Ed Dionne: Papal election turns back on Vatican II

The problem is that to the rigid conservatives now in control of the Church, democracy and multi-culturalism are elements of modern secularism.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Scares the bejesus out of you Liberals, eh?

They just make me sad. Remember Timothy McVeigh and Islamic suicide bombers and Taliban are rigid conservatives.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Old Testament were wrong.

I just distrust anyone that claims to speak for God and get information directly from God.

I believe that religion should be inclusive rather than exclusive.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

attested that they were real prophets, and quoted many of them. If they were wrong, Jesus was wrong. If He was wrong, He is NOT prophet, priest, king, or the Son of God. He is a fraud, and the entire Christian enterprise collapses.

It seems to me that you should distrust Jesus. He said exactly the things that you distrust.

Perhaps you should look again at whatever is telling you that the Old Testament prophets are wrong.

in the Old Testament. I was talking about the prophets mentioned in these books that painted rosey pictures of God's will and were evidentually proved false and didn't get their own books. These were in the majority.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Not only for their correctness but also for impact and cohesion of belief. So while there were plenty who were not included in the Bible because the Church considered them looney, others were excluded because the basis of their prophecy and teachings did not mesh well together, or their teachings were better presented by others.
As for citing where I got this, I can't... just remember watching a special on the History Channel a while ago about the excluded books.

was excluded precisely because it had a more feminine viewpoint, DR! The folks doing the choosing (at Emperor Constantine's insistance, btw -- he organized the Council of Nicea, which gave us the Nicene Creed) were also all male, of course...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Are you just adding to my previous post, or trying to refute me on something?

otherwise, cannot be Christians? That, by the way, is what DK thinks also.

You're distorting my words, KP. Just as our new Pope believes that many of us liberal Catholics (raised in the theology of Vatican II) "aren't real Catholics" based on his interpretations, I think that many elements of the "Christian right's" creed (particularly their views on the origins of war and poverty) aren't consistent with what Christ taught.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

because religion is not or should not be mutable, changing on the whims of polls.

If math for instance changed daily based on the desires of the "mathmetician" rather than immutable proofs there wouldn't be much point in it now would there. 2+2 is 4 today, tonight, yesterday or tomorrow but if it is 3 or 5 or 7 or whatever based only on a specific individual's desires or necessity for a "proof" of their own there wouldn't be much point to it.

If you don't like the Catholic Church's creed and basic tenets you can do like Hollywood and come up with something of your own--just don't claim that you are one.

Until the first Church Council (Jerusalem, around 60AD) one had to be a Jew to be a priest. The arguments in favor of maintaining that tradition were IDENTIAL to those now used for prohibiting the ordination of women, if you simply replace the word "Jew" with "man" in the sentences "Christ was a Jew, all the Apostles and disciples were Jews, and it's been a tradition ever since that only Jews can be priests." Given the requirement for adult circumcision to convert, had that vote gone the other way, Christianity would have doubtless remained an obscure Jewish sect.

Until the 13th Century, clerical celibacy was an option, not a requirment in the Western Church (it still is in the Orthodox Churches) -- yet the current hierarchy considers maintaining what is clearly a human tradition, not a divine law, more important than adequately serving the people. How does that make Benedict a "humble servant?"

From its invention until late in the 19th Century, the Church taught that anesthesia was immoral, because it was "against natural law" to deprive man of his senses, even to relieve suffering -- that bogus natural law" argument is the same one used to ban artificial birth control. A ban John Paul I was going to rescind, btw -- probably one of the reasons he was poisoned.

The teaching that life begins at conception only dates to the 18th century; until that time, the Church taught that life begins "at quickening" (when movement can first be noted). BTW, that change came because of the high death rate in women from abortions before the development of antiseptic surgery, not a sudden theological revelation.

And the Church didn't formally condemn slavery until early in the 20th Century.

Now what were you saying about "immutable?"

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

you did manage to provide some examples of what the new Pope wants to get back to--the basic tenets and creed of the Catholic religion based on beliefs and strictures rather than political correctness and "modernization".

Immutable Dave, not changable with the whims of the whimsical followers.

Do note also that there is a VAST difference in changing traditions and trappings as opposed to changing precepts, creed, and beliefs. Looking over your response indicates you are apparently not cognizant of this apparently minor but CRITICAL truth.

none of those changes has been proclaimed "ex cathedra" -- if they are is when the Church encounters her next great Schism. But its pretty ironic when a theologian is silenced for following up on a doctrine (collegiality, Hans Kueng) officially proclaimed by a Church Council. It should be noted that none of the positions I mentioned have any root in the Bible or words of Christ, which to me means they're human, not divine institutions.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

you still can't seem to grasp the simple fact that there is a rather extensive difference between the basics of the Catholic Religion and the trappings of tradition.

Let's keep it simple.

Religion is not the same as tradition.

Religion is not the robes.

Religion is immutable, trappings change with the times and the designer's whims.

That Dave is "the point".

It's the conservatives who claim that (for instance) the bam on married and women priest is a divinely inspired dictum. It's the liberals (who correctly) recognize those as outmoded traditions that are standing in the way of the Church adequately ministering to her flock. QED!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

problems separating creed and beliefs from traditions.

Wearing of the vestments are traditional. Fish on Friday are traditional. The use of Latin for Mass is traditional. All those can be changed without attempting to change the very basic beliefs and tenets of the religion.

No women priests, no married priests, no male nuns, no married nuns, divorce, God head, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the sacrament, the host, the new and old testements, life at conception, etc. are all basic beliefs and tenets of the Catholic Church and cannot be changed without changing the very core of the Catholic Church.

You don't like it become a protestant or start your own little cafeteria sect because you are not a Catholic if you can't stand for and live within the strictures of the religion. Your "modern" interpretations (I guess you think the Bible is a "living document" and subject to fresh interpretation despite the words and intent of the authors) are out of sync with the teachings and beliefs of the religion itself.

It has happened before and will happen again, not only with Catholics but with Baptists quite recently when they split over homosexual issues.

Just follow this link, and start you own sect today and you can establish the basic unalterable tenets of your church today.
http://www.ulc.org/

Others have done it (Luther is a noted example) so you can too. Here is one who you might use as a template as the strictures of established religion were too tough or uncomfortable for him/them too--you would feel at home.
http://www.beerchurch.com/ordination.htm

Religion, its basic beliefs, its basic creed is NOT mutable and should not be confused with trappings.

the 'American Baptists' who are the liberal baptist group. General and Southern Baptists have not changed their view.

I don't know if there are any other major baptist groups.

But they haven't changed either, AFAIK.

--Cindi
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email the mods

?Look! There are days coming,? is the utterance of Jehovah, ?and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, ?which covenant of mine they themselves broke, although I myself had husbandly ownership of them,? is the utterance of Jehovah.? ?For this is the covenant that I shall conclude with the house of Israel after those days,? is the utterance of Jehovah. ?I will put my law within them, and in their heart I shall write it. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people.? ?And they will no more teach each one his companion and each one his brother, saying, ?KNOW Jehovah!? for they will all of them know me, from the least one of them even to the greatest one of them,? is the utterance of Jehovah. ?For I shall forgive their error, and their sin I shall remember no more. . .? (Jer 31:31-34)
Regards, Doug in New Mexico