Catholicism and Anglicanism: the end of an era

arminius3142

Hi Arminius, good to hear from you, hope you're doing fine.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

cprferry

You wrote, "To be slightly graphic for a moment, yes, in our relationship with the Lord, we become like women and allow Christ to penetrate our hearts and bodies. Similarly, as tradition held, we invite Christ, our husband, to live and dwell with us and our family."

Actually, we are to become "Christ", I did not say Jesus, but Christ.

Christ is a title, The Anointed One, it is not Jesus's last name.

Since we are to become "ONE" with Christ then the differentiation between male and female might mean something in some people's eyes but in the Eyes of God, each and every one of us is a "Beloved Child" of God.

If a "Christian" is to be "One" with Jesus, by what appears to be your "line of reasoning", does this mean that a person's maleness or femaleness overshadows their "Oneness" with Jesus and makes some, by virtue of gender, incapable of being as much of a "Christian" as a male?

A simple question: Is being a "human being" more of a defining part of who you are rather than if you are a male or female?

Something to think about:

Before God became One of us, God looked down on us, so to speak.

After God became One of us, God looked right at us.

After God-Incarnate Ascended, we still find ways to look down on our fellow human beings.

Do you think that God was trying to tell us something?

By the way, when I said "God looked down on us", I used it a a figure of speech, not even remotely the way we, humans, look down on others.

God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable. The "Good News" is Good News for ALL, not 'good enought news' for some.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hello, Thomas Baum,

Once again, you get to the truth of Christianity. Thank you, and God bless.

cprferry

Your metaphor demonstrates the sexual confusion of Catholic theology. Repression and prudishness is unhealthy, something we now know. It results in these kind of weird sexual fantasies, and in a horrible persecution of ones fellow man for trivial and silly reasons. After spinning such a freakishly weird metaphor as a justification for the exclusion of women, how then do you dare support the Catholic church's wicked and mean spirited interdiction of gay people as "intrinsically disordered?"

There is no end to the twistedness of this so-called "Christian" Catholicism.

God the Father (and the Holy Spirit) is spirit and spirit has no body as the scriptures tell us. Many Protestant groups attempt to attribute to God the Father a specific gender. That is not the teaching of the Catholic faith.
The Catholic teaching is that Jesus was both man and God, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin female, lived and expressed himself as a male, was killed as a male (indeed under the charge he claimed to be King), and rose as a male while always One in the Trinity.
He is not simply a child of God, but stated quite clearly the Son of God (Mt 16:15-16). And when we enter into God's family through baptism, we become the adopted children of God, brothers of sisters of the Lord.
When we enter into communion with Him, we become His Church, where He serves (and sacrifices every thing He is, which among other things, which priests are also called to be, is male) as bridegroom and the Church as bride. To be slightly graphic for a moment, yes, in our relationship with the Lord, we become like women and allow Christ to penetrate our hearts and bodies. Similarly, as tradition held, we invite Christ, our husband, to live and dwell with us and our family.

cprferry

You wrote, "Note that we only know God is Father and Jesus is Son by Jesus' gender and how Jesus addresses himself and the Father."

Jesus also said, "I and the Father are One" and "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.

I have been One with the Father but I and the Father are not One in that God the Father came into my heart but I am not God whereas when Jesus said what He did, He was pointing out to us that He Is God.

It also speaks of God in the bible as a Mother Hen taking care of Her flock under the protection of Her Wings so for us to put a gender on God the Father is not in keeping with what Jesus was pointing out to us that God the Father is the Father of us all is a figurative not a genderative way.

Jesus was neither the Son of God nor the Son of Man until Mary said YES and then He became both simultaneously before that Jesus was the Second Person of the Trinity for lack of a better way of putting it.

Jesus became a Child of God and a Child of Man, do you think that a woman is less a Child of God than a man?

Some of us may, but God doesn't.

You then wrote, " but it is impossible for them to be the bridegroom of the Church and they can certainly not serve in persona Christi and say the Eucharistic Prayer faithfully."

Are you saying that we are all suppose to become female?

When Jesus said, "Come follow Me", He did not say you males take up your cross and you females walk behind them, did He?

Being a "Christian" is not a male thing, it is a "Human" thing.

