Im not up on my church history , but there are other groups that developed in various places parallel and somewhat independantly of the Rome Church that hold to 'the one true apostolic catholic faith', that have not been schismatic, since they developed separately for many centuries but also have not succombed to what often amounts to a political power grab by the bishops of Rome.
Orthodox isnt the only alternative, Have you looked at the Celtic Church? their roots are just as old, their doctrines very similar, histories and development different, and administration of hierarchy (in my limited understanding) much different....calling them schismatic, only comes from the assumption that the church at Rome was the one and only true development of the church, the Celtic church being detached from the Roman Empire and therefore Rome developed not schismatically but independantly
(and I am not trying to attempting to chase you away from Roman Catholicism, since you are very sincere about your faith I am just asking...)
Well, in order to intelligently answer you, I had to do some research, as I really wasn't familiar with Celtic Christianity.
They make some interesting claims in all honesty. Some that I hadn't heard of before.
If the claims pan out, then it would establish their origins from the apostolic period. Unfortunately, their history page cites a lot of names but do not provide a lot of other data to check the source.
For example, the history page says:
Tertullian (A.D. 155 – 222) of the Church in North Africa wrote as follows: “the extremities of Spain, the various parts of Gaul, the regions of Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms, have received the religion of Christ.”
It doesn't say in which of Tertullian's writings this statement appears. Tertullian was a fairly prolific writer. And an automated search of key words in this phrase against the databases at both ccel.org and newadvent.org don't show it.
It also says,
Eusebius, the Church Historian (A.D. 260 – 340) wrote, “The Apostles passed beyond the ocean to the Isles called the Britannic Isles.”
But when I look at Eusebius' Church History, the only use of the word "isle" is:
6. "Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, but a narrative concerning John the apostle, which has been handed down and treasured up in memory. For when, after the tyrant's death, he returned from the
isle
of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the Spirit.
- Book III
11. But neither in the reputed second or third epistle of John, though they are very short, does the name John appear; but there is written the anonymous phrase, 'the elder.' But this author did not consider it sufficient to give his name once and to proceed with his work; but he takes it up again: 'I, John, who also am your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and in the patience of Jesus Christ, was in the
isle
that is called Patmos for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.' And toward the close he speaks thus: 'Blessed is he that keeps the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things.
- Book VII
This same site says that they participated in the early councils of the Church. In fact, they say, And at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. the Celtic Church was again well represented, whereas the Roman church did not have a single bishop in attendance.
Again, this data is contradicted: Most of the bishops present were Greeks; among the Latins we know only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, Mark of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Donnus of Stridon in Pannonia, and the two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, representing the pope. (All of the above would be considered "Roman" bishops (with the exception of the two priests representing the pope).
If they participated in the councils, then they obviously were aware of the rest of the Christian Church and participated and were subject to its development. You can see from the quote, above, that they claim to have been there (although I see no independent verification of that). In fact, all the websites of that group that I've seen have the Nicene Creed.
Their claims to pre-date Augustine's mission to Britain are undoubtedly valid. However, it should be pointed out that St. Columba, whom they venerate, was raised in the Irish Church, founded by St Patrick. St. Columba was known for spreading Christianity to Scotland...not St. Augustine.
In fact, there is a legend that King Lucius petitioned Pope Eleutherus to be baptized. (According to Wikipedia, Unfortunately, Lucius is a non-existent King of Britain invented through confusion. The Catalogus Felicianus mentions the famous letter from 'Lucio Britannio rege' to Pope Eleutherius. This letter was in reality from the historical Lucius Aelius Septimius Megas Abgarus IX, King of Britium in Edessa.)
Their claims that the person who brought Christianity to the British Isles was Joseph of Arimathea is interesting. There are legends of this -- and I have no way to verify them. There is, likewise, a legend that St. Paul ordained Aristobulus to go pave a way to preach the Gospel in the British Isles. But once again there is no documentation. Just legend. But if you think about it, Gloucester comes from the area that spun the tale of King Arthur and the Round Table.
Bottom line is that I think claims that they are a pre-Nicene church is contradicted by their own history page. There is, in fact, a Celtic Rite, and there's nothing to say they don't worship in that rite. Any claims of apostolicity are HIGHLY suspect (they might, in fact, have some claim on apostolicity through St. Columba...so I don't discount it entirely). Their claims of independence from Rome are undoubtedly true (but the Celtic Church was reconciled to Rome in 644 AD at Whitby Abbey).
What it sounds to me is like it's a group like the Old Catholics, but considerably smaller in size.
But, mstar, I appreciate the challenge. Rather than spending an evening bickering back and forth with people, I had to actually exercise my brain tonight. That was a lot of fun. I had never heard of the Celtic Church prior to tonight. It was a lot of fun looking into it! Thanks!
And I challenge you to show me scriptures where clergy are ALLOWED to shave, wear eyeglasses, ride horses, get college degrees or play baseball.
If there is no prohibition against something, wouldn't the assumption be that it is allowed?
Frankly, if the clergy in question is not Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, or Armenian then it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other.
The response was made in response to her attack.
Does anybody else find it odd that the "sex offender registry" links are at the bottom of this thread?
No disrespect Mark, I find it odd that it would be at the end of most any thread in the doctrinal section, I wasn't intending to poke fun at Catholics. I'm sure there've been a few Rabbi's who have been convicted too. In fact I saw one on "To Catch A Predator"
Edited to say, it seems the links are changed quite frequently - its gone now. :)
I learned how Google does its associations and its web links.
Everybody should know after the political tactic of "google-bombing" was developed.
I don't see it because I don't allow the blasted things on my computer.
Oh Satori, I don't know about anybody else, but I was absolutely confident that several people would step in and positively go "Jack Chick" on me. And, you know what? That's OK. If I was worried about it, I wouldn't have posted it. In fact, if I was worried about it, I would have kept my religious beliefs to myself and never made them public on this board.
But you know what? Your opinion of my beliefs are totally irrelevant. Excathedra's opinion of my religious beliefs are totally irrelevant. White Dove's opinions of my religious beliefs are totally irrelevant.
If you were a real person they would still be irrelevant, but they are all the more so irrelevant since you are nothing more than a bunch of HTML code pushed from a server to my client. And I am nothing more than a bunch of HTML pushed in your direction.
But go ahead and say what you're going to say. You might hurt the feelings of some closet Catholics (who you all have intimidated into keeping their beliefs private), but you certainly are not capable of hurting me by what you say...no matter what it is. Although it violates board rules, if you want to make it personal even, feel free. I've got pretty thick skin. (I won't report you to the mods...can't speak for anybody else)
I've never heard of Jack Chick either.
Is that how you deal with it O'Malley? The truth, I mean. When you don't like it. Put the label on it. The label as prophylactic, preventing your mind from conceiving its fertile message, and bearing fruit? Hey, in that context it might be a sin. Better add it to this Sunday's mea culpas and see.
What did we say in TWI? The memory fades... Something about the Adversary maybe. Or about "world wisdom" which we knew wasn't spiritual, but merely "sense knowledge." The speaker was "tripped out," or "from the pit."
The end result was the same - shutting down the dialogue, hanging the "out to lunch" sign in the window until the other person shrugged and went away. That's what cults do. You may have thick skin, but what about your skull? Even moreso, that needs to be exceedingly thick, if it is to block out every self-evident refutation of the world's biggest cult. And so it is. You even brag about it, and rightfully so.
There is nothing over-the-top "Jack Chick-ish" about pointing to the obvious. Even the RC church has been debating whether condoms prevent AIDS transmission, although to be deliberating over the obvious in 2006 shows their contempt for human life persists unabated. And why should the church care about those lives? They're only an amalgam of molecules, pushed together like HTML code on the internet. Transigent. Temporary. Irrelevant. Totally irrelevant.
