White smoke coming from the Sistine Chapel!
White smoke coming from the Sistine Chapel!
Originally Posted by Come Back to NY
edited cause the news don't know what they are doing!
Bells now ringing to confirm new Pope...
Originally Posted by jets5ever
The liberals in America just suffered another defeat.....
May God guide and protect him.
Originally Posted by Come Back to NY
If only it was that simple. From his writings, his bottom line seems to be "its nice that you have your make believe religion, but mine is the One True Religion". Not exactly the best ecumenical ambasaador we could have hoped for.
Then there's the very problem of a priest shortage: I'm pretty conservative, but the last 2-3 years I've believed that now is the time to open a discussion on married priests and female priests. There' s no way this is going to be even discussed now.
Originally Posted by quantum
Quantum- are you in NY? Listen to the reports on WCBS Radio 880!
These people really wanted and hoped for a Pope who would say "birth control is okay....abortion is okay....all sex is okay"
Lack of Priests is mainly an American and your-a-peon problem. Then again, in today's society it is difficult to get a young man to give his life up to Christ.
Female priests?? ugh...no way!
Married priests?? Though I understand it I'm a tradionalist and am still upset the Rose Bowl is not Pac 10 vs. Big Ten every January 1!!!
I have no particular problems with Female or Married priests.
Matter of fact, Priests were permitted to be married for some time in the history of Catholicism. It is not really "traditional" to limit Priests to the (biologically abnormal) position of celibacy. It wasn't until 1020's when Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages for priests. And in 1100's Pope Innocent II voided all existing marriages of priests and any new priests had to divorce before they could enter.
In fact, the reason for this change had nothing to do with morality, but with MONEY! There were concerns at the time for protecting Church property from inheritance from the children of Priests, many of whom apparently viewed the large amounts of Church money being donated as their own.
Hence the ban.
As for the "Conservative vs. Progressive" debate regarding the Church.....it does indeed appear that many American Catholics (clearly the most non-traditional and Liberal on Earth, CBTNY excluded of course) are not overly happy with this choice.
Before I make my post, just know I am Roman Catholic.
Okay, now I am a little upset with this new Pope's track record and stance on issues.
I really think its time the Church changes its stance on certain very important issues.
#1: We need to let Priests get married. Thats the main reason for our problems right now with the lack of new priests. If you are a student of the history of the Catholic Church than you would knw that the reason for that rule, which was adopted in the middle ages, was because the Church was having a problem with their land (which was their principle source of income then). See the married priest was entitled by law to be able to pass down the land that they lived on to their offspring thus taking away land from the Catholic Church and giving it to private land owners. Regardless of your feelings on this, it should be atleast agreed upon that the same problem wouldn't be a problem at all in modern times. We no longer make a living off our land and now the Church wouldn't have to give up any of their land to the sons and daughters of a Priest. It was a political reason not a matter of faith. Thus it can be changed without altering the message of Christ.
#2: Women Priests. This was also a rule that was made in the middle ages. Many of the original christian leaders were in fact women and the unique thing about early christianity compared to the other religions at the time was its respect and equality that it offered to women. In the middle ages when the social/political climate for women was non-existant and society regressed, the powers that be decided women were "unfit" to be spiritual leaders. Look at the world now. The western/christian world believes in equal rights for women on almost every level. There is no plausible reason why women shouldn't be able to join the Priesthood.
#3: Both of the previous two problems stem from what I believe is the most important problem with the Church today. The Church places emphasis on tradition rather than dogma. They equate the following of Catholic traditions to the personal belief and faith of the average person. Therein lies the problem. Is it more important to follow the word of God in scripture or the word of a man made church that inherently has mans flaws? The word of Jesus is to be followed over the word of some Pope in middle ages. Jesus preached equality of races, sex and religions. He talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, he never seceded from Judiasm, he never created the church, that was people after him. He never even created his own religion, his disciples did after him and much later even than them did the Catholic Church ever appear.
Did Jesus ever do anything but praise women in the bible?
He encouraged love between man and female saying its one of the greatest gifts God gave to humanity. Now how can we sit here today and say that a spiritual leader cannot be married? How can we say a female couldn't be a spiritual leader?
This new Pope seems to be a hardliner on church traditions and doesn't see th need for any changes. We know from our own country that when the times change, the need to revise also comes with that.
What was necessary or important in 1000 AD doesn't HAVE to be necessary or important today.
Those who refuse to change with the times will fall. Its the most fundamental characteristic of humanity. The ability to adapt to ones environment = an organisms (or organizations) key to survival.
I'm not asking the Church to give up its fundamental beliefs, but I am asking them to not treat precedents and traditions as unwaverable law.
Case and point: FDR was the first president to not follow the precedent of George Washington by going for a third term. Our country needed him and he didn't care about some tradition that started in the 1790's, he knew what needed to be done at the present time for the survival of the country. Now we did pass a law after his death barring anyone from running for a third term, but the great part of constitution is that we're open to change. We know that maybe down the road, we'll have a great leader through a tough time and need him for a third term and we can change the constitution accordingly.
Its not like FDR took away the first amendment, which was an essential "belief" if you will of Americans. Just like I'm not calling for the Church to say: "Hey, umm we thought about it, and Jesus didn't ressurect."
I am just asking them too look to change certain traditions, not fundamental beliefs.