We, both male and female, are called to "conceive" Jesus in us like Mary did when she said Yes but not in the physical way that Mary did.

Isn't this what Jesus was referring to when He said, "Take My yoke upon you ..."?

By the way, I am not a Rabbi, just a messenger.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Rabbi Baum,

Note that we only know God is Father and Jesus is Son by Jesus' gender and how Jesus addresses himself and the Father. Jesus can be classified as any number of things (Jew, Nazarene, etc.), but he routinely acts as more than Jew and Nazarene.
However, he always addresses himself as a human male. Additionally, he calls himself the shepherd (teacher, guide, leader), healer (counselor, sacrament of penance), radical (love, forgiveness), sacrifice (obedience to God, His will, and the teaching order of the Church) and bridegroom of the Church.
As you see, when a priest serves, he resembles Christ as a male and in character in his duties and sacrifices. Women may act and sacrifice similarly in their own vocations, but it is impossible for them to be the bridegroom of the Church and they can certainly not serve in persona Christi and say the Eucharistic Prayer faithfully.
This is why when those splinter "Catholic" groups often have the entire congregation say the Eucharistic prayer rather than the woman priest.

cprferry

You wrote, "However, they do not and can not validly consecrate hosts."

Why?

If there is no "difference" between Jew and Gentile, male and female and so on and so forth in the Eyes of God, why do we differentiate in some areas and yet not in other areas?

It is a church rule, apparently handed down thru tradition and maybe not even from the oldest of traditions.

Celibacy in the priesthood is just a church rule, is it not?

Peter was married and as far as I know, we do not know the marital status of the other original Apostles but definitely many of the original disciples were both married and unmarried men and married and unmarried women.

Do you realize that God the Father is not a Male? For that matter neither is the Holy Spirit a Male.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Justtillthennow

I am just pointing out the elephant in the room, that the Pope is one of those "intrinsically disordered" gay people that he and his church revile. What a confused mess: aggressive homophobia promoted by a closetted gay clergy. What is one to make of this twisted confusion that calls itself "theology?

It is beyond mental disorder; it is a malignant disease which motivates this monstrosity of "Christian" theology. Tennesee Williams hinmself could not have dreamed up a more sexually perverse, twisted, and dark story line that is the sad truth about the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church presses ever onward with its homophobic agenda, yet complains bitterly when any criticism is offered up in response.

Am I anti-Catholic? I do not think so. I am not Catholic, but I have many friends, asquaintance, and family who are. And the criticims that they have of their own church make my comments look very kind, indeed, by comparision.

My ancestors didn't fight and die for Henry VIII so that this half-breed dog of a church could come into being.

Shame!

"Women were leaders of house churches; there is ample evidence to support this. Therefore, as head of the house church, THEY were probably the eucharistic celebrants...at least until redefinition and men took over
Posted by: CalSailor"

This happens in the 21st century as well. In areas where priests are persecuted or unable to reach regularly, nuns lead the parish, administer to the community, and serve as celebrants of Mass. However, they do not and can not validly consecrate hosts.

Hello DITLD,

Well, that was a rather disjointed venture. Sorry for that! Started it three hours ago and it proves the point that one should not trust that congruency is assured since time is connected....

here is an updated version:

"I think the Catholic Church is a freak show, virulently homophobic, seeking the destruction of gay people, and of their families, yet giving refuge to closetted and repressed gay priests, and sheltering a gay Pope, who pretends to be straight, even as he seeks to suppress the emergence of gay people into modern society.

How can any sane person make any sense of this?"

Come now, Daniel with the Lions,

Be lionesse in your worldview. This is the natural process for humans, and most of them are sane. We have our adopted and chosen persona "non e' sono", I am ego, and the = & (>/8) shadow side contrarian.

Yes? light and dark sides. we either recognize that we are both love and hate, light and dark, conscious and unconscious, or we stay (usually, 'tis the way of it! for shame!), unconscious. Seems to be the case.

Hey, perhaps once BOTH sides, (sorry that I do still lack the knowledge and subtlety of italics over caps), practice compassionate cooperative coexistence in a state of forgiving allowance, then true reconciliation can begin.