Although - according to the Post article, they may even be coming around on the AIDS thing, some day.
As for contraception-ban-engendered starvation, why would you compel impoverished people to bring children they can't hope to feed into the world? What demented soul conceived of that doctrine? Teaches that doctrine? Enforces that doctrine? Defends that doctrine? Real sickos, that's who. They know what they're doing.
We wonder about Vatican opulence, in direct contradiction to everything Christ seemed to stand for, or its army of black-frocked bachelors and burqa-draped bachelorettes over-seeing the spiritual lives of families and children. (Which among today's priesthood would Jesus have chosen as disciples? If any, not many.)
The RC church long ago became a carnival, a monstrous parody of the body of Christ. And you as a Christian can see no alternative?
Repeat after me, Mark, and this post will go away: "Jack Chick, Jack Chick, Jack Chick, Jack Chick..."
Do it enough and you'll never have to think about jack sh...
Not surprised by that. But the philosophy espoused by Jack Chick resounds through any post you touch that deals with Catholicism.
Is that how you deal with it O'Malley? The truth, I mean. When you don't like it. Put the label on it. The label as prophylactic, preventing your mind from conceiving its fertile message, and bearing fruit? Hey, in that context it might be a sin. Better add it to this Sunday's
mea culpas
and see.
I call it the way I see it. When I see black helicopters flying around, whether they be the black helicopters put up by the fertile imaginations of the militia movement that espoused Timothy McVeigh, the black helicopters put up by the anti-Bush crowd, the black helicopters put up by the anti-Freemason crowd, the black helicopters put up by the anti-Catholic crowd, they are still black helicopters...and they exist in the mind of the person spewing the garbage.
What did we say in TWI? The memory fades... Something about the Adversary maybe. Or about "world wisdom" which we knew wasn't spiritual, but merely "sense knowledge." The speaker was "tripped out," or "from the pit."
See above.
The end result was the same - shutting down the dialogue, hanging the "out to lunch" sign in the window until the other person shrugged and went away. That's what cults do. You may have thick skin, but what about your skull? Even moreso, that needs to be exceedingly thick, if it is to block out every self-evident refutation of the world's biggest cult. And so it is. You even brag about it, and rightfully so.
Now is that your objection? That Catholicism is religion and you oppose religion (particularly Catholicism)? Or do you oppose Catholicism specifically and have no problems with other religions? Because if you oppose religion in general and Catholicism in particular (as the epitome of religion), then I respectfully withdraw the above comments and officially apologize. (A characteristic of Jack Chick "Christianity" is that Christianity Good...Catholicism Bad...)
However, pending hearing a response from you on that, I will continue, conditionally, as if your vitriol is aimed specifically at the Catholic Church and is not simply using the Catholic Church as the personification of religion in general...
There is nothing over-the-top "Jack Chick-ish" about pointing to the obvious. Even the RC church has been debating
, although to be deliberating over the obvious in 2006 shows their contempt for human life persists unabated. And why should the church care about those lives? They're only an amalgam of molecules, pushed together like HTML code on the internet. Transigent. Temporary. Irrelevant. Totally irrelevant.
Although - according to the Post article, they may even be coming around on the AIDS thing, some day.
But, as they occasionally do, the Post got it wrong. Please note this Zenit article, posted a few days after the Italian Paper La Rebubblica published the original interview which caused the media whirlwind.
On June 6th, the Vatican issued a re-iteration of its long-held stance on such subjects as birth control, condom use, in vitro fertilization, etc.
Problem is, Satori, that there is one way to prevent the transmission of AIDS. And you as well as I know exactly what that one way is.
As to contempt for human life, that comment is beneath comment so you'll pardon me if I just don't sink to your level and address it.
As for contraception-ban-engendered starvation, why would you compel impoverished people to bring children they can't hope to feed into the world? What demented soul conceived of that doctrine? Teaches that doctrine? Enforces that doctrine? Defends that doctrine? Real sickos, that's who. They know what they're doing.
You wiil, of course, acknowledge that all of Christianity prohibited contraception before the Anglicans changed their minds at the Lambeth conference of 1930 (Resolution 15).
Population control is a good thing. The muzzies over in Europe like population control, since Europe will be a Muslim-majority continent within 50 years or so, since the stupid Christian Europeans are contracepting themselves into extinction. In fact France is paying women a bonus of $1,200 to have a baby. And Russia is paying women $9,500 if they have a second child.
You will, of course, be able to show me a time when there wasn't starving children in Africa and in South Asia? And, of course, you will explain how many majority-Catholic countries there are in Africa and South Asia that have those emergency starvation issues because of overpopulation? (Hint: most are muzzie). And, of course, you will explain how the Vatican (that does not have a vote at the UN) has been able to block the efforts of UNICEF and other UN agencies...that all have very vigorous programs for population control. You will explain how this position impacts ANYTHING whatsoever?
We wonder about Vatican opulence, in direct contradiction to everything Christ seemed to stand for, or its army of black-frocked bachelors and burqa-draped bachelorettes over-seeing the spiritual lives of families and children. (Which among today's priesthood would Jesus have chosen as disciples? If any, not many.)
You know, I heard an interview about that very subject many months ago.
And, frankly, there is, periodically, a lot of dicsussion of that within certain circles of the Church, as well as you pointing your finger at the Church.
Before I address that, though, I'd like to take you to Northeast DC, to the Basillica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. An absolutely BEAUTIFUL building. If you go to DC, I encourage you to visit it sometime. (Click on the link to see a virtual tour of the building). Do you know how it was funded? From donations (including some from me). Now there are literally millions of dollars of treasure in that building, alone. The Church could sell the building and do a fire sale on all the contents of the building to feed the poor of DC. But I didn't donate the money I donated to them for them to sell the building to feed the poor. I would feel quite betrayed if they did so. I DO donate a lot of money and donate a lot of time to care for the poor. And I would be quite upset to find that the money I donated to the poor was used to build a church.
In my parish, we have beautiful things, as well (nothing like what's at the Shrine). All of them provided by donation. Should they be sold off? What about the wishes of the donors who gave the money to get those beautiful things?
Now, the Vatican. I am confident that there are literally BILLIONS of dollars of treasure in the Vatican. They COULD sell it off. And they could give ALL of the money to Caritas for distribution to the poor in Africa. They really and truly could. Would that solve world hunger? What long term good is it?
The British could sell off all of their treasure in the British Museum and use the money for social programs. That would likely help people for a short time and then they'd be in the same straits they were in to begin with.
The Turks could do so with their Ottoman museum, the Egyptians with their museum, the Russians with their museums, and the Americans with their museums.
Would wealth be redistributed? Yes (never knew you to be a socialist Satori). But would it solve world hunger? Yeah, right.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the treasure was always righteously acquired. St. Peter's Basillica was funded in large part through the sale of indulgences, a practice that was a grievous sin. And one that was condemned by the Council of Trent (and never repeated). Does that mean the St. Peter's Basillica should be ripped down? Should it be sold and reparations paid to those whose money was taken? How do you propose to do that?
(Of course, that same logic, applied to the United States, says that we should return all of the land taken from the Aboriginal tribes in this country should be returned to them, as well)
The RC church long ago became a carnival, a monstrous parody of the body of Christ. And you as a Christian can see no alternative?
Your opinion. One which, at least the "evidence" you've supplied above, is clearly not supported by fact.
As I said before, the reason I am Catholic is doctrinal. There is plenty wrong with the Catholic Church. But your Jack Chick responses haven't even hit one point of what's really wrong with it. (I'll give you a hint: it's called heterodoxy)
Repeat after me, Mark, and this post will go away: "Jack Chick, Jack Chick, Jack Chick, Jack Chick..."
OK.
