Reply to Rogue Pope

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Rogue Pope"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]A Pope who endorsed the admission of women to Holy Orders and/or procured abortion and/or sacramental marriage between persons of the same sex would by that act become a material heretic and ipsofacto cease to be Pope.

The pope can modify celibacy requirements for secular priests (those not a part of a religious order with a separate vow of chastity) at any time. Celibacy is a discipline, not an ontological part of the priestly state. [/quote]

This is not technically true. All of these issues are debated and some have been different within the Church at different times in history. [/quote]

The Pope’s ability to modify the discipline of celibacy is debated?  I think not.

The gravely sinful nature of abortion debated?  Hardly.

The ontological inability to confer Holy Orders on a woman debated?  No. That has been firmly settled long before it was definitively (and one can argue based on phrasing infallibly) rejected by John Paul II.

The impossibility to confect the sacrament of matrimony between persons of the same sex debated?  Certainly not.

There are people who would like to debate these matters now, and who hope to obscure the longstanding clarity of doctrine in these areas, but the questions are closed and more or less always have been. There is room for discussion as to how such matters should be approached pastorally, which is what Pope Francis is doing.[/quote]

This "black and white" absolute thinking peppered with language marketed by a hypocritical patriarchy fearful of losing its power is precisely what's causing droves of people to leave the RCC for other more inclusive denominations or to become unchurched entirely.[/quote]

I think that the vast majority of people who abandon the practice of their Catholic Faith and/or apostatize to other denominations do so without a meaningful understanding of the teachings they claim to reject, or of the reasons why the Church teaches as it does.  People often are attached to behaviors that go against Church teaching and feel like hypocrites if they stay, never considering the availability of Divine Mercy or the role of a well-formed conscience in making individual moral decisions. People leave because they’re dissatisfied with externals, get their feelings hurt or because of the sins and shortcomings of Church personnel, acting on a human and emotional level and losing sight of how God operates in and through the Church despite human frailty.

Relativism, the refusal to acknowledge that truth is objective, knowable and absolute, is probably the greatest modern heresies. Church teaching is “black and white” because beliefs in some matters are either true or not, with no middle ground, and the Church is obliged to seek and teach the truth.

Blaming “patriarchy” for the perceived shortcomings of the Church and its doctrines is a puerile, disingenuous and ill-informed dodge that focuses on the superficialities of what is perceived as worldly “power,” and ignores the servant nature of leadership in the Church, especially today. It likewise casts aside the example of centuries of highly influential women in the Church, such as Catherine of Siena, Joan of Arc, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Lisieux,  Mother Teresa, and centuries of Abbesses, nuns, teaching sisters, to name only a few.  The Bible records that Jesus first appearance after his resurrection was to a woman; it is a pious belief that he appeared even before that to another woman, his mother. 
[/quote]

You certainly are entitled to your opinion.

Others are certainly entitled to judge it to be puerile rationalizations ignoring the many facts on the other side.

Oh, and since this is the place for people to get offended and report every post they do not like, I am offended by your sentence "the teachings they [b]claim[/b] to reject".  You can't "claim" to reject something - you either reject it or you don't.  Unless you are calling them liars?  Sure sounds like it.[/quote]

I don’t think your reasoning is correct. To actually radically reject something, one must comprehend its genesis, it’s development, its logical, philosophical and (in the case of religious teaching) theological underpinnings.  I think people frequently reject conclusory statements of Church teaching without understanding or considering any of those things, when had they done do they might have been persuaded. Catholic teaching isn’t plucked from the air. It is the product of millennia of prayer, deep thought, analysis, scholarship and refinement by some of the greatest spirits and intellects in history. [/quote]

I agree with you except Catholic teachings are often a product of greed, money, politics, control and sinful needs. Pooes and bishops are just men and rules are only Devine when they are “from the chair” and none of the rules discussed have Devine intervention.

They are all rules made by man with sinful greed as the basis.[/quote]

I think you’re confusing the concept of Papal infallibility when speaking “ex cathedra” (something that has been invoked only twice) in a way that omits the Church’s “ordinary magisterium,” that is its inherent authority stemming from Christ to establish and teach doctrine. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics