Vatican "clampdown" on liberal opinion

StealthRolex

If this is going to turn into a Catholic bashing thread I'm not interested.

I did not suggest condemnation nor do I endorse it.
I did not suggest the naming of sinners.
I did not suggest punishment.

In terms of embarrassment I meant it in the true meaning of the word - to block or bar.

It may be disconcerting to hear the priest mention a situation that affects you and remind the congregation that participation in such cases is limited. It may cause shame to be felt. But this is Ireland the most likely feeling would be defiant beligerence.
It then becomes embarrassing if you go to the alter to defy the priest and the laws of God and then find yourself barred from receiving the host.
Do you not understand that it is a sin to assist in anothers sin? Christ forbids remarriage after divorce. Christ forbids fornication. A priest cannot assist anyone in this situation to commit further sacrilege. If you do not understand this you should not comment until you do. This is not just a Catholic thing it is a Christian thing. We must not encourage or assist anyone in their sin. That does not take from the fact that we are all sinners but it is part of our striving to free ourselves from sin.
The Church cannot on one hand say it is a sacrilege to take communion while being in a state of grave sin and then have its ministers, ordinaryor extraordinary, assist in the commission of further sins and sacrilege.

"Priests will be told not to question in public official church teaching on controversial issues such as the papal ban on birth control or the admission of divorced Catholics living with new partners to the sacraments -- especially Holy Communion."

We cannot argue with this. While you may not agree that artificial birth control is an intrinsic evil, I do and I accept the Churches teaching. I cannot see any other position the Church can take without entering into a contrary position to what has already been decreed by God and Jesus in the Bible.
The ban on those "living in sin" from taking communion, while it may be confusing or offensive to the ignorant makes perfect sense to a Catholic. What does not make sense is why the Church in Ireland relaxed its position on these matters.

"Bishops and priests will be instructed to preach to their congregations the unchanging central message of Jesus Christ about love, healing and repentance."

"Theologians will be expected to teach traditional doctrine by constantly preaching to lay Catholics of attendance at Mass and to return to the practice of regular confession, which has been largely abandoned by adults since the 1960s."

There are going to be problems here. What about couples who have taken partners or remarried after divorce?
Their choice while not pleasant is simple. They choose God or they choose their partner. The choose materialistic flesh or they choose the spiritual no matter how painful it may be.
If they are lucky then a first marriage or an annulment may be available to them. If not then they must follow the Churches interpretation of the the Bible. If they refuse no doubt they will be welcome in many a non-Catholic a-la-carte quasi Christian congregation should they so wish. That is their choice. If they wish to remain Catholic they have to make different choices.

I suspect much of the Indepentant article itself is constructed out of context but no matter. An Apostolic Visitation is necessary. The Church must return to traditional practice and obedience to Papal authority.
If that upsets some people then then must question themselves first as to why they should be upset by an immovable Rock.

This is Catholic issue and must be sorted the Catholic way. If that causes people to leave and form or join other communities so be it. It's not the first time and we are still here. Satan cannot prevail against this Church.
If it leads to persecution, well, we;pve been there before. If fact there probably has never been a time when the Church was not persecuted in one way or another, from without or within.

We are all called to carry our own crosses whatever that may be. Sometimes we stubble. Sometimes we fall. Sometimes we let others carry our cross for us, and many times they are unwilling but have no choice.
What ever sins you may think I have committed be assured I have done worse and contemplated worse still.What ever sins you may think I have committed be assured I have done worse and contemplated worse still.

While I have my sins to deal with, and they are many, it does no-one any good to assist another to sin by action or inaction.

I would suggest that for non-Catholics to suggest how we should conduct ourselves in dealing with our splinters they should be checking for the sectarian planks in their own eyes first.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that's the problem. The approach isn't one where the church itself is reviewed, but one where the church doesn't reform its ways to seek to be a better church than it ever was before.

What, like some other church that does not adhere to the teachings of Christ?

Mankind and humanity needs to be reformed first.

philologos

I don't see how my post could be perceived as Catholic bashing. I meant this with all sincerity:

I'd love to see the Roman Catholic Church get over this problem, and these difficulties, and move forward from this. I really really don't think this understanding will do it though.

I also recognised:

I fear in the case of the Vatican, their approach, a top down, don't ever question us (despite the fact that many in the RCC have carried out grevious sins as have others in other churches) approach, won't work. If anything was going to work, it would have been a demonstration of humility. A true acceptance that the church has truly erred, and that they are not beyond question.

Indeed, I would love to see all churches of Christ find new purpose in the truth of the Gospel.

StealthRolex wrote:

What, like some other church that does not adhere to the teachings of Christ?

Mankind and humanity needs to be reformed first.

Mankind and humanity need to seek out their God. This is also the case for people within churches.

antiskeptic brought up a good point, that sin actually might well dwell in the priesthood too, and we need churches to be transparent, not hiding away real problems. There is no point denying people the Eucharist, and other such things if we are all to realise that we have all fallen short of God's glory. It's really like throwing stones from glass houses.

We need to look within our churches and see if we are falling short as well. This means, all the way up. We should revisit grace.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

antiskeptic brought up a good point, that sin actually might well dwell in the priesthood too, and we need churches to be transparent, not hiding away real problems. There is no point denying people the Eucharist, and other such things if we are all to realise that we have all fallen short of God's glory. It's really like throwing stones from glass houses.

We need to look within our churches and see if we are falling short as well. This means, all the way up. We should revisit grace.

You mean at some point someone thought priests were ever sinless?

Priests are men. Priests are human. therefore priests are sinners, always have been and always will be. Just like any other human on this planet. Since the priesthood is started 2000 years ago it has been populated with sinners and some of the worst kind.