Here is a thought. If the Jungian concept of shadow is valid, and the Buddhist perspective of soulular evolution aiming at God realization/enlightenment were both true, would it not then make sense that the process of evolving consciously on an individual level would also apply to the collective level as well.

Maybe, then, the homophobic and violent anti gay homosexual part of the clergy are just playing the part of darkside denier, while the out of the closet and embracing gay is the 'light side'.

Maybe, once you come to peace with the church as "freak show, virulently homophobic, seeking the destruction of gay people" you will see it as yourself, and evolution will occur...

Perhaps the clergy are your brothers, shadow side of yourself. They are friends!

Hello DITLD,

"I think the Catholic Church is a I think the Catholic Church is a freak show, virulently homophobic, seeking the destruction of gay people, and of their families, yet giving refuge to closetted and repressed gay priests, and sheltering a gay Pope, who pretends to be straight, even as he seeks to suppress the emergence of gay people into modern society.

How can any sane person make any sense of this?

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDenand of their families, yet giving refuge to closetted and repressed gay priests, and sheltering a gay Pope, who pretends to be straight, even as he seeks to suppress the emergence of gay people into modern society.

How can any sane person make any sense of this?"

Come now, Daniel with the Lions,

Be lionesse in your worldview. This is the natural process for humans, and most of them are sane http://topics.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/topics/people. We have our adopted and chosen persona "non e' sono", I am ego, and the = & (>/8) shadow side contrarian.

Yes? light and dark sides. we either recognize we are love and hate, light and dark, conscious and unconscious, or we stay (usually, 'tis the way of it! for shame!), unconscious. Seems to be the case.

Hey, perhaps once BOTH sides, (sorry that I do still lack the knowledge and subtlety of italics over caps), practice compassionate cooperative coexistence in a state of forgiving allowance, then true reconcilliation can begin.

Here is a thought. If the Jungian concept of shadow is valid, and the Buddhist perspective of soulular evolution aiming at God realization/enlightenment, would it not then make sense that the process of evolving consciously on an individual level would also apply to the collective level as well.

Maybe, then, the homophobic and violent anti gay homosexual part of the clergy are just playing the part of darkside denier, while the out of the closetand embracing gay is the 'light side'.

Maybe, once you come to peace with the church as " freak show, virulently homophobic, seeking the destruction of gay people" you will see it as yourself, and evolution will occur...

Why in the world would anyone waste one moment discussing anything that George Weigel has to say?

Didn't early church fathers supposedly argue about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin? This whole discussion is comparable, in my opinion.

Maybe some Catholics like me who consider Weigel and his compadres pompous bores will start looking for Anglican parishes - who knows and/or cares?

The Anglilcan / Episcopal Church is splitting in two over the issue of homosexauliaty and how to deal with the reality of gay people in the world. The Catholic Church is exploiting this moment of weakness to swoop down on its struggling brethren to damage them even more. Yet, this same struggle goes on inside the Catholic Church. And even, in most churches.

I beleive that in the coming years, most mainline churches, and the Catholic Church as well, will be deeply split over the issue of homosexuality, even fragmenting into complete separation, the many into the many more. For in every church, there is a faction that cannot cope with the emergence of gay people as a legitimate group in society, versus the other faction, which seeks to welcome them with open arms, and undo centuries of injustice.

I think the Catholic Church is a freak show, virulently homophobic, seeking the destruction of gay people, and of their families, yet giving refuge to closetted and repressed gay priests, and sheltering a gay Pope, who pretends to be straight, even as he seeks to suppress the emergence of gay people into modern society.

How can any sane person make any sense of this?

Hello Fritzpatrick,

To expand a bit further on your last point of Resemblance, it does appear that the Catholic Church rationalization for only male priests is a bit of a fixation on one physical trait or characteristic with little attention to the others. Sex is clearly held up as a limitation and demarcation so that being female is being not like Christ, while any of the other human traits are given little limiting significance. It plays out as sexist, in the end.

By the common perceptions of Jesus, and certainly those held up by Catholics but Christians in general as well, the 'maleness' of Jesus is one of the least stressed aspects of his incarnation. The traits that are most identified with Christ and those most amplified are humanistic and beyond sex. Kindness, forgiveness, compassion, love, heart based communion with others, devotion and fixity upon his message and the greater good, etc. Sex does not play into the storyline.

But it does play into the storyline of the Roman Catholic Church's concerns, here in the costume of Resemblance.

Here’s a theory concerning “resemblance to Christ,” the Roman Catholic criterion for being a priest and one reason that church ordains only males. Don’t think about our resemblance to Christ but Christ’s to us. Jesus became like us in all things but sin, and this is the way we are saved.

Our identity includes several variables, including body size and shape, skin color, language, culture, and sex. We can be only one of the multiple values under each category. Suppose the eternal Son had thought to himself: “I’m going to save all those people by being like them, so I’ll speak every language, participate in every culture, have every color, size and shape, and be both sexes.” Would he then have been like all of us? In fact, he would have been like no one.

In Paul’s theology the incarnation is a divine emptying—not clinging to the fullness of being but becoming one particular instance of the kind of being called human, having one body shape and size, one color, one (or at most a few) languages, one culture, and one sex. After all, each of us is only one particular instance of human being. In this way Jesus became like all of us, who can’t be everything but only: tall or short, fat or skinny, 21st century American or 1st century Jew or whatever, woman or man.

I can’t be sure, but I think this is the theology of “resemblance” that should determine who is eligible for ordination. Change does not mean abandoning tradition. Appropriate change comes with understanding it. It may be, in fact, that Romans and Anglicans have exactly the same attitude toward tradition but need to come together on understanding.

CPFerry:

Let me draw one further conclusion: Women were leaders of house churches; there is ample evidence to support this. Therefore, as head of the house church, THEY were probably the eucharistic celebrants...at least until redefinition and men took over...in none of the Eucharistic texts does it require a MALE to be celebrant. It recounts that "you" shall do it in this manner....and recounts the Holy Thursday events of the Last Supper. It narrates what Jesus did and tells his followers to do likewise. There was no specific celebrant mentioned. By cultural norms, then, the groups leader, whoever and what ever position he or she held, would have been the host of the meal. And celebrant.

I am just amazed at the tortured logic that Roman Catholicism uses. I think it is like the argument I used to hear from Marines: We say women can't do this, because if they could do it, it wouldn't be worth doing. If women could be in true leadership roles in the Church, pastoral leadership roles! maybe they'd do it better. I wonder

Pr Chris

CFPerry:

However, they can not stand in persona Christi in Mass and do not serve as priests.

WHY?

(You only have one response: Because Jesus was vir, not homo. I rest my case.

The Creed, however, says that he became man (homo). Women are homo. Why can they not stand in persona Christi?)

As to the rest of your argument:

Yes, women are active in the church in the 21st century. However, women today are not as free as they were in earliest centuries. Paul called at least one woman an apostle, he called others his co-workers and equals in the Lord's work. Women led house churches, they preached and evangelized. In Galatians Paul defined the distinction of male and female as non-existent in the Church. It is the central argument of Galatians; that there are no "ranks" in the church, no distinctions. The Church's restrictions are NOT based on scripture, but on tradition. By scripture, only Jewish males can be ordained. (there were plenty of non-Jewish males available in the world at that time, even in Jerusalem. But Jesus only ordained Jews. Why is that not "tradition." And, I'm accepting the Church's "tradition" that he "ordained" them. He never "ordained" anyone, not according to what we understand as ordination. A number of Roman Catholic Scipture scholars are agreed that that word is a later interpretation. So why is the tradition of "male" kept but not the tradition of "Jewish" kept?

Pr Chris

cprferry

You wrote, "However, they can not stand in persona Christi in Mass and do not serve as priests."

Question: Women can not be deacons either can they?

Women were deacons in the "early church", were they not?

When you speak of "persona Christi", I imagine you are speaking of Jesus, right?

Wasn't Jesus a human being, aren't women human beings?

Are you implying that since Jesus was a Male that only males can be priests?

By that line of reasoning, since Jesus was a Jew, should the priesthood be limited to those that are Jewish?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"women were very active in the leadership of the infant church in the first century
Posted by: CalSailor"

Women are very active in the leadership of the Church in the twenty-first century as well. Much like the accounts in the Bible, they serve as teachers (from pre-school to seminary), administrative leaders (the Archdiocese' current Chancellor, the highest position held by a lay or religious member), and other important roles. However, they can not stand in persona Christi in Mass and do not serve as priests.

Hello TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1,

I wrote: “No one, and no Church, will get you to the Holy Land.”

This is my belief, and clearly is not yours. That is fine with me. The point of my statement was not for the purpose of refuting the value that any institution or human may have for anothers journey to Reunion with God. It was as clarification that no "other", human, Church, institution or organism, holds the key for anothers Realization of that aim.

In other words, for me, the key to God Realization lies within ourselves, not outside. This of course goes counter to the teachings and doctrine of not only the Catholic Church, but mainstream Christianity in general, and is shared by many of the worlds religions. Among other reasons this is a tactic for legitimacy and viability.

I am happy if one finds a home in the Church, and if the Ritual and Sacrament serves them. I like much of it, as I was raised in the Church.

"No one comes to God except through His Church, implicitly or explicitly because all benefits, all graces, come from God who is the head of the Catholic Church."

If you wish to buy that and believe it as so, good luck and God Bless. But I do not. God, whatever that may be, (and to me it is FAR beyond what any church of religion proposes), is not limited to any road or alleyway in Creation. God is available inside of and throughout all of the manifest world, centered inside of us. I need no church to validate it or sanctify it or legitimize it.

One of the main fulcrum points of Good and Evil, and the acts that humans do on either side of that scale, is the preposterous presumption of Exclusivity of Truth. Religious Self Righteousness and Arrogance in the belief of sole proprietorship of God...

There is no such thing, but humans have done some hell making on earth, in the name of God, under the assumption of Spiritual Exclusivity. An Exclusivity just exactly like you are proposing is owned by the Roman Catholic Church.

The RCC is one of the biggest perpetrators of spiritual indignities and evildoing that we have known, historically.

This does not invalidate that the RCC has and is doing great good and acts of love and compassion. But those acts, likewise, do not erase the spiritual insults that result from it's arrogant claim of exclusivity of Truth.

Nothing is further from the Truth. God is in all, for all, and expresses as all of the diversity that is Manifest by God.

In my view.

peace be with you, TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1.

Mr Weigel has managed to dump the whole problem of the inability of Anglicans and Catholics to reunite on the ordination of women as priests in the Anglican communion. Again, it is all women's faults.

For Mr Weigel: The Lutheran Churches decided women's ordination not on sociological bases--on other career fields--but on the basis of the gospel: They acknowledge that scriptural witness to the roles of women are ambivalent (on the one hand: Keep silent; on the other, wear a headcovering when she prays...etc.) Unlike Rome, which seems to have to explain away clear NT and early church documents and other witnesses that show that women were very active in the leadership of the infant church in the first century, the Lutheran theologians weighed evidence on both sides of the issue, and concluded that it was neither as supportive as some would have wished, but not as negative as Rome seems to assume. In the end, they were left with the position that we can only reply as we believe God is calling us to, and so, if this is of God, it will prosper, if not, it will not. It is clear, I think, that it prospers. The women clergy of the Lutheran Churches are preaching the same gospel and celebrating the same Sacraments as their male counterparts. Their congregations are growing in the same manner as their male counterparts, and the Church believes their vocations are true.

Mr Weigel, what is ultimately at issue for many women: Rome's insistance that only men (males) can properly represent Christ leads to the conclusion that Christ the Savior was savior because he is male, not because he was human. In Latin this is clear, in English, not so common. But Rome's insistence on the retention of "man" where common English usage requires "people" or "person" supports this suspicion. This leads many women to wonder: If Christ's importance is because he is male (vir) and not human (homo), what about the half the population which is homo, but not vir?

I would submit to you, sir, that Rome's position is not just sexist, but it ultimately denies the gospel to half the world's population.

Pr Chris

IN REPLY (IRT)
JUSTILLTHENNOW
"POLITICS"
POSTED ON OCTOBER 22, 2009 6:29 PM

IRT:
“And it is political, which is a transient art, and politics and an ongoing struggle for survival and continuing abundance is part of what must be driving the Popes overtures to the Anglican Communion.”

