goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Pete on August 29, 2022, 10:43:22 AM
-
I’m not a Catholic, but I have a great deal of respect for their current Pope. Seems like a good dude, especially relative to many of the rascals who have held that post over the years.
From what I gather, he has frustrated some of the conservatives who seem to be selective about when they choose to adhere to “because the pope said so.”
Looks like he is stacking the court so that the next boss is same as the old boss.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/with-new-cardinals-pope-puts-stamp-church-future-2022-08-27/
-
Follow-up question….what is the likelihood of American Catholics pulling the same thing as Henry the 8th and breaking off to form the Church of England (aka Episcopal/Anglican)?
If Rome keeps moving toward “socialist policies,” how long can American Catholics stomach it?
-
I’m not a Catholic, but I have a great deal of respect for their current Pope. Seems like a good dude, especially relative to many of the rascals who have held that post over the years.
From what I gather, he has frustrated some of the conservatives who seem to be selective about when they choose to adhere to “because the pope said so.”
Looks like he is stacking the court so that the next boss is same as the old boss.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/with-new-cardinals-pope-puts-stamp-church-future-2022-08-27/
I'm really not all that familiar with Church politics, but I know that Pope Francis has received from pushback from some of the more "trad" Catholics regarding his attempts/signals that he wants to do away with traditional Mass stuff...nix the Latin and some of the other traditional stuff. I think he should cut it out with that battle because a lot of good Catholics just prefer those elements (I'm one who prefers some of those elements, even though I'm not a Latin Mass'r).
Also, and you probably already know this, the "because the Pope said so" doctrine ("Papal Infallibility") only comes into play at certain times/contexts.
-
Are good Catholics not supposed to do what the pope rough ridin' says? :dunno:
-
Are good Catholics not supposed to do what the pope rough ridin' says? :dunno:
I know this sounds counterintuitive, but not everything the Pope says qualifies as "dogma." And on this issue, we're talking a mere stylistic preference.
Doing away with some of the traditional elements he wants done away with turns off a significant portion of Catholics, which (assuming the traditional form is otherwise liturgically sound, which I don't think anyone denies), is antithetical to the mission of his post.
-
Papal infallibility seems to be as flexible as cardinals allow it to be. So, if Francis loads it up with like minded fellas, then there we go, right?
-
It sure does highlight just how influenced the religion (and not just Catholics) is by the whims and preferences of men who are in control at any given time.
-
I’m not a Catholic, but I have a great deal of respect for their current Pope. Seems like a good dude, especially relative to many of the rascals who have held that post over the years.
From what I gather, he has frustrated some of the conservatives who seem to be selective about when they choose to adhere to “because the pope said so.”
Looks like he is stacking the court so that the next boss is same as the old boss.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/with-new-cardinals-pope-puts-stamp-church-future-2022-08-27/
I'm really not all that familiar with Church politics, but I know that Pope Francis has received from pushback from some of the more "trad" Catholics regarding his attempts/signals that he wants to do away with traditional Mass stuff...nix the Latin and some of the other traditional stuff. I think he should cut it out with that battle because a lot of good Catholics just prefer those elements (I'm one who prefers some of those elements, even though I'm not a Latin Mass'r).
Also, and you probably already know this, the "because the Pope said so" doctrine ("Papal Infallibility") only comes into play at certain times/contexts.
Are Latin Mass Catholics part of the Catholic Church that Francis leads or are they a splinter group?
-
Papal infallibility seems to be as flexible as cardinals allow it to be. So, if Francis loads it up with like minded fellas, then there we go, right?
Not really, no.
-
Heck, there are Catholics services at some places in the world that could be mistaken for a good old evangelical revival. Different strokes of different folks in the big tent.
-
Papal infallibility seems to be as flexible as cardinals allow it to be. So, if Francis loads it up with like minded fellas, then there we go, right?
Not really, no.
Well, should be no reason for concern then. Whew!
-
I’m not a Catholic, but I have a great deal of respect for their current Pope. Seems like a good dude, especially relative to many of the rascals who have held that post over the years.
From what I gather, he has frustrated some of the conservatives who seem to be selective about when they choose to adhere to “because the pope said so.”
Looks like he is stacking the court so that the next boss is same as the old boss.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/with-new-cardinals-pope-puts-stamp-church-future-2022-08-27/
I'm really not all that familiar with Church politics, but I know that Pope Francis has received from pushback from some of the more "trad" Catholics regarding his attempts/signals that he wants to do away with traditional Mass stuff...nix the Latin and some of the other traditional stuff. I think he should cut it out with that battle because a lot of good Catholics just prefer those elements (I'm one who prefers some of those elements, even though I'm not a Latin Mass'r).
Also, and you probably already know this, the "because the Pope said so" doctrine ("Papal Infallibility") only comes into play at certain times/contexts.
Are Latin Mass Catholics part of the Catholic Church that Francis leads or are they a splinter group?
There are different kinds, really. That group out in St. Mary's is a splinter group -- they are not formally part of the Catholic Church, and don't recognize Pope Francis (or John Paul II, or Benedict) as the true Pope.
There are other Latin Mass communities that are part of the Catholic Church, and other parishes that offer some Latin Masses and also Masses in the Novus Ordo (Post-Vatican II form said english with varying degrees of traditional elements). The one I attend offers both, and the N.O. Mass I attend is pretty heavy on the Traditional side of the spectrum, which I really like.
-
Papal infallibility seems to be as flexible as cardinals allow it to be. So, if Francis loads it up with like minded fellas, then there we go, right?
Not really, no.
Well, should be no reason for concern then. Whew!
The "Cardinal packing" stuff doesn't really bother me, though I don't know much about it. If he just wants to gear it towards emphasizing more attention to the poor across the Earth, no problem with me at all.
-
Papal infallibility seems to be as flexible as cardinals allow it to be. So, if Francis loads it up with like minded fellas, then there we go, right?
Not really, no.
Well, should be no reason for concern then. Whew!
The "Cardinal packing" stuff doesn't really bother me, though I don't know much about it. If he just wants to gear it towards emphasizing more attention to the poor across the Earth, no problem with me at all.
I suspect that is indeed most of it. Again, he seems like a genuinely great guy.
-
Papal infallibility seems to be as flexible as cardinals allow it to be. So, if Francis loads it up with like minded fellas, then there we go, right?
Not really, no.
Since there is a thread for it now, I’d like your thoughts on what papal infallibility is, exactly. If something less than, “what the pope says is the rule is the rule” then it seems kind of illusory.
-
Papal infallibility seems to be as flexible as cardinals allow it to be. So, if Francis loads it up with like minded fellas, then there we go, right?
Not really, no.
Since there is a thread for it now, I’d like your thoughts on what papal infallibility is, exactly. If something less than, “what the pope says is the rule is the rule” then it seems kind of illusory.
It's essentially that, but not quite so reductive. For infallibility to be invoked, the Pope has to be speaking on certain subjects in a certain capacity. Consider it like the actual holding of a Supreme Court case vs. dicta, or a Justice just speaking off the cuff about what he thinks the law is/ought to be at a dinner or something. At least that's my understanding (which is probably still pretty oversimplified). If you want the dogmatic answer, here's the Catechism's explanation:
"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical 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 to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/891.htm (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/891.htm)
Here's Catholic Answers' (Church apologists/scholars) discussion on infallibility:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility (https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility)
-
Papal infallibility seems to be as flexible as cardinals allow it to be. So, if Francis loads it up with like minded fellas, then there we go, right?
Not really, no.
Well, should be no reason for concern then. Whew!
The "Cardinal packing" stuff doesn't really bother me, though I don't know much about it. If he just wants to gear it towards emphasizing more attention to the poor across the Earth, no problem with me at all.
I suspect that is indeed most of it. Again, he seems like a genuinely great guy.
I do think Pope Francis is a good guy. I’ve said it before, but it’s pretty interesting if you compare the Pharisees’ reactions to Jesus’s teaching in the New Testament vs. “traditional” Catholics and Pope Francis.
People get addicted to rules and authority. People can really struggle with a message based on love and respect over rules and judgment.
-
Papal infallibility seems to be as flexible as cardinals allow it to be. So, if Francis loads it up with like minded fellas, then there we go, right?
Not really, no.
Well, should be no reason for concern then. Whew!
The "Cardinal packing" stuff doesn't really bother me, though I don't know much about it. If he just wants to gear it towards emphasizing more attention to the poor across the Earth, no problem with me at all.