Lemi know if any of you feel the same way.
The Roman Catholic Church is a global church, not an American one. The American voice within the Church doesn't carry the disproportionate weight that, say, American industry concerns might internationally. My parish priest, a phenomenal man, broke this down for his sermon a few weeks ago. He told a recent story of when a few American Cardinals came to Rome with the firm determination to include altar girls into the Mass. Some African and Central American officials were not so impressed, with some of their flocks starving to death and suffering from war and all. The Pope, too, could give a ****. Globally, there are far more pressing things than women priests. But when Newsweek, New York Times, etc. examines the Church we always see a monolithic institution at the crossroads of progress - "will they include women or turn back the clock?" All I know is the anti-religious brass who never fail to rehash and shape this never ending story of a Church in crisis have nothing but contempt for the Church. I mean the editors who create the magazines and newspapers, not the scholars whose names are attached to the story.
It isn't my job as a Catholic parishoner to challenge the church and make it fit my worldview. My job is, essentially, to let God help me be a better person. I'll do it in the Church I grew up in and I'll let the pros sweat the dogma.
Listen, you can't say a problem isn't a problem because there are other problems too.
Your right with the "let god help me be a better person" but wrong when you think that "the pros" know anymore than you. If you read the bible, you know enough that a bunch of fisherman stud up to the jewish hierarchy because they saw changes that needed to be implented within their own faith. There are no "pros" in religion. Just because they devoted their life to Christ doesn't mean they're any better than you. If you as a humble christian find that things need to change within your faith, than its ok for you to think and believe that.It isn't my job as a Catholic parishoner to challenge the church and make it fit my worldview. My job is, essentially, to let God help me be a better person. I'll do it in the Church I grew up in and I'll let the pros sweat the dogma.
Like I said before, its a matter of Faith vs Traditions. Just because its tradition doesn't mean its essential to the faith.
And by the way, the problems in Africa could be helped if the RICHEST INSTITUTION IN THE WORLD (THE CHURCH) opened up their bank accounts to help those in Africa.
The Church doesn't run your faith. It is the instrument in which you gather together to practice it but the Church isn't God and isn't infallible by any means.
Great post CarlSpackler! time for the Catholic Church to come out of the middle ages, a lot of what the church is about, is man-made rules.
As I was watching the whole pope death vigil, funeral and now the announcing of the new pope...I couldn't help but think how ridiculous a lot of this RC pomp and ritual is, very over the top-- something that Jesus himself would scoff at.
btw, there are already altar girls and women that give out communion at mass
I don't go to Church to change it. In fact, I try my best to leave my will at home.
I'm big on faith. It has worked wonders for me.
Now, I didn't say that I worship the Church.
The richest institution in the world? Interesting. Does this mean you'd have the Church to sell the Sistene Chapel to buy rice and beans for Africa? In this particular matter, you have no idea of what you're talking about.
Women have been eucharistic ministers as long as I can remember. Never thought to do a history check. Altar girls, new development, yes. Thanks.Originally Posted by R. Tyme
Again, the Church imposes nothing on you. It's your option to get with their program or not. Think it's lame? Just bail, don't bicker. We're all adults, no one is taking attendence.
Why not? there was some discussion on the church selling off some of its artwork; possessions but felt the 'treasures' are for everyone's enjoyment where they are...apparently money was lost on all the pedophile lawsuit settlements.Originally Posted by sackdance
How far back do you go? I don't remember women as eucharistic ministers when I was a kid. I don't know when altar girls were allowed, but I was pleasantly surprised when I went back to church after a number of years and saw them.Originally Posted by sackdance
But the church does impose-- on private business, as in birth control for example.
R.Tyme - what do you really mean? I see you've at least gone to church. What for? With family, out of habit? I was raised Catholic. I bailed for years. I came back. I could give a flying f--- about changing the Church so the Church can save the world. That's not my gig and if I made it my gig I'd end up bitter - I can only control my own actions. Again, my job is letting God in and being a better person. Prayer helps for strength, it really does. And you know what? This is what the priest says just about every Sunday, too. I am a parishoner, nothing more nothing less. If I had problems with the Church, I'd bolt and find a denomination that fit what I was looking for.Originally Posted by R. Tyme
I'm 34. Altar girls are brand new. I think women gave communion, I don't know - forever? Maybe not.Originally Posted by R. Tyme
Anyway, again - people are going to do what people are going to do. God doesn't stop us from buying rubbers, just as priests don't stop us from doing our girlfriends. The Church's line is their take on the gospel and what we do is between us and God. Free will, bottom line. And that free will is more integral to Church teaching than any stances on birthcontrol, although we'd never know from reading about it in the Times or from the movies.
R.Tyme - you the man, but God just told me to go to bed!
Originally Posted by R. Tyme
I really don't think it is over the top at all. This is a ritual that has been going on for nearly 2000 years. The Pope is the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church so his passing is a big deal. What exactly about the whole thing did you find over the top? Pope John Paul died and masses and his funeral were made to commemorate his life and what he did. The Cardinals entered the Conclave to elect a new pope and in 2 days had one. There have been some times in history where it has taken 6 months to elect a new pope. This one took 2 days.
Maybe non-stop, overzealous coverage of the event by the media in the United States is a major reason you think it's a bit much.