Jack Chick
Jack Chick
Jack Chick
Nope, your post is still here. Along with your black-helicopter, Council on Foreign Relations, Mind-Control chip implanted in the head of special operations soldiers, Bush blew up the WTC, illuminadi impregnated conspiracy theories. In other words, Jack Chick Christianity.
Do it enough and you'll never have to think about jack sh...
From you, of all people Satori, I am shocked that you have consistently displayed this tiny-minded attitude. From your earlier posts in 'tacks, I have always given you far more credit for having a sharp mind and a keen intellect. You usually have displayed a great ability for critical thought. I have no earthly idea why you have this chink in your intellectual armor.
I am NOT trying to convert you nor am I trying to convert anybody else. And if you choose to disagree with the doctrines of the Church, that's your business. Again, I really don't care one way or the other.
But the stuff you come out with is straight from the Alberto Rivera series of comics produced by Jack Chick. Seriously, it is.
And the reason why I'm shocked that YOU, of all people, spew this stuff is that it is usually spewed by fundamentalist types who have turned off their brains and believe such hogwash like the King James Version of the Bible was the original that was delivered to the Apostles...along with the red lettering. And so on..
But I guess everybody's got their foibles.
Yup. Straight from a Jack Chick comic book found in a men's room of a greasy spoon.
But, mstar, I appreciate the challenge. Rather than spending an evening bickering back and forth with people, I had to actually exercise my brain tonight. That was a lot of fun. I had never heard of the Celtic Church prior to tonight. It was a lot of fun looking into it! Thanks!
Your welcome!
I honestly dont know all that much about them myself, ( as I said Im not up on my church history) but I find they are a very interesting group. I find it especuially interesting that they have somehow stayed off the frontpage and out of the limelight of history for a very long time unlike their Roman brothers.
Im not sure if thats because their church developed more along monastic lines as opposed to having a dioscesene model but I have atendency to think so. Whether the two different structures were actually laid out as formats in the NT I doubt but am of the opinion that they were picked up and adapted to the church (especially Rome) from the political structures that were working in the empire at the time, which had an emphasis on centralized power and control, and the contemplative monastic model of the celtic church from the existing spiritual communities and traditions of Britannia (like the Druids) that esteemed each individual and revered community...Ones not necessarily betteror righter than the other but it did give the Romans a huge leg up in the PR Department via political involvement for the last few millenia
Unfortunately (well for us anyway) the Celts , like a lot of other cultures, were a culture that had oral tradition as one of its centerpoints, (It still does have a reverence for poets, bards, sages, and stories--try any Irish Pub!) and wasnt as meticulous in its written records as the Romans or the Hebrews, so all things Celt are bathed in legend and mystery and verfication of actual details via written records unless one has an incredibly diligence (like yourself) are difficult---but I suppose not impossible.
Your questions are honest--and to be honest I am not going to read the entire works of Tertullian or Eusebius just yet to hunt down a phrase that some well meaing web geek may have botched in the first place ( maybe womeday i will-but not today)--there are email addresses to all the leaders of the church that you provided the link for-they'd no better than I---
anyway glad you enjoyed the time reading about them---you just found out about them yesterday maybe they'll hold something for you.
what is the one way to prevent the transmission of AIDS ?
Well, the single best way is to keep certain parts of the male anatomy out of certain places on your body. The second best way is to avoid intravenous drug use. The rest is a crap shoot.
One thing I'll say, though, is 'tho I doubt that I'd ever convert to Orthodox Christianity, because of the issue of schism, I have learned a lot about the spirituality of Eastern Catholicism as a result (as both the Orthodox and the eastern Catholics of different rites share a lot of elements of the same spirituality). And there is a tremendous amount to learn from both.
I am a bit constrained right now, as my daughter attends the parish school (and thus I am required to be an active parishoner to maintain the 'in parish' tuition rate), so I can only occasionally go to an Eastern Catholic liturgy, after she graduates, there is a distinct possibility that I may make my search significantly more serious. I don't know that I will ever actually switch rites, but it is something that is a possibility.
(For those who may not be aware, the Latin (Roman) Church is only one of several distinct "Particular Churches" that form the Catholic (Universal) Church. It is, by far, the largest, but the others are there and are in full communion with the Holy Father and with each other. An interesting article in Crisis Magazine gives a thumbnail overview of these churches for those who might be curious)
The point being that, although it would be doubtful that I would ever 'convert' to Celtic Christiantiy, there might be something to learn from their spirituality. So I'll keep my eyes open when I go to the bookstore...might see something interesting to read.
Well, the single best way is to keep certain parts of the male anatomy out of certain places on your body. The second best way is to avoid intravenous drug use. The rest is a crap shoot.
-JJ
Actually, JJ, the best way is for certain males to keep certain parts of the male anatomy out of certain parts of other males' anatomy. That would eliminate about 95% of the cases of it.
Then, if males would only place certain parts of the male anatomy in certain parts of only one female's anatomy and if females would allow only one male to place that part of the anatomy in their anatomy, that would eliminate about 99% of the remaining 5%.
Then we only have those who pick it up from toilet seats. :asdf:
In the Mass, do RC communicants partake of the bread only, while the priest alone partakes of the wine? Or, does the laity partake of both the bread and the wine?
Actually, JJ, the best way is for certain males to keep certain parts of the male anatomy out of certain parts of other males' anatomy. That would eliminate about 95% of the cases of it.
Then, if males would only place certain parts of the male anatomy in certain parts of only one female's anatomy and if females would allow only one male to place that part of the anatomy in their anatomy, that would eliminate about 99% of the remaining 5%.
Then we only have those who pick it up from toilet seats. :asdf:
Mark, I have really enjoyed following your responses on this thread, as well as the input by Mstar. I am not a Catholic, by any stretch of the imagination. Nonetheless I find the subject interesting.
On another topic within this thread - what you said above may have been true a long time ago, but unfortunately the cat is out of the bag now. Sushi says the best way to prevent aids is to use an aspirin. He had to explain what he meant, but once he did, I had to agree. [Put it between your knees and hold it there ]. The next best way is to stick with one partner for life. I have never heard of a case of two homosexual MONOGONOUS males contracting HIV.
Unfotunately, needles are also a problem. I am not sure, but at one time so were blood transfusions, don't know if that is still true today. I know a man, however, who lost his wife to aides, which she contracted via a blood transfusion. He will one day likewise succomb to the same disease, which he contracted through his wife before they ever knew she had it.
However, I hardly think one can blame the Catholic Church for HIV.
I guess all points of discussion are open, now - Mark. "The Doctrinal Forum"....
AIDS and other diseases that can be transimitted through sexual activity brings an interesting topic to the front actually, as the Catholic priesthood has seemed to attract it's fair share of homosexual men to it's ranks.
I'm kind of picking at the inner conflicts I see there, sorting through the personal side of the Church of Rome, and the people that join the orders and their leadership roles in the church...
As an organization the RCC attracts it's people, and the people are who they are, do what they do, become what they become.
The RCC condemns homosexuality. Yet is seems homosexual men do join the priesthood. Perhaps expecting to change? I don't know. Expecting to be who they are and carry on? I don't know.
Then we see the continual exposing of child molestation by priests, I guess both homosexual and hetero, or perhaps "bi-sexual".
Which makes a kind of bizzare tragic irony, as they've chosen a lifestyle that gives up marriage, the sacrament the RCC has that recognizes and blesses sexual activity in marriage, and families. So despite the fact that humans are indeed creatures with a sexual component, they deliberately choose to deny expression through the sacrament, and lead a life that "gives that up", as means of pursuing a greater calling and personal purpose they feel compelled to work towards.
And that in and of itself isn't completely unusual - people of all stripes, certainly religious people, see denial of various kinds as a means to attain greater insight and relationship with "the divine" within themselves. So I or someone else may not see that as a life we'd choose, but we're not the ones choosing it. Within our American society if there are no laws broken, people are free to pursue their lives as they see fit - at least within the norms of what's acceptable let's say. (we know some things are perfectly legal and yet not acceptable and get treated much differently by society)
So - okay...within that I see some conflicts -
-The homosexuals who choose a church that condemns that lifestyle.
-Those who choose a kind of greater committment in the church that specifically restricts sexual activity
-The fact that amongst that body of people they are assigned a role of leadership and trust within the church, knowing full well that they're in conflict with the faith they're signing on to uphold and defend.
And for the Church itself -
-How it handles and doesn't handle the question of homosexuality in the religious orders ("don't ask don't tell"...? doesn't seem to work if that's it, as the Church has doctrine on it)
-Does and doesn't handle the problems like child molestation committed by both homo and hetero sexuals
-Allows little or no outside intervention or access to information about any of it
Those things - the conflicts of the people involved, and the Church that has a system that allows for it - are big question marks for me. There's clear deception involved.
As is the way the Church has limited access to information about the people and how it's handling them - despite the fact that their very own membership is at risk and effected by all decsions it makes in these issues.
Conspiracy theorists are going to fueled by what can be described as a "secret" society of men and women who are governed solely by their own people and who have these kinds of personal internal conflicts, at least the way I see it.
Mark, I have really enjoyed following your responses on this thread, as well as the input by Mstar. I am not a Catholic, by any stretch of the imagination. Nonetheless I find the subject interesting.
On another topic within this thread - what you said above may have been true a long time ago, but unfortunately the cat is out of the bag now. Sushi says the best way to prevent aids is to use an aspirin. He had to explain what he meant, but once he did, I had to agree. [Put it between your knees and hold it there ]. The next best way is to stick with one partner for life. I have never heard of a case of two homosexual MONOGONOUS males contracting HIV.
Unfotunately, needles are also a problem. I am not sure, but at one time so were blood transfusions, don't know if that is still true today. I know a man, however, who lost his wife to aides, which she contracted via a blood transfusion. He will one day likewise succomb to the same disease, which he contracted through his wife before they ever knew she had it.
However, I hardly think one can blame the Catholic Church for HIV.
Theoretically, if two monogomous males were virgins when they started doing each other and were faithful throughout their life, then I'd reckon you would be right.
You can take a look at the statistics on exactly who has HIV and you will see that I am pretty close to being right. (I just don't have time to give the link now, but I believe it's on the NIH or the HHS dot gov websites someplace.
As to transfusions, that makes up a tiny, tiny percentage...as is transmission from any other form of contact.
As to needle use, again, one has to take a look at the behaviors of the people passing the needles.
Bottom line is that if, in an ideal world, people did those two things I suggested (not that I'm the originator of the suggestion), the vast, vast, vast majority of cases would be eliminated. And the remaining cases would drop off dramatically as they are secondary to those two causes.
Mark,
In the Mass, do RC communicants partake of the bread only, while the priest alone partakes of the wine? Or, does the laity partake of both the bread and the wine?
Cynic,
Short answer:
Latin Rite: both sometimes
Eastern Rite: both always
I have to run so don't have time for a full answer. I would be happy to provide it for you if you're interested (start a thread please).
Have to run. Daughter has to be at church for the Rite of Election for her confirmation.
Actually, JJ, the best way is for certain males to keep certain parts of the male anatomy out of certain parts of other males' anatomy. That would eliminate about 95% of the cases of it
see, the catholic church is responsible for AIDS !!!!!! well a large percentage
The RCC condemns homosexuality.
my brother's parish priest is openly gay
i don't know if he's allowed to use a condemn (sp?) ha
-----
I am a bit constrained right now, as my daughter attends the parish school (and thus I am required to be an active parishoner to maintain the 'in parish' tuition rate)
I don't care who sticks what where, but I really don't get gays being priests or anything related to Christianity. It's like they have to glom on to Christianity, instead of making their own gay religion. Why would that be?