I suspect that is indeed most of it. Again, he seems like a genuinely great guy.
I do think Pope Francis is a good guy. I’ve said it before, but it’s pretty interesting if you compare the Pharisees’ reactions to Jesus’s teaching in the New Testament vs. “traditional” Catholics and Pope Francis.
People get addicted to rules and authority. People can really struggle with a message based on love and respect over rules and judgment.
I couldn’t agree more!
-
Papal infallibility seems to be as flexible as cardinals allow it to be. So, if Francis loads it up with like minded fellas, then there we go, right?
Not really, no.
Since there is a thread for it now, I’d like your thoughts on what papal infallibility is, exactly. If something less than, “what the pope says is the rule is the rule” then it seems kind of illusory.
It's essentially that, but not quite so reductive. For infallibility to be invoked, the Pope has to be speaking on certain subjects in a certain capacity. Consider it like the actual holding of a Supreme Court case vs. dicta, or a Justice just speaking off the cuff about what he thinks the law is/ought to be at a dinner or something. At least that's my understanding (which is probably still pretty oversimplified). If you want the dogmatic answer, here's the Catechism's explanation:
"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical 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 to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/891.htm (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/891.htm)
Here's Catholic Answers' (Church apologists/scholars) discussion on infallibility:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility (https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility)
That generally makes sense to me, but it still seems intentionally vague. “Infallibility” has some pretty strong connotations. If the doctrine is really just that “since the Pope is the head of the church, there is no check on his authority to determine rules and doctrines in the Catholic Church,” then no duh. That’s going to be the case in any hierarchy with a single person at the top and no mechanism for kicking him out.
-
Papal infallibility seems to be as flexible as cardinals allow it to be. So, if Francis loads it up with like minded fellas, then there we go, right?
Not really, no.
Since there is a thread for it now, I’d like your thoughts on what papal infallibility is, exactly. If something less than, “what the pope says is the rule is the rule” then it seems kind of illusory.
It's essentially that, but not quite so reductive. For infallibility to be invoked, the Pope has to be speaking on certain subjects in a certain capacity. Consider it like the actual holding of a Supreme Court case vs. dicta, or a Justice just speaking off the cuff about what he thinks the law is/ought to be at a dinner or something. At least that's my understanding (which is probably still pretty oversimplified). If you want the dogmatic answer, here's the Catechism's explanation:
"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical 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 to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/891.htm (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/891.htm)
Here's Catholic Answers' (Church apologists/scholars) discussion on infallibility:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility (https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility)
That generally makes sense to me, but it still seems intentionally vague. “Infallibility” has some pretty strong connotations. If the doctrine is really just that “since the Pope is the head of the church, there is no check on his authority to determine rules and doctrines in the Catholic Church,” then no duh. That’s going to be the case in any hierarchy with a single person at the top and no mechanism for kicking him out.
Yeah, it's confusing and I honestly don't know in the outs beyond what I've said here -- and we're kind of getting deep into the weeds. Generally, it comes in the form of some grand writing and it's clear that what's being said is cloaked in infallibility.
I think where it makes sense is in some of the nuanced and kind of obscure unsettled dogmatic questions. One example is whether John the Baptist was born without original sin. Some Catholics believe yes (for various reasons), others believe no (for various reasons), and under current dogma, neither belief is considered right or heretical. If, for whatever reason, the Pope steps-in in an official capacity and says, "listen up, the official Catholic dogma on this question is ____," then that would be considered infallible and attain the status of dogma. If, in an unofficial capacity, he says "here's what I believe: ____" then no, not infallible in that context.
Likewise, him opining that the Latin Mass isn't great in an unofficial capacity or taking steps to curtail traditional elements within the Mass isn't deemed infallible, and Catholics can disagree with him on those issues.
Anyway, Cannon law is complicated and I'm way out over my skis talking about it.
-
Follow-up question….what is the likelihood of American Catholics pulling the same thing as Henry the 8th and breaking off to form the Church of England (aka Episcopal/Anglican)?
If Rome keeps moving toward “socialist policies,” how long can American Catholics stomach it?
Not likely as a mass movement- but you will see more pockets splinter off into their own sects.
-
Follow-up question….what is the likelihood of American Catholics pulling the same thing as Henry the 8th and breaking off to form the Church of England (aka Episcopal/Anglican)?