As for prevent people from committing sacrilege with the Eucharist - to a Catholic this is an extremely serious issue. Fair enough you do not subscribe to this or believe what we believe but if you accept that we believe what we believe then you must accept that it is a rule that must be enforced.

You might like to present it as throwing stones in glass houses but that just shows how much you either do not understand or are refusing to understand.

As for falling short - no-one is even close. We all fall so far short it is almost impossible to believe anyone can be saved. We, Catholics anyway, don't need to see if we are falling short. We know we are the most pitiful sinners every to grace Gods good Earth.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

What, like some other church that does not adhere to the teachings of Christ?

Mankind and humanity needs to be reformed first.

The issue Jackass is attempting to point out is that the church is made up of members of mankind and humanity who need to accept that reform belongs as much with them (if not more so) than anywhere else.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue Jackass is attempting to point out is that the church is made up of members of mankind and humanity who need to accept that reform belongs as much with them (if not more so) than anywhere else.

Then he should have said "the members of the Church need to reform" and not that "the Church needs to reform" if that is what he meant.

We've seen one Reformation and we know what that brings.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Then he should have said "the members of the Church need to reform" and not that "the Church needs to reform" if that is what he meant.

We've seen one Reformation and we know what that brings.

The church is a body of believers, the ecclesia.

As for the Reformation, I'm perhaps just a touch biased (:p) but I consider it one of the most important stages in Christian history.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

In terms of embarrassment I meant it in the true meaning of the word - to block or bar. It may be disconcerting to hear the priest mention a situation that affects you and remind the congregation that participation in such cases is limited. It may cause shame to be felt. But this is Ireland the most likely feeling would be defiant beligerence.

It then becomes embarrassing if you go to the alter to defy the priest and the laws of God and then find yourself barred from receiving the host.

Like I say, this concentration on ourward sin seems to miss the point. It seeks to arm-twist the person into conforming - which completely misses the spirit of what Christ was doing.

As for God's law? I'm not sure that a person is disbarred from breaking bread because of ongoing sin. If that were the case then none should involve themselves in it.

Do you not understand that it is a sin to assist in anothers sin?

Why not bar them from the church altogether? Are you not assisting them in that way. Why hear their confession before they elect to regulate their affairs?

Christ forbids remarriage after divorce. Christ forbids fornication.

...and understands that we are sinners. You concentrate only on the Law and forget about grace. It's not either or you know - there is a tension to be found when finding yourself between the two. That tension is what aims to regulate you - not legalistic strong arming.

A priest cannot assist anyone in this situation to commit further sacrilege. If you do not understand this you should not comment until you do. This is not just a Catholic thing it is a Christian thing.

Legalism might well be a part of Catholicism - indeed, I'd hold that it majors on it. But it is not, to my mind, a Christian thing. Not in the least.

The Church cannot on one hand say it is a sacrilege to take communion while being in a state of grave sin and then have its ministers, ordinaryor extraordinary, assist in the commission of further sins and sacrilege.

"Priests will be told not to question in public official church teaching on controversial issues such as the papal ban on birth control or the admission of divorced Catholics living with new partners to the sacraments -- especially Holy Communion."

Question: how does the church deal with the fact that this edict only catches visible sin. If leaving the unseen sin of others to the persons conscience, why not do the same here?

We cannot argue with this. While you may not agree that artificial birth control is an intrinsic evil, I do and I accept the Churches teaching. I cannot see any other position the Church can take without entering into a contrary position to what has already been decreed by God and Jesus in the Bible.

You'll forgive my holding Jesus not teaching any such thing.

The ban on those "living in sin" from taking communion, while it may be confusing or offensive to the ignorant makes perfect sense to a Catholic. What does not make sense is why the Church in Ireland relaxed its position on these matters.

"Bishops and priests will be instructed to preach to their congregations the unchanging central message of Jesus Christ about love, healing and repentance."

I notices you didn't highlight love. Why is that? Is it that it's inclusion is problematic for an argument which concentrates on the upholding of Law and ignores the place of love?

"Theologians will be expected to teach traditional doctrine by constantly preaching to lay Catholics of attendance at Mass and to return to the practice of regular confession, which has been largely abandoned by adults since the 1960s."

Like I say, you could disbar people from confession if they persist in sin.

There are going to be problems here. What about couples who have taken partners or remarried after divorce?

Their choice while not pleasant is simple. They choose God or they choose their partner. The choose materialistic flesh or they choose the spiritual no matter how painful it may be.

If they are lucky then a first marriage or an annulment may be available to them. If not then they must follow the Churches interpretation of the the Bible. If they refuse no doubt they will be welcome in many a non-Catholic a-la-carte quasi Christian congregation should they so wish. That is their choice. If they wish to remain Catholic they have to make different choices.

Could you point to one iota of grace in anything you say. Just one.

I suspect much of the Indepentant article itself is constructed out of context but no matter. An Apostolic Visitation is necessary. The Church must return to traditional practice and obedience to Papal authority.
If that upsets some people then then must question themselves first as to why they should be upset by an immovable Rock.

I think you'll find that people will just walk around it and leave. The immovable rock will be left behind. Unmoving.

We are all called to carry our own crosses whatever that may be. Sometimes we stubble. Sometimes we fall. Sometimes we let others carry our cross for us, and many times they are unwilling but have no choice.
What ever sins you may think I have committed be assured I have done worse and contemplated worse still.

While I have my sins to deal with, and they are many, it does no-one any good to assist another to sin by action or inaction.

But what your suggesting is that you are left to deal with your sins privately/confessionally - simply because they are invisible to others. And those whose sin happens to be visible are subjected to em-barring action.