ANS:
Her priest cannot hold public office. She has banned “Liberation Theology.” Thomas Jefferson asked, “If not the Church, to whom shall we go for our moral guidance.” It is in this sense the Church is seen as political. Her mission it not to govern but to counsel, assist, and defend the immutable rights of all men.

Consequently, She teaches, Her Universities worldwide are more than all other universities combined. She treats the sick, through the establishment of her many hospitals and nurseries, protects children, through her many orphanages, and feeds the hungry through Her vast Charities.

Again, you have little understanding of the Church. She is universal, founded by God for all men. No one comes to God except through His Church, implicitly or explicitly because all benefits, all graces, come from God who is the head of the Catholic Church.

The Church is one: she acknowledges one Lord, confesses one faith, is born of one Baptism, forms only one Body, is given life by the one Spirit, for the sake of one hope (cf. Eph 4:3-5), at whose fulfillment all divisions will be overcome. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is "missionary of her very nature.”

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c3a9.htm

“Christ is the light of humanity; and it is, accordingly, the heart-felt desire of this sacred Council, being gathered together in the Holy Spirit, that, by proclaiming His Gospel to every creature, it may bring to all men that light of Christ which shines out visibly from the Church."

The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men. Thus, the Church is for all men, including Anglicans, who are now outside the Church. Consequently, Her mission is to unify all religious divisions.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JUSTILLTHENNOW |
POSTED ON OCTOBER 22, 2009 11:18 PM

IRT:
“No one, and no Church, will get you to the Holy Land.”

ANS:
Again, GK Chesterton writes, “The Christian idea has not been tried but found wanting before it has ever been tried.” If it has not been tried, you will never know if it works. However, it does work for throughout history we see it work. Never has it ever been shown not to work when it has been tried.

The Church has the promise of immortality until the end of time under the auspices of Her Creator, who speaks through Her and protects Her from Her protractors, from Her persecutors, the Pagans, Agnostics, and Atheists. Even from within Her own walls, there are those who have tried to destroy Her, yet She prevails.
.
"In spite of Her humble origin, Her unworldly teaching, and the cruel persecution, which She meets at the hands of the rulers of this world, Her manifestations are ubiquitous.

Throughout the centuries, we find this Church battling against heresies schisms, and the sins of her own people-nay, of her own rulers. Through all time, we see Her doctrines remain the same before man. Her same mysteries of life, death, and resurrection of the world's Savior are immutable.

The Jewish hierarchy murdered Her Creator. The Romans fed Her people to the lions, In China, the USSR, Her Churches were destroyed; Her people were martyred, in the Gulags under Stalin. Hitler’s savagery murdered 3,000 of Her priests in Poland alone.

Many have tried to bury Her. Yet, not Her funeral do we see, but the funerals of Her would be assassins. How can that be? She has no armies, no weapons. Her Truths are her only defense. It is Her slanderers, Her persecutors, Her detractors from the Darkside who recoil, who wriggle and shrivel when Her light shines on them.

"Since the Crucifixion, and, perhaps more remarkable than any, the history of the papacy from St. Peter to Benedict XVI show Her validity.

Her testimonies are unanimous; they all point in one direction, they are of every age, they are clear and simple, and are within the grasp of even children and the humblest intelligence.

"The Church herself, is, by Her marvelous propagation, Her wondrous sanctity, Her inexhaustible fruitfulness in good works, Her Catholic unity, and Her enduring stability, a great and perpetual motive of indomitable credibility and an irrefragable witness to Her Divine commission"

Read the link below and learn what you obviously lack in understanding.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

I am sorry, TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1,

You are just a bit beyond indoctrinated for me...

You are either a fraud, (I am however mortified, (being of the latin root of 'dead') that I do not believe this), and are having a nice bit of sarcastic fun, or

You are seriously indoctrinated and believe this propaganda about Her, the Roman Catholic Church, royal and bounteous in Her Dispensations to the Afflicted Holy and Illbegotten yet Pure, Sacred to the Church and Coveted by Her to Lift Up to their Heavenly Home.

I did like your poetic work. Nice job. I believe you believe it. and that is good enough. But really, dude, chill on the Serious Button.

Noone, and no Church, will get you to the Holy Land.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JUSTILLTHENNOW
POSTED OCTOBER 21, 2009 2:37 PM

IRT:
"Justification, and poppy cock to assert that it is Everlasting In Righteousness and Truth.”

ANS:
The Church is Righteous because the head of the Church is God, the Son of Man. Her Vicar on earth is the Pope. Her tabernacle houses the real presence of Christ; Her teachings are the Holy word of God and therefore are sacred. Nowhere in the eminence of Her teachings of faith and morals, can there be found error, or falsity, cunning, deceit, fraudulence, duplicity, mendacity, treachery, perfidy or unscrupulousness. The gates of Hell have tried and failed to prevail against Her as has been promised to Her by God.

Does the Church change? It changes only in its presentation and its efficacy; its teachings and beliefs are unchangeable and unfathomable. Her gifts are unbounded in majesty and nobility. Her fruits personify her authenticity.

A nation’s prosperity and social harmony are directly proportional to that nation’s consonance to Her moral laws of which She is the guardian because Her moral teaching are inscribed in human nature.

Nowhere is there any other institution that can trumpet the impeccable certitude professed in Her teachings and truths, that embodies Her doctrines and beliefs because Her truths are guarded by the Holy Spirit.

Ironically, those who criticize Her stateliness have no sense of Who and What She is, of Her majesty, Her mystery, the depth of her profound dispensations, libations, and oblations that She gives to those who seek Her Truths.

Consequently, Her treasures are beyond the understanding of Her critics who stand outside of Her awesome presence. Thus, GK Chesterton writes, “The Christian idea has not been tried and found wanting, but has been found wanting but has never been tried.”

Hello TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1,

Thank you for your posts, and the time that it must have taken you to compose them. They were informative, in some warped sense to be clear, and a curious view on the term Justification.

The Church did indeed change and evolve over the centuries, and continues to do so, in a halting, back stepping, counterproductive kind of way. Definition of doctrine and dogma are somewhat strange to me. Nothing can never change. It does, has, and will as needs be. The Church has effectively changed dramatically through the centuries. It is meaningless propaganda, Justification, and poppy cock to assert that it is Everlasting In Righteousness and Truth...

And it is political, which is a transient art, and politics and an ongoing struggle for survival and continuing abundance is part of what must be driving the Popes overtures to the Anglican Communion. Change is required for the room being made, and will result from the process.

The only eternal connection to the Creator, if one exists, is in the eternal soul, individual and unique and of God. It is not in a church any more than it is in a Mercedes Benz or a body or a belief. All corrodes and are a stack of bones. The Church is no different, although one must respect that it is still an institution, (albeit a very changed one :-0 ), after all this time. They got some longevity, that is clear!

Time to make way for married priests!

Hey, do you think a seminarian could go the Anglican way, and then after a few short years and a beautiful wedding, convert back to Catholicism?

Several bloggers have also noted the remarkable timing of Pope Benedict’s offer to the Anglicans–that of the feast of St Paul of the Cross, founder of the Passionist order.

The Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on St Paul of the Cross explains how he prayed for over 50 years for the conversion and reconciliation of England.

Perhaps the timing of this offer by the Pope on St Paul of the Cross’ feast day was intentional, given Paul’s fervent desire for the reconciliation with the Church of England.

I wrote a brief article concerning St Paul of the Cross and his desire for the reunion of the Anglicans. For those interested it can be found here:
http://www.saintpaulofthecross.com/2009/10/rome-vatican-pope-reaches-out-to.html

Joseph

CHANGE?
What CHANGE?
Homosexuality,
Feminism,
SCHISM and
all other isms... even MODERNISM

The Roman CC has gone through and survived BIGGER and more important challenges throughout the ages.

In my judgment (IMJ), opponents of the church doctrines and its cohorts have a huge FALSE SENSE of POWER and AUDACITY to think that this generation can overturn and rise above the doctrines of the Church.

They should leave the church alone to shepherd it's flock.

IN REPLY T0 (IRT)
JUSTILLTHENNOW
POSTED OCTOBER 21, 2009 2:37 PM
CHANGES IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

IRT
"Rome has changed for centuries, going through huge doctrinal and moral ebbs and flows. There is no doubt that change is occurring, yet as is the case in any organization, traditionalism puts up a fight to salvage what is viewed as the old and correct ways. An Anglican shot in the arm will not change change."

ANS:
Although Rome has changed for centuries, the dogmas of the Catholic Church cannot be changed. When the Church declares a belief is a doctrine, She only is definitively defining the doctrine, and declaring the dogma as an article of faith. She is not creating a belief.

Consequently, the Immaculate Conception existed when Mary, the Mother of God, was conceived; it became a doctrine 12-8-1854. The salutation of the angel Gabriel — chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.”

Immaculate Conception:In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

"The Blessed Virgin Mary..."
The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.

"...in the first instance of her conception..."

The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely nor simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul.

The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

Thus, since the Immaculate Conception occured at the conception of Mary the Mother of God, the dogma always existed, in 1854 it was defined.

IN REPLY T0 (IRT)
JUSTILLTHENNOW
POSTED OCTOBER 21, 2009 2:37 PM

IRT:
“Rome has changed for centuries, going through huge doctrinal and moral ebbs and flows. There is no doubt that change is occurring, yet as is the case in any organization, traditionalism puts up a fight to salvage what is viewed as the old and correct ways. An Anglican shot in the arm will not change change."

ANS:
There are two aspects of change in the Catholic Church; one is administrative change, and the other is change in doctrine. Administrative changes change with the times; doctrinal changes never change because these doctrines come from the Son of Man, a.k.a. God, who instituted the Church.

Consequently, an administrative change recently was eating meat on Friday. The doctrine was that man must offer some sacrifice to God; how this was to be realized is determined by the Church. As the conditions of time change, so does the aspect of the way the offering changes to meet the conditions of the times.

Administratively, priest could marry, but that was administratively changed. Women ordination is a doctrinal change and can never change.

When something is declared a doctrine, it does not mean that the doctrine was created by the Church. To the contrary, it means that the doctrine is now definitive, unequivocal, determinate, and authoritatively defined. Prior to a dogma being declared, the dogma is said to be undefined, however it remains a truth defined or not. When it is authoritatively or magisterially declared and defined, the doctrine by Church authority must be believed.

A doctrine is defined when there arises a dispute over its meaning. Thus, once the Church speaks, the doctrine must be understood under the terms that the Church defines it. The Doctrine is not created, it is only defined.

Infallibility was given to the Church before Jesus ascended into Heaven. Thus, it is written:

Mt 28:20 - INFALIBILITY:
“…and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Mt 10: 20 INFALIBILITY
For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.”

John 15:26-27; Mt 28:20; Mt 10: 20; INFALIBILITY

"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.” Hence, infallibility has always been a doctrine. When disputes over its efficacy arose it was defined as a dogma ending all disputes.

"Papal Infallibility and the Assumption of Mary are fairly recent phenomena in church history.
Posted by: usr105 | October 21, 2009 3:34 PM"

Papal infallibility, as in that the Pope can, under certain conditions, speak in a definitive voice on specific Catholic teaching, promised to be free of error, goes back to the time of Peter and was codified in the Middle Ages.

The Assumption of Mary was widely held belief going back to the 4th century. The statement in 1850 made it a core belief of all Catholics.

This is the beauty of the Catholic faith. While in full communion with Peter and the apostles, passing down all the knowledge of Jesus' life and teachings, wisdom from the Holy Spirit, Tradition, sacred scripture, the sacraments, etc., the Church is still open to new discoveries and perspectives in revealing the message of God.
While many would like to paint it so, it's not an archaic faith, but a rich, lively faith seeking the truth in fullness, as well as the appropriate articulation. What other religion spends as much time in ecumenical discussions with others?

Actually the Roman Catholic Church has made major changes over the years ... Papal Infallibility and the Assumption of Mary are fairly recent phenomena in church history. The prohibition of married priests was promulgated much farther back but does not extend to the beginning of the church.

It seems that Mr. Weigel is saying is that the Catholic Church yet has further hope that it does not need to change it's doctrine in the face of a tide of changing human culture and thought regarding religion.

Rome has changed for centuries, going through huge doctrinal and moral ebbs and flows. There is no doubt that change is occurring, yet as is the case in any organization, traditionalism puts up a fight to salvage what is viewed as the old and correct ways.

An Angelican shot in the arm will not change change.