If Rome keeps moving toward “socialist policies,” how long can American Catholics stomach it?
Not likely as a mass movement- but you will see more pockets splinter off into their own sects.
Already pretty popular in my home town. We have a lot of weirdos where I'm from, though.
-
Follow-up question….what is the likelihood of American Catholics pulling the same thing as Henry the 8th and breaking off to form the Church of England (aka Episcopal/Anglican)?
If Rome keeps moving toward “socialist policies,” how long can American Catholics stomach it?
Not likely as a mass movement- but you will see more pockets splinter off into their own sects.
Already pretty popular in my home town. We have a lot of weirdos where I'm from, though.
St. Mary's, KS.
NEXT
-
That church that’s almost done in st Mary’s…. :horrorsurprise:
-
I will say the Catholics do a damn good coaching search when the time comes. Would like to see smoke signals utilized in KSU AD going forward.
-
I will say the Catholics do a damn good coaching search when the time comes. Would like to see smoke signals utilized in KSU AD going forward.
That would be amazing. Everyone camped out on the front lawn of Anderson Hall…each day at 6 PM (an homage to our heritage as a founding member of the Big 6) smoke will be released from the spire indicating the status. White signals that we are still awaiting Eddie Fogler’s recommendation. Black signals Turnkey consulting is still working on it. Purple smoke means we have either met with the candidate in an airport hotel or they have accepted the offer.
-
Papal infallibility seems to be as flexible as cardinals allow it to be. So, if Francis loads it up with like minded fellas, then there we go, right?
Not really, no.
Well, should be no reason for concern then. Whew!
The "Cardinal packing" stuff doesn't really bother me, though I don't know much about it. If he just wants to gear it towards emphasizing more attention to the poor across the Earth, no problem with me at all.
I suspect that is indeed most of it. Again, he seems like a genuinely great guy.
I do think Pope Francis is a good guy. I’ve said it before, but it’s pretty interesting if you compare the Pharisees’ reactions to Jesus’s teaching in the New Testament vs. “traditional” Catholics and Pope Francis.
People get addicted to rules and authority. People can really struggle with a message based on love and respect over rules and judgment.
I couldn’t agree more!
Yeah, what cat said is pretty much my limited view on the now mostly outside look of why traditional Catholics don't like him. He's definitely trying to in general "modernize" the church to be less preachy, and more service-y (like, doing service to others not the mass part). I do think it's more the "correct" take (though like DQ, and for me, the only thin I really like is the traditionally service, it can be boring, but like, it is how you glorify God, it's top notch) cause the church has been becoming old, decrepit, and with the scandals it has been needing someone to give it a reboot a bit.
Old catholics are nothing but haters of change, so to have Francis come around really makes them very uncomfortable, cause they have to battle this "what they've always known" with the new directions from the head guy.
FWIW every congregation is made of true believers, those who pay as much lip service to be in the good graces of the true believers, and the heathens, who the first two groups loathe but the second one quietly knows they aren't any better than.
-
(though like DQ, and for me, the only thin I really like is the traditionally service, it can be boring, but like, it is how you glorify God, it's top notch)
My view is that, what we believe happens during the Mass deserves to have a mystical/reverent feel to it. The ritual/incense/latin elements are warranted, given the significance of the context, imo. To quote the Legend, that's not something to be taken lightly.
The jokey-jokes and acoustic guitars and general informality just feels inappropriate and out of place to me. That said, if that stuff gets some people to the place they need to be in to receive communion, then hey, whatever floats their boat.
It's stylistic, but the ritual does it for me and others, and I think it's pretty easy to see why people are protective of it.
-
I like that DLew, well said.
Although not a cath, one of the things I really appreciate about the faith is the local nature of it. Prots and especially evangelicals often choose a church for reasons that aren't necessarily bad but are more individualistic (I love the preacher, the church has people my age, the church has a great kids ministry etc.). Caths choose their parish based on what's in my neighborhood. This approach leads to people living near whom they worship with. I like that a lot.
-
I like that DLew, well said.
Although not a cath, one of the things I really appreciate about the faith is the local nature of it. Prots and especially evangelicals often choose a church for reasons that aren't necessarily bad but are more individualistic (I love the preacher, the church has people my age, the church has a great kids ministry etc.). Caths choose their parish based on what's in my neighborhood. This approach leads to people living near whom they worship with. I like that a lot.
Yeah, although I will say that the church I attend isn't the closest one to me (or the next closest), though it's still only about a 7 minute drive. I just looked it up, there are 5 Catholic churches within 2.5 miles of my house. :eek:
-
pete, the current pope is jesuit. i am not catholic but when i was in 8th grade on a tour of rockhurst, a jesuit priest was trying to explain what jesuits were relative to mainline catholics. the one thing i remember is they said "a jesuit priest will never become pope". it's basically if bernie sanders became president
-
(though like DQ, and for me, the only thin I really like is the traditionally service, it can be boring, but like, it is how you glorify God, it's top notch)
My view is that, what we believe happens during the Mass deserves to have a mystical/reverent feel to it. The ritual/incense/latin elements are warranted, given the significance of the context, imo. To quote the Legend, that's not something to be taken lightly.
The jokey-jokes and acoustic guitars and general informality just feels inappropriate and out of place to me. That said, if that stuff gets some people to the place they need to be in to receive communion, then hey, whatever floats their boat.
It's stylistic, but the ritual does it for me and others, and I think it's pretty easy to see why people are protective of it.
I'm kind of jealous of the way Catholic people can go to any Catholic mass or funeral or wedding and know exactly what to expect. The strain of protestantism that I come from tries to avoid being "ritualistic" to the point that sometimes you never quite sure what you are going to get in a wedding or church service. Also, a lot of Protestant services are overly focused on the sermon rather than the other communal elements of the service. Unless someone is an incredibly good communicator, they should probably only speak for 20 - 25 minutes.
-
pete, the current pope is jesuit. i am not catholic but when i was in 8th grade on a tour of rockhurst, a jesuit priest was trying to explain what jesuits were relative to mainline catholics. the one thing i remember is they said "a jesuit priest will never become pope". it's basically if bernie sanders became president
He’s kinda a hybrid, since he chose Francis as his name. The St. Francis prayer is one of my favorites.
-
Now its already been well documented ITT I'm pro-catholic.
However.
I don't like the thing they do where the wedding is at 1 and reception is at 6 because of afternoon mass.
-
(though like DQ, and for me, the only thin I really like is the traditionally service, it can be boring, but like, it is how you glorify God, it's top notch)
My view is that, what we believe happens during the Mass deserves to have a mystical/reverent feel to it. The ritual/incense/latin elements are warranted, given the significance of the context, imo. To quote the Legend, that's not something to be taken lightly.
The jokey-jokes and acoustic guitars and general informality just feels inappropriate and out of place to me. That said, if that stuff gets some people to the place they need to be in to receive communion, then hey, whatever floats their boat.
It's stylistic, but the ritual does it for me and others, and I think it's pretty easy to see why people are protective of it.
It honestly took me a long time to be more comfortable with the more sing-songy and open ways others do it, because of how mass is structured, it felt so short of actually properly doing it. But agree with you, I think different strokes for different folks is important, we all are after all trying to figure it out, no one is 100% right, and it's all fairly open to interpretation. If anything having gone to catholic mass, baptist, presbytarian, methodist, and lutheran services the thing that always strikes me is what is being said is almost always the same, but how it's utilized rests almost exclusively in the pastor/priest/preacher. Even one catholic church to the next depending on what that priest's hobby horse is can change the general tenor and demeanor of the church they lead.
I think as long as people who do go to church, regardless of their denomination follow the following guidelines everyone is better:
1) You're imperfect, as is the priest/pastor/preacher, and therefore your judgement, and theirs should be seen from the lens of an imperfect person, it is ok to disagree with them and even challenge them, as long as you're respectful.
2) Be wary of churches that value treasure above time and talent
3) Truly find out why you believe in what your congregation is making you believe, Jesus wants you to be part of his flock but I don't think he wants you to actually be a sheep.
4) Have perspective, infighting over doctrine regardless of religion has basically been going on since the beginning of time, there is no grand unified theory and no "right" was to do things, and if Jesus didn't talk about it then it's some dude just freestyling to try and make it seem like he did (Paul).
5) Take and apply those same principles to all aspects of your life, other religions and other people who aren't religious go through basically the same thing morally, mentally, and spiritually.