Woud it not be fairer that the priest insist that everyone in the congregation stand and admit to habitual sin that would dis-bar them from communion?

I would suggest that for non-Catholics to suggest how we should conduct ourselves in dealing with our splinters they should be checking for the sectarian planks in their own eyes first.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Perhaps you could suggest something?

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

The church is a body of believers, the ecclesia.

As for the Reformation, I'm perhaps just a touch biased (:p) but I consider it one of the most important stages in Christian history.

Anything that starts a blood-bath is important in human history

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Perhaps you could suggest something?

Yes. Stop listening to Satans lies.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Anything that starts a blood-bath is important in human history

Theologically, alone, it is a highly crucial development in how we understood our Christianity.

Are you suggesting that the church didn't need to reform? Paid indulgences, nepotism, simony and so on?

Death of course is regrettable, but I'm fairly sure that the Reformers never intended for it to result in war as it did.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

Theologically, alone, it is a highly crucial development in how we understood our Christianity.

Of course. Some people decided that certain bits of the Bible were inconvenient and so ignored them using their beef with Rome as a catalyst.

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the church didn't need to reform? Paid indulgences, nepotism, simony and so on?

Is this going on today? No.

Did the protesters rejoin once it was sorted? No, and why did they not? because they got comfortable with their new man made religon.

Jakkass wrote: »

Death of course is regrettable, but I'm fairly sure that the Reformers never intended for it to result in war as it did.

Maybe not but it happened and it is still going on today. Thanks for the reformation mate. Thanks a lot.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

Yes. Stop listening to Satans lies.

I'm querying the rational behind the position you're defending.

!) Your desiring that visible sin attract uber-attention whilst invisible sin be left to one's own conscience

2) Your concentrating on Law to the total exclusion of Grace.


I see these as issues elaborated upon by Jesus - at length.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

Maybe not but it happened and it is still going on today. Thanks for the reformation mate. Thanks a lot.

Where?

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm querying the rational behind the position you're defending.

!) Your desiring that visible sin attract uber-attention whilst invisible sin be left to one's own conscience

2) Your concentrating on Law to the total exclusion of Grace.


I see these as issues elaborated upon by Jesus - at length.

With regards to 1) or !) I have not anywhere suggested that invisible sin be left to ones conscience. If I have then point it out.
Nor have I suggested uber-attention. I said the priests need to do what they are required to do. Teach the congregation about sin and prevent people committing sacrilege.

2) and you are concentrating on lying and belittling the beliefs of others. Abusing the real body of Christ is not acceptable.

philologos

I won't bring the thread completely OT and discuss the Reformation at length, it's something that fascinates me personally.

The point of this thread is whether or not the Vatican's plan is really all that good. I think it is due to fail if the emphasis is going to be on the congregations rather than on the churches rethinking how they actually do things.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

With regards to 1) or !) I have not anywhere suggested that invisible sin be left to ones conscience. If I have then point it out.
Nor have I suggested uber-attention. I said the priests need to do what they are required to do. Teach the congregation about sin and prevent people committing sacrilege.

My apologies if mis-construing how it was your invisible sin be dealt with. You seemed to imply it was something that you yourself had to deal with.

So, given that the difference between grave sin a) and grave sin b) can be expected to involve visibility, how do you suggest things progress? Because the method posed for dealing with sacrilege appears weighted towards outward appearances only.

2) and you are concentrating on lying and belittling the beliefs of others. Abusing the real body of Christ is not acceptable.

I was mistaken - rather than lying. But the jist should be clear now. The rationale behind the focus on visible sin.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

My apologies if mis-construing how it was your invisible sin be dealt with. You seemed to imply it was something that you yourself had to deal with.

So, given that the difference between grave sin a) and grave sin b) can be expected to involve visibility, how do you suggest things progress? Because the method posed for dealing with sacrilege appears weighted towards outward appearances only.

Accepted.

Everyone is or should be aware of their own sins. Anyone who knows they are in grave sin knows they cannot take communion until they have been to confession. That's the way it works. The priest won't know in some cases but that does not negate the fact that sacrilege was committed. It may only rest on the individual if it is a private matter and unknown to the priest.

The priests need to encourage people to go to confession regularly. There is a problem with those who are living in sin and who refuse to sort it out and they should not be presenting themselves for communion. If the priest does what he is supposed to do they will get the message but they are forcing the priests hand if they go to the altar to a priest who knows the situation.
The problem currently maybe that some priests are too embarrassed to refuse them. This has to change. If it was not the real presence but something symbolic it would not matter, but it is the Real Presence and it does matter. They must be refused until they are no longer in grave sin. Refusing them access to the Mass or naming from the alter is not part of what should be done though I agree that in the past there were too many unchristian priests about. The Mass scene in the Field may or may not be genuine but I can imagine some priests being like that and that is not the right way to go about things either. A quiet discreet refusal at the altar is sufficient.

It is not the case that it is weighted against outward appearances only. It is the case that particular sacrileges are being committed with the assistance of the clergy. And this is only one example. There are others - communion in the hand, extraordinary ministers - not only their presence but also their behaviour, the way some prayers are said at mass, the abdication of priestly responsibility - the list is growing all the time.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was mistaken - rather than lying. But the jist should be clear now. The rationale behind the focus on visible sin.

Ok, if there is misunderstanding or I am not clear please ask if this is what I mean. Catholicism is frequently painted in dark colours out of misunderstanding and misrepresentation which is painful for all concerned.

The focus is not on visible sin. The focus is on living a truly Christian life in accordance with the Commandments and the teachings of Jesus. In some cases there will be people who present themselves as boastful sinners, if you will, and in such cases there are limits as to how these can be dealt with. There are also ways this can be dealt with. Some people may not like it but them's the breaks. There is no place for liberalism in the Church.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

Anything that starts a blood-bath is important in human history

Now,now, let's have a bit of historical balance.

The reformation didn't need to result in a bloodbath, but the Roman Catholic Church at the time (and for several centuries previously) had a rather unpleasant habit of burning alive anyone who disagreed with them.

Luther had political support and protection, so war ensued. Jan Hus had no such support or protection and was naive enough to believe the promises of safe passage to the Council of Constance - so there was no bloodbath, merely one execution.

The sight of princes and other political figures fighting in the name of religion was certainly an unedifying spectacle, but without their involvement its difficult to see how Luther or Calvin could have avoided the fate of Hus and Tyndale.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I won't bring the thread completely OT and discuss the Reformation at length, it's something that fascinates me personally.

Fair enough. It fascinates me too but maybe for different reasons.

Jakkass wrote: »

The point of this thread is whether or not the Vatican's plan is really all that good. I think it is due to fail if the emphasis is going to be on the congregations rather than on the churches rethinking how they actually do things.

Ok and my point is to support the Church in its effort in getting back to basics. I think it will fail if it doesn't go far enough but for now it is a start.
The focus is not on the congregation but on how the clergy deal with and interact with the congregation. I agree that if it does focus on the congregation it will fail. There are far too many Fr. Dougals about. Not stupid but too hip and relaxed. No leaders and few with courage.
Jesus sat with sinners, admonished those who needed it, embarrassed those who were boastful, forgave those with faith and constantly urged the forgiven not to sin again.

You may disagree with the aspects of not questioning the Pope but this is covered in "obedience". The fall of Adam and Eve was caused by disobedience and it is clear that the fall of the Irish Catholic Church was caused by disobedience, first by the Clergy and then by the congregation who saw exploitable weakness. Or maybe it was the other way around.

You may disagree with some people falling foul of the rules but just as in Jesus time it is their own fault for being boastful or parading their sins and refusing to give them up.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

Now,now, let's have a bit of historical balance.

The reformation didn't need to result in a bloodbath, but the Roman Catholic Church at the time (and for several centuries previously) had a rather unpleasant habit of burning alive anyone who disagreed with them.

Luther had political support and protection, so war ensued. Jan Hus had no such support or protection and was naive enough to believe the promises of safe passage to the Council of Constance - so there was no bloodbath, merely one execution.

The sight of princes and other political figures fighting in the name of religion was certainly an unedifying spectacle, but without their involvement its difficult to see how Luther or Calvin could have avoided the fate of Hus and Tyndale.

I was thinking more along the lines of Cromwell, Bloody Mary, the various English Civil Wars and countless other issues not the least being the Ulster Plantation and its consequences which without the Reformation would have led for slightly more boring history lessons.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

StealthRolex

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So?

smurfhousing

My ten cents:

We need to forget about 'Irish Catholicism'. There is no such thing. Let the rotten edifices crumble down (to use Dawkins term). The priestly scandal is the tip of the iceberg and is, imho, the just desserts for a long term corruption and hypocrisy. As painful and destructive as its been, this evil can give rise to great good, which is what Pope Benedict has been saying recently. Those who dissented and defiled the true faith, in rejecting faith and morals, have been revealed in their rotten, foul-smelling stench of sin and death. Let us embrace the universal Catholic Faith in all its fullness. Clean up parishes and dioceses of corruption and dissent. Clear out Maynooth. If it can't be cleared out, close it down. The Tesco example somebody used earlier is apt. I use a similar analogy with fast food outlets. Then we can have a stronger, faithful, purer Church that will truly be the light of the world, as Cardinal Ratzinger predicted in the 1970s. I say all this as a faithful Catholic who loves the Church. I think it is a very exciting time to be Catholic!

The Church is Ireland lost its salt a long time ago. And what use is that, tell me?

The Apostolic Visitation is the first step on the way to a major clean-out. All the Catholics I know are pleased and welcome it with open arms.

lmaopml

I think, to be honest as I alluded to earlier that the article itself is a bit of a 'red herring' and open to 'debate', ( congrats to the indo who never fail to spin ) because of it's wishy washy journalism. We will have to wait and see what transpires methinks...

It's better that some 'action' is taken I think we can all agree rather than 'none'....and I think some action is required and long overdue...

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

I was thinking more along the lines of Cromwell, Bloody Mary, the various English Civil Wars and countless other issues not the least being the Ulster Plantation and its consequences which without the Reformation would have led for slightly more boring history lessons.

What you're saying is that if there were no Reformation then there would be no deaths arising as a result of the Reformation?

Couldn't we apply that same logic to Britains declaration of war against Nazi Germany arising from the latters' invasion of Poland? If there had been no declaration of war, there wouldn't have been any deaths arising as a result of that declaration?

You do think it was correct that Britain declared war on Nazi Germany though, don't you?

smurfhousing

StealthRolex wrote: »

I've just noticed that no-one is bothered about my comments on the lay ministers.

I guess there are too many embarrassing sins that might be discussed if the Catholic Church returns to traditional values and I really don't know why this would bother the liberal Christians out there.

Get rid of them. Bring them in only when the circumstances are extraordinary.

We have so lost the sense of sacredness and reverence. Altar rails, kneeling, all that stuff was got rid of by modernists to undermine faith. It worked.

Let's hope the new Mass translation makes some improvement. Hmm...

Jakkass wrote: »

Theologically, alone, it is a highly crucial development in how we understood our Christianity.

Are you suggesting that the church didn't need to reform? Paid indulgences, nepotism, simony and so on?

Death of course is regrettable, but I'm fairly sure that the Reformers never intended for it to result in war as it did.

