only one who espoused celebacy for Priests.

This practise conflicts with the OT and is not mentioned by anyone other than Paul.

We know that Paul's beliefs were different then that of the Jerusalem Chruch lead by James and Peter.

I see no logical rational for going with him on the celebacy thing unless it is a personal decision by an individual.

Heck .. the Catholic Church did not do the celebacy thing until around 1000 AD and the issue caused the Orthadox Church to separate.

Considering Orthadox (Greeks) were the first non Jewish people that received Christ en masse I would tend to side with them.

Jesus forgave the adulterous woman so he likely will forgive the sodomites as well.

Either way .. the lesson of Jesus is that it for God to Judge not humans.

 

Don't become a priest then...

IF they are repentant.. OF COURSE!

While there is breath, there is hope.

There is denial that homosexual acts are sin at all. That is simply not in accord with what the Bible plainly states. Jesus didn't say stealing office supplies from work was a sin either...does that mean it isn't. No--that's just silly.

Agreed.

 

As I said, it's a discipline, not Dogma. It could change, but it's not likely.

Are you aware that there ARE married Catholic priests? Eastern Catholics do not necessarily follow that discipline even though they are under the jurisdiction of the Vatican, and Anglican priests who are married and then convert to Roman Catholicism are often accepted in the Catholic priesthood.

 

Jesus told the adulterous woman to "Go and sin no more." And so if homosexuals repent and do the sin no more, they are forgiven. Just as fornicators are who do that sin no more, etc.

And Paul talked about 'eunuchs (4got the scripture but it's in there!)"
There are man-made eunuchs, self-made eunuchs, and God(natural)-made eunuchs...Paul was God-made!

Matthew 19:12
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

 

Clearly the OT laws were against homosexuality. Christ said that not one iota of the old laws would be changed.

Then of course he forgives the Adulterer which seems to conflict with the OT laws which dictated stoning for the offense.

We can only conclude from this that the message of Christ is that it is God that judges and not humans.

The retributive laws (proscribing punishment) of the OT must then not be of God but of man.

 

Yes, John 6 points to the Eucharist, something that Christ invites all who gather in His name to, not to stuff our stomachs but to stuff our souls. Above that it points us to the difficulty of not losing faith even in the absence of outward signs, miracles and rewards.
And yes, being a Christian isn’t a walk in the park: not serving our material earthly self-interests but our father in heaven, loving not only those that are dear to us anyway but also our enemies, forgive those who have trespassed against us … almost all of us fail to live up to the ideals on a regular basis.

You’re mixing up authority with authoritarian structures. As for the latter, it’s not as if Catholics who unlike you are unhappy about their churches’ authoritarian structures couldn’t back their demands for more democracy with scripture:

Matthew 23:8-10
“8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called [a]leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ”

Mark 10:42-44
42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.

Should be easy to give the 12- century rule of celibacy up then, shouldn’t it? Especially since Paul recognized that not everybody was made for it and the scriptures seem to see married clergy as a matter of course (1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9).

I’m not accusing you of anything. I totally agree with Catholics such as the Rev. Roy Bourgeois though that the Catholic rule that only men can have the vocation to serve as priests is misogynistic. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/roy-bourgeois-detained-vatican_n_1015645.html
No reason for Protestants to get all smug – it took my own church quite a while to see sense and ordain women and it wasn’t even burdened with the kind of authoritarian structures any Catholic calls for reform are burdened with.

Homosexuality wasn’t a pressing issue for those Jesus preached to. It just wasn’t known of in the contexts that we know of it today. I’m sure though that if he preached today Jesus would (and does)indeed accept homosexual couples who sincerely love each other and express that love sexually. And He certainly wouldn’t shy away from freaking out modern day Pharisees by that. Just like then He still desires "mercy, not sacrifice".

I may have more of a concept of the Catholic Church than you think I have. I grew up with Catholicism all around me, went to a Catholic school - religious lessons included, a lot of my closest friends are Catholic ...
And you’re seriously wrong if you think I hate the Catholic Church – quite the contrary is the case. That’s why I support Catholics who want to keep it from digging its own grave and who want to keep up the promising spirit of the second Vatican Council. My and my Catholic friends’ opinion concerning what’s best for the Church and its flock may differ from yours, but we hate it no more than you do.

 

The problem is that very few people do become priests these days. And apparently quite a lot of those who do, do so because they see it as a way to escape their own pedophile desires or resort to such desires because they find that they can't cope with celibacy after all. And even those who can cope somehow often feel lonely and long for a family that gives them backing and support.

No reason to juggle if your Church faces a serious shortage of adequate priests. The only Priest who's left in the area I grew up in now has to do the job of four Priests. The times when my home-village had a Priest all on its own who still had the time to hold three masses a week, to keep close contact with his congregation, knew everybody from cradle to grave and gave everybody ample pastoral care are long gone. It's a shame.

 

How does it conflict with the OT? Are you referencing what was said in Genesis(be fruitful and multiply)? God commanded that Jeremiah remain celibate in preparation for his prophetic ministry(Jer 16:1-2).

The Catholic Church did not simply start doing celibacy in the 11th century. Up until that point, the celibacy rule just wasn't really enforced.

I really don't see how preistly celibacy had to do with the Orthodox split with Rome. There where several other smaller schisms throughout the centuries leading up to the one in 1054. The major reasons for the schism had to do with the doctrine of philioque, leavened bread vs unleavened bread, and the real big one(iconoclasm). The split was not only merely over religious disagreements, but the split was cultural, and political as well. The Romans and the Greeks weren't too fond of each other.

As far as what side you would follow, well it should be noted that after the fall of Rome, many in the east felt that since Rome was the seat of the papacy, authority was then transferred to the Patriarch of Constantinople who was elected by the emperor. Constantinople was the "New Rome."





Jesus forgave the adulterous woman so he likely will forgive the sodomites as well.

Either way .. the lesson of Jesus is that it for God to Judge not humans.[/QUOTE]

 

Well, it's a word that still applies I'm afraid. Assuming that the Church would go to such lengths, how could you posibly know that these "theologians" would have the courage to risk being burned at the stake anyways?

These "reforms" that they are pushing through go against the very core teachings of my faith. Reform usually has to do dealing with corrupt members of the clergy, and religious orders, not changing doctrine.

I have no problem with free expression, but when you are in a position of authority such as a bishop, you have capability of damaging the Church and scandalizing the faithful with false teaching.

Popes>Councils.

They have tried this before you know. To help clear up the mess with the Avignon Papacy, but Popes can't be bound by councils, especially if the council is not infallible such as Vatican II. Also, I have talked with a couple of traditional priests on the matter, and they believe much good came out of the Council. The problem was many people just misinterpreted it.

 

have you read Acts and seen the Jerusalem Council in action there?



And as for Scripture support...really...? Do you want to argue that?
Thereis a RIDICULOUS amount of Biblical support for a visible Church authority that is passed through Apostolic Succession. For heaven's sake--Matthias succeeded Judas and it was CLEARLY shown in the Bible!
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Why should we? Why do you care about priest's sex lives? That's kinda creepy.

Huffpo? Quite the Church authority! LOL!

Did Jesus call any women to be among the 12? When the priest acts "In Persona Christie, does Jesus become a hermaphrodite so that women can offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, or Is God's SON male?


See--you don't know ANYTHING about the theological reasons for Catholic stances on these things.

You have no evidence for that...and all the Biblical evidence speaks otherwise, and yet----you believe what you believe...


It's a hard teaching...many walk away because they think their own reasoning supersedes what has been revealed.

Your own words evidence your disdain.