Anonymous wrote:Doctrine doesn't change, but exegesis does. That's why there are constantly new interpretations of the Constitution - the document exists, but clarification is never complete.

Sure! My point was that conservative theologians are always trying to define their preferred rituals as "doctrine". Which is an obvious kind of question begging.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Vatican: Pope Francis supports crackdown on US nuns; women had hoped for different approach

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/vatican-pope-francis-supports-crackdown-on-us-nuns-women-had-hoped-for-different-approach/2013/04/15/b8156308-a5dd-11e2-9e1c-bb0fb0c2edd9_story.html

The pope is still going after the US nuns, which is surprising given his supposed interest in social justice and poverty. So, there's no way he's going to do anything for women in the church. Honestly, if he's attacking the nuns who are serving the poorest of the poor and pursuing social justice, then I believe he is faking his empathy for the poor....it's just a stunt. What a shame.

Doctrine doesn't change, but exegesis does. That's why there are constantly new interpretations of the Constitution - the document exists, but clarification is never complete.

Doctrines may not change, e.g. Christians will I imagine always believe that God created the world and that Jesus is the son of God, but what does change is the way we understand them. Those who talk most about unchanging doctrine seem really to be wanting to freeze understanding at a particular point in history. We do need to distinguish between doctrines and what they mean and how we understand their meaning. Vatican II took this seriously (Catholics often don’t), which is one reason why it is the greatest event in Christian history over the last 100 years or so.

There's a distinction between "discipline" and "doctrine" that the Church makes. Belief in "the Trinity" is Church doctrine. Not eating meat on Friday, or eschewing contraception, or not getting an abortion, or supporting the death penalty are all "disciplines".

Doctrines don't change; disciplines do. For the purposes of this argument though, the distinction being made is a bit circular.

Anonymous wrote:Please don't call him Franky!

Sorry. No disrespect intended. The name Francis made me think of Francis Albert Sinatra, aka Franky (at least to an old guy like me).

It is called "doctrine" for a reason. It does not change. Variations in ritual are a completely different thing.

Please don't call him Franky!

We can only hope. What will be interesting will be the reaction of the "traditionalists" if Church doctrine liberalizes significantly. Liberals been treated to lectures about obedience from the far-right wing of the church for decades now. I'm curious to see what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.

I think doctrine and ritual are completely distinct. His preference for simplicity is just that, a preference, and has little to do with doctrine. I think it's possible for him to be extremely conservative, although we shall see. I like seeing all these "traditionalists" get their panties in a bunch though, it makes for good entertainment!

I just read (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/popes-foot-wash-a-final-straw-for-traditionalist-catholics.php?ref=fpa)that Pope Francis is upsetting traditionalists with his easy-going approach to the Papacy. Some fear, for example that his departure from tradition (and Church law) by including women among those whose feet he washed (even a Muslim woman!) may be a step toward women priests. Do you think Francis (can I call him Franky?) is opening the floodgates of reform with his liberal approach to ritual, or does liberalism on ritual give him a freer hand to be conservative on doctrine?