Luther forsook chastity. He disregarded his own vows to Almighty God and went off with a nun. The abuses that did take place were corrected internally during the counter-reformation. It is sad. The abuses resulted in the reformation. They provided the excuse for Luther et al. But Luther himself was deeply troubled (he suffered from scruples, probably OCD, and was constipated) so he needed a new theology to cope with his condition. Luther was also used by among others German princes who resented funds going to Rome. God did not desire the protestant 'reformation'. It was the result of human sin. It tore the Body of Christ. It was and is very sad.

antiskeptic

smurfhousing wrote: »

Luther forsook chastity. He disregarded his own vows to Almighty God and went off with a nun.

You mean he sinned?

The abuses that did take place were corrected internally during the counter-reformation.

A case of closing the door after the horse had bolted.

Are you familiar with Revenue? If you are found telling little fibs on your tax return, you get Revenue down on you like a tonne of bricks looking into every little detail of your financial life by way of a tax audit.

This is what appears to have occurred to the Roman Church - the blatant corruption on the surface of their activities got Luther poking around undernneath. And what he found there exploded the Church.

Humpty Dumpty...

It is sad. The abuses resulted in the reformation.

It's great!

They provided the excuse for Luther et al. But Luther himself was deeply troubled (he suffered from scruples, probably OCD, and was constipated) so he needed a new theology to cope with his condition.

Good grief! I take it this isn't what passes for Catholic Apologetics

Luther was also used by among others German princes who resented funds going to Rome.

Rome was corrupt. Wouldn't you resent paying money to a corrupt church? Let me ask you: which part of the church which engaged in corrupt practices cleared out the corrupt practices. Did heads roll or did the poacher turn gamekeeper?

God did not desire the protestant 'reformation'.

Souce?

It was the result of human sin.

Indeed - sin in the body of Christ @ Rome.

smurfhousing

antiskeptic wrote: »

You mean he sinned?

A case of closing the door after the horse had bolted.

Are you familiar with Revenue? If you are found telling little fibs on your tax return, you get Revenue down on you like a tonne of bricks looking into every little detail of your financial life by way of a tax audit.

Good grief! I take it this isn't what passes for Catholic Apologetics

Rome was corrupt. Wouldn't you resent paying money to a corrupt church? Let me ask you: which part of the church which engaged in corrupt practices cleared out the corrupt practices. Did heads roll or did the poacher turn gamekeeper?

Indeed - sin in the body of Christ @ Rome.

Luther did most of his theology thinking on the toilet. He also composed his diatribes against the Pope using toilet language. Like I said, he suffered from constipation. The Lord said weeds and wheat would grow up inside the visible Church until the end of time. There was corruption then (even at the start, with Judas) and there is corruption now.

He also went off with a nun. Luther was tortured with scruples. He lacked a proper understanding of the Catholic faith, allied to his own emotional instability. This led to his need for a new theology which let him off the hook and he further drifted into sin. He could sin but not worry too much about it. Suffice to say, I wouldn't take Luther as a spiritual guide. That's not to say he got everything wrong, but he got a lot wrong, and this is critical. If Luther had been a great reformer, he would have done what all the great Catholic reformers did: effect change inside the Church, the Body of Christ. Instead, Luther broke off from the Church and scuppered the Lord's prayer that they all be one.

The corruption Luther found in the members of the Church only mirrored the corruption in his own soul. I mean, we are all corrupt, which is why we need a saviour. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for the perfect. I'm not being sore on Luther. I actually have quite a lot in common with him (apart from the constipation), but the solution is not to be found by doing what he did.

Clurichaun

I agree with The Smurf.

Luther lived a toilet-based life - it was his room of preference and living in this confined outhouse for so much of his life must have had grave effects on his theology, not least his appetite for nun-marrying. While in public, he respectfully disagreed with the Holy Catholic Church, in private, his obsession with Papal hat wearing was well known and widely condemned. Had this heretic dared to wear the Sacred Hat of His Popeliness in public, I am sure a passing mob would have taken him to the Deserved Stake, causing an agonizing death, made all the more so his distance from his Beloved Latrine.

lmaopml

Ahh the 'love' and quality banter, I'm really feeling it....

...That's it I'm ditching 'independant.ie'...


..dance puppets dance is all they're short of with the quality journalism..:p

Clurichaun

Back in my day, they'd have sent a whole Inquisition team consisting of 250 men, fully prepared to battle the heretics to the Blessed Stake.

lmaopml

goat2, 'who' did they learn it 'from'?.....*drum roll*

...and what else do those mysteriously informed cloak and dagger insider Catholic guys know? or are we being told the 'beefy' bit? or are we being told what Mary said outside mass last Sunday....:cool:



I give up!

antiskeptic

smurfhousing wrote: »

Luther did most of his theology thinking on the toilet.

The only one who could possibly know that is Luther himself. Quotes please - from the man.

Besides, I can think of someone who did his most significant theological thinking whilst hanging as a common criminal on a cross beside Christ.

He also composed his diatribes against the Pope using toilet language.

You've agreed that this pope presided over a corrupt system. So wouldn't you agree that Luther was fighting filth with filth (I'm assuming you're correct here by the way: you've not actually substantiated your claim with quotes here either)

Like I said, he suffered from constipation.

Significance?

The Lord said weeds and wheat would grow up inside the visible Church until the end of time. There was corruption then (even at the start, with Judas) and there is corruption now.

I agree. Luther agreed.

He also went off with a nun.

What's wrong about a man going off with a women. Unless it wasn't his wife. In which case you're pointing the finger at a sinner - of which you are one, I take it?

Luther was tortured with scruples.

Blessed are the poor in spirit - for theirs is the Kingdom of God. Did you ever read the man at the end of Romans 7 - he's tortured by scruples too. And is saved because of it.

He lacked a proper understanding of the Catholic faith

He could see it was corrupt. You see it was corrupt. It's just that you differ on the extent of the corruption. Assuming for a moment that salvation is indeed by faith without works then the Roman Catholic church then, in promulgating a works salvation in most gross fashion, was involved in High Treason.

I'm not convinced (as the thread on the subject in this forum is pointing out) that the Roman Church has changed it's stance on this issue. Ridding the church of gross forms of works (such as indulgences) is only surface dressing for a deep seated rot (assuming salvation isn't by works)

..allied to his own emotional instability.

neutral sources?

This led to his need for a new theology which let him off the hook and he further drifted into sin. He could sin but not worry too much about it.

The fact that I remain my fathers son no matter what I do doesn't let me off the hook in offending him. I do reap consequences. Whether that father is an earthly one or a heavenly one.

In the case of the heavenly one, those consequences don't include loss of salvation s'all. It doesn't mean I have nothing to worry about.

Suffice to say, I wouldn't take Luther as a spiritual guide.

In part thanks to Luther, I can take the Bible as my spiritual guide. Not a bunch of men who proclaim that they are my spiritual guide. And the basis for their claiming so? Their claiming so.

Circular?

That's not to say he got everything wrong, but he got a lot wrong, and this is critical. If Luther had been a great reformer, he would have done what all the great Catholic reformers did: effect change inside the Church, the Body of Christ. Instead, Luther broke off from the Church and scuppered the Lord's prayer that they all be one.

Alternatively, the Roman Church left the body of Christ and Luther, in cleaving from it, returned to the body. You're presuming the Roman Church is the body in need of reformation. It could be also a branch cut off - logically speaking.

The corruption Luther found in the members of the Church only mirrored the corruption in his own soul. I mean, we are all corrupt, which is why we need a saviour.

Indeed: Luther recognises that and I recognise that and you recognise that. The prime difference Luther realised was that man didn't have to work for his salvation.

The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for the perfect. I'm not being sore on Luther. I actually have quite a lot in common with him (apart from the constipation), but the solution is not to be found by doing what he did.

IF the blatant corruption in the Roman Church then was but a outward manifestation of a more insidious corruption within (that is the way corruption tends to be btw: the corrupt get so cocky and arrogant and drunk on power that they step way over the boundary and reveal their hand to all) THEN what he did would actually be God's cutting away of the church.

The only question is: is Roman teaching corrupt? If so then God used Luther dramatically. If not then you are correct.

Luther was a scoundrel in many ways - but then again the men God uses (and hangs with, and saves) tend to be scoundrels. Moses the murderer? David the adultering murderer?

This scoundrels legacy, like those scoundrels legacy is of momentous import:

- salvation by works of the law (which will differ from Religion to Religion)
- salvation by God's grace alone

The choice couldn't be more stark. The significance cannot be easily dismissed.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

What you're saying is that if there were no Reformation then there would be no deaths arising as a result of the Reformation?

Couldn't we apply that same logic to Britains declaration of war against Nazi Germany arising from the latters' invasion of Poland? If there had been no declaration of war, there wouldn't have been any deaths arising as a result of that declaration?

You do think it was correct that Britain declared war on Nazi Germany though, don't you?

I'm not sure that is a fair comparision.

The Reformation pitted Christian against Christian over a difference of theological opinion. Yes there was a case to be answered regarding indulgences but splitting the Church caused more problems than it solved and that's without looking at Henry VIII's petty foibles.

Hitler wanted to bring Nazi Totalitarianism and the Jewish Holocaust as far as he could across the world.

I really can't see how the two are in any way comparable.

philologos

StealthRolex: Sometimes people need to call out corruption. The Reformers did that. In Germany it was Luther, in Britain it was Tyndale, Cranmer, Knox and so on. In France it was Calvin.

These people didn't intend for violence, they intended to reform the church and bring it back to where Christ had started, rather than the pomp and circumstance it had began to exhibit.

By the by, you are clearly misunderstanding the English Reformation if you say that it is only about Henry VIII's divorce.

You're also blaming the Reformation for a war that was instigated because people didn't like reform. smurfhousing mentioned the Counter-Reformation, but would a Counter-Reformation have ever happened without the Reformation itself? Indeed, the Counter-Reformation is highly questionable due to the persecution it brought amongst many who didn't share Catholic beliefs in Europe leading to the Inquisition.

StealthRolex

lmaopml wrote: »

I think, to be honest as I alluded to earlier that the article itself is a bit of a 'red herring' and open to 'debate', ( congrats to the indo who never fail to spin ) because of it's wishy washy journalism. We will have to wait and see what transpires methinks...

It's better that some 'action' is taken I think we can all agree rather than 'none'....and I think some action is required and long overdue...

It is interesting to note that the indo "learned" of this and quoted no official sources. Filling up space and fomenting dissent? Maybe Gezza K was sending them mis-information.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

StealthRolex: Sometimes people need to call out corruption. The Reformers did that. In Germany it was Luther, in Britain it was Tyndale, Cranmer, Knox and so on. In France it was Calvin.

These people didn't intend for violence, they intended to reform the church and bring it back to where Christ had started, rather than the pomp and circumstance it had began to exhibit.

By the by, you are clearly misunderstanding the English Reformation if you say that it is only about Henry VIII's divorce.

You're also blaming the Reformation for a war that was instigated because people didn't like reform. smurfhousing mentioned the Counter-Reformation, but would a Counter-Reformation have ever happened without the Reformation itself? Indeed, the Counter-Reformation is highly questionable due to the persecution it brought amongst many who didn't share Catholic beliefs in Europe leading to the Inquisition.

I believe I said "petty foibles" and you decided this translates to to me saying "divorce". Show me where I said divorce or stop accusing me of saying things I didn't say.

Yes corruption needs to be called out. The end result was a split in Christianity and threads headed off in different directions, a number of which later gave rise to sectarian tiffs.
What I am suggesting is that while corruption needs to be called and dealt with the reformation resulted in something worse than what it set out to resolve.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'm not sure that is a fair comparision.

I'll explain more later. In any case, it was intended to illustrate the illogic of suggesting that potential bloodspiilling is a reason not to take action against what one sees as wrong/evil.

The Reformation pitted Christian against Christian over a difference of theological opinion. Yes there was a case to be answered regarding indulgences but splitting the Church caused more problems than it solved and that's without looking at Henry VIII's petty foibles.

There was a case to be answered regarding something far more fundamental than 'indulgences'. That that case: salvation by faith alone vs. salvation involving works rages today is evidence sufficient of that - although thankfully, blood isn't usually spilt over it now.

Benefits lie in the eye of the beholder. Today we have a situation where the gospel of salvation by faith is being promulgated far and wide by an zealously evangelical Christianity. If you were of the opinion that that gospel is the gospel of God, then the split was a monumental thing - irrespective of the blood spilt (given that folks access to a saving gospel is far more important than even peoples blood spilt)

It depends on your perspective on the gospel. If you see it as corrupted and suppressed by the Roman Church, as Luther did, then you are duty-bound to resist Rome. Christianity was born in blood and is build on the bodies of martyrs defending what they see as the truth.

Could you explain what would be different here - assuming for a moment that Luther had it right.

Hitler wanted to bring Nazi Totalitarianism and the Jewish Holocaust as far as he could across the world.

Didn't Rome desire the spreading of it's gospel across the world, which, if not the gospel of God. is far worse than anything Hitler countenanced.

I'm not suggesting you take offence here, I'm pointing out the logic and rationality of the action taken - given the view of Roman Catholicism held by the Reformants.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

I believe I said "petty foibles" and you decided this translates to to me saying "divorce". Show me where I said divorce or stop accusing me of saying things I didn't say.

I can't see what else you are referring to.

The English Reformation was happening before Henry VIII split with Rome. People were protesting in the churches because the Bible was not made available to them in the vernacular. When English Bibles were made, they had to be written in the Netherlands and shipped back over. When the church authorities realised that this was happening Tyndale, the man who had translated them was burned to the stake on arriving to England. Cranmer during Queen Mary's reign refused to apologise for his stance during the Reformation and was burned alive for doing so.

Forgive me for respecting such courage, to improve the church as we know it today.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Yes corruption needs to be called out. The end result was a split in Christianity and threads headed off in different directions, a number of which later gave rise to sectarian tiffs.
What I am suggesting is that while corruption needs to be called and dealt with the reformation resulted in something worse than what it set out to resolve.

Luther called out the church for corruption. The church refused to listen. Other German leaders agreed with him and one gave him safeguard to carry out his work. This resulted in a war.

How is this Luther's fault?

The same is true for other Reformers in most cases.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't see what else you are referring to.

Henry Tudors divorce was but one element. The end game was Royal Supremacy and usurping the position head of the Church for political reasons and denying Rome any theological or temporal authority in England.

Jakkass wrote: »

The English Reformation was happening before Henry VIII split with Rome. People were protesting in the churches because the Bible was not made available to them in the vernacular. When English Bibles were made, they had to be written in the Netherlands and shipped back over. When the church authorities realised that this was happening Tyndale, the man who had translated them was burned to the stake on arriving to England. Cranmer during Queen Mary's reign refused to apologise for his stance during the Reformation and was burned alive for doing so.

Forgive me for respecting such courage, to improve the church as we know it today.

So do you have an improved Church? When women priests where authorised the dissenters returned to Catholicism. When gay issues come up more dissenters returned to Catholicism. Every "politically correct" step taken "forward" seems to result in more returning to Catholicism either from the ranks or the congregation.

Jakkass wrote: »

Luther called out the church for corruption. The church refused to listen. Other German leaders agreed with him and one gave him safeguard to carry out his work. This resulted in a war.

How is this Luther's fault?

That is not all he did.
He opposed papal authority for reasons other than indulgences but used this particular corruption to spread theological errors and heresy.

Jakkass wrote: »

The same is true for other Reformers in most cases.

Indeed. They all had a gripe with the Church and rather than live with it or find a valid theological argument they went off and started their own wee church.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Henry Tudors divorce was but one element. The end game was Royal Supremacy and usurping the position head of the Church for political reasons and denying Rome any theological or temporal authority in England.

I think you need to brush up on your knowledge of the Reformation.

StealthRolex wrote: »

So do you have an improved Church? When women priests where authorised the dissenters returned to Catholicism. When gay issues come up more dissenters returned to Catholicism. Every "politically correct" step taken "forward" seems to result in more returning to Catholicism either from the ranks or the congregation.

Yes, I believe the Christian church is improved by the Reformation. We are able to have a far better understanding by reading the Scriptures in our own language than we were ever able to do without it.

As for disagreements, sure. They happen. We have to try and work them out as best as we can as a community together.

As for people returning to Catholicism, they aren't the only ones who disagree with some of the changes that have occurred in Anglicanism (one Protestant denomination) many who would be more Reformed disagree with what more liberal minded people have done in the church.

I still believe in spite of this that the Reformation was much more positive than negative.

StealthRolex wrote: »

That is not all he did.
He opposed papal authority for reasons other than indulgences but used this particular corruption to spread theological errors and heresy.