my two little brothers were too young to know anything about where that certain part should or should not go in and where
then they were taught by father butler. and monsignor knew all about it. butler had been transferred to our parish because he was doing the molestation in brooklyn or somewhere before that..... guess when he got "exposed" ? when he was in his early 80's
one of my brothers went and testified against him. the other one couldn't handle it.
the dog monsignor is still at my neighborhood parish. when HE found out my brother would be testifying, he didn't show
the parish is still going strong
my brothers, well they're alive and functioning
one of them could not enjoy hetero sex FOR YEARS because of what happened to him before he reached puberty
he used to go secretly into the city for homosexual sex
I find it rather easy to be an a_sshole but if I were a Romanist, even I probably couldn't bring myself to lecture Excathedra about her opinion of the RCC.
ps. if all this sounds confusing, i have five brothers
i also have priests, nuns, the whole bit..... generations
Ex,
As I have said to you before on other threads, I do feel very sorry for you and your family. I think the abuse you had to tolerate and the treatment you had to endure (primarily the neglect) from your hierarchy is reprehensible at best.
I would have never brought that stuff up as I don't recall whether you had brought it up publically on the forum before.
(I'm trying to speak circumspectly so that if you later on decide to edit your stuff out of your post, I won't be violating any confidential information)
But your family's troubles epitomize what I see as being wrong with the Church in the past decades. Heterodoxy.
Everybody KNOWS what is in the Bible about homosexuality. Everybody KNOWS what the Church has traditionally taught about it as well. We can argue back and forth whether or not the Bible means it or not, but the bottom line is that it is real clear to anybody what is taught.
But for some reason, in the post-war era, the hierarchy in the Church, particularly in this country, decided to get all nice and warm and fuzzy and decide that the Vatican didn't mean it when it said homosexuals shouldn't be ordained priests. After all, since they're going to be celibate anyway, who cares, right?
And where did that lead us? Well, excath, I think you can answer that one far better than I can...
And JPII put in corrections to fix the situation shortly after he was elected Pope. They were followed some places. In fact, in time, I'd say most places. Unfortunately, there were a number of bishops (Law, Mahoney come to mind in particular) who decided that they didn't need to consider their promises of chastity and obedience to the Holy Father and disregarded clear instructions. As a result, a few years ago, an official apostolic visitation (consider that the Vatican's Inspector General team coming in) went and visited all the seminaries in the US. Why? #1, to make sure they were screening seminary candidates properly and #2, to make sure that they were teaching them properly how to be priests.
Religious institutes are even worse! (In fact, the only reason why the stats make it appear that the incidence of abuse among diocesan priests is worse than the incidence of abuse among religious priests is the opportunity, in my opinion)
(Having said that, the incidence of abuse have gone down since JPII was elected and put in those reforms. The levels now are about the same or maybe a bit lower than the levels seen in Protestant and Jewish groups...and considerably lower than in the public schools, by the way)
And it's not just that...it's the quality of relgious education out there. The textbooks the kids have to study are pitiful. A high degree of the teachers out there are morally unqualified, not just educationally incompetent. A bulk of Catholic Colleges out there are out-and-out heretical. JPII published an apostolic exhortation titled Ex Corde Ecclesia, which directed certain actions that had to be taken by Catholic colleges in order to retain their status. Among those is that the educators in those institutions had to sign a pledge to teach matters of faith and morals in accordance with the Magesterium of the Church. A surprising number of those colleges and their faculty refused to sign the documents. And where were the bishops? Noplace to be found (they were busy attending rallies supporting illegal immigration or something else along those lines). The Holy Father gave the bishops the tool they needed to do their job and the bishops just plain refuse to do so.
Again, not all of the bishops. And, thanks be to retirement age, a shrinking number of bishops, but it's out there.
And I think it is an absolute miracle that with the characteristic of a large number of bishops out there that they haven't succeeded, at least on the national level, to change the doctrine taught by the Church. But they haven't