I think such opposition was valid. I don't believe that they were theological errors either. I believe that he had corrected misunderstandings that had seeped into the church between the time of Jesus and the Reformation. We all need to examine our own churches and make sure that such misunderstandings don't seep in either.

That's what I find lacking about the Apostolic Visitation based on this article. It seems more interested in changing the congregation rather than clearing out the misunderstandings that many have in the church leadership.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Indeed. They all had a gripe with the Church and rather than live with it or find a valid theological argument they went off and started their own wee church.

They had a reasonable objection to corruption. They wanted the church hierarchy to change, the church wouldn't listen, so they formed their own churches.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

Henry Tudors divorce was but one element. The end game was Royal Supremacy and usurping the position head of the Church for political reasons and denying Rome any theological or temporal authority in England.

But isn't that the history of God's dealing with man? Political machinations of men are utilised by God for his purposes. Consider Roman rule over Jerusalem utilised to bring about the crucifixion.

That there is a political backdrop is part and parcel with God's dealing with mankind.

So do you have an improved Church? When women priests where authorised the dissenters returned to Catholicism. When gay issues come up more dissenters returned to Catholicism. Every "politically correct" step taken "forward" seems to result in more returning to Catholicism either from the ranks or the congregation.

You're talking about liberalism in a small segment of the overall body. And an even smaller segment doing any relocating - some of which end up in the Catholic church.

By the way: you only return to something you left. A Protestant turning to the Catholic church isn't "returning". He's turning.

A small semantical point.

That is not all he did. He opposed papal authority for reasons other than indulgences but used this particular corruption to spread theological errors and heresy.

That's kind of begging the question. If your opponant doesn't see by faith alone as a heresy then there's little point in claiming higher ground with such language.

Indeed. They all had a gripe with the Church and rather than live with it or find a valid theological argument they went off and started their own wee church.

By faith alone is a valid theological argument. Compellingly so for many it would appear.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

That's what I find lacking about the Apostolic Visitation based on this article. It seems more interested in changing the congregation rather than clearing out the misunderstandings that many have in the church leadership.

What I find interesting about the responses based on this article is that we are all responding to a work of fiction.
I also find it interesting that you suggest the focus is on the congregation where the article itself suggests that the focus is on the clergy.
If you cannot cite the OP without resorting to misrepresentation how can anyone accept you have a valid understanding of the Reformation.

Jakkass wrote: »

They had a reasonable objection to corruption. They wanted the church hierarchy to change, the church wouldn't listen, so they formed their own churches.

Aye, their own man made churches based on a fictitious god.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

What I find interesting about the responses based on this article is that we are all responding to a work of fiction.
I also find it interesting that you suggest the focus is on the congregation where the article itself suggests that the focus is on the clergy.
If you cannot cite the OP without resorting to misrepresentation how can anyone accept you have a valid understanding of the Reformation.

It speaks of "reimposing" respect for the clergy on the congregations in the article. Read these pieces in particular:

VATICAN investigators to Ireland appointed by Pope Benedict XVI are to clamp down on liberal secular opinion in an intensive drive to re-impose traditional respect for clergy, according to informed sources in the Catholic Church

A major thrust of the Vatican investigation will be to counteract materialistic and secularist attitudes, which Pope Benedict believes have led many Irish Catholics to ignore church disciplines and become lax in following devotional practices such as going on pilgrimages and doing penance.

Theologians will be expected to teach traditional doctrine by constantly preaching to lay Catholics of attendance at Mass and to return to the practice of regular confession, which has been largely abandoned by adults since the 1960s.

In context, a lot of this if not most is referring to the congregation.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Aye, their own man made churches based on a fictitious god.

Interesting, so antiskeptic, I and others aren't believing in the same God as you?

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

It speaks of "reimposing" respect for the clergy on the congregations in the article. Read these pieces in particular:

I don't see "reimposing" there. I think it is your interpretation that is in error.
Something you learned from Luther perhaps?

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting, so antiskeptic, I and others aren't believing in the same God as you?

If you say so.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

I don't see "reimposing" there. I think it is your interpretation that is in error.
Something you learned from Luther perhaps?

Read the quotation from the article I provided in my post.

StealthRolex wrote: »

If you say so.

I'm finding it difficult as to how you come to that conclusion if you do. I believe in Jesus Christ pretty much as you do, I also believe in divine revelation through the prophets.

The only difference between you and I is that I question the nature of the institution of the church, what way it should be, and how best we practice. I've not questioned your salvation, or your belief in Jesus once.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

Read the quotation from the article I provided in my post.

I did but I disliked the contextuality you imposed. However given that for all we know it is a work of fiction it is a moot point.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm finding it difficult as to how you come to that conclusion if you do. I believe in Jesus Christ pretty much as you do, I also believe in divine revelation through the prophets.

The only difference between you and I is that I question the nature of the institution of the church, what way it should be, and how best we practice. I've not questioned your salvation, or your belief in Jesus once.

For what I gather, and this is but one example, your God and your Jesus allows you to divorce and remarry. I can find no Biblical support for this. Just cause divorce, yes; remarriage while ones first spouse is still alive, no. Hence one must conclude that you believe in something completely different or are using a completely erroneous Biblical translation.

Fanny Cradock

StealthRolex wrote: »

For what I gather, and this is but one example, your God and your Jesus allows you to divorce and remarry. I can find no Biblical support for this. Just cause divorce, yes; remarriage while ones first spouse is still alive, no. Hence one must conclude that you believe in something completely different or are using a completely erroneous Biblical translation.

Burn those bridges!

StealthRolex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Burn those bridges!

Indeed, marriage is all about burning bridges. Burning the bridge to single life and burning the bridge to marrying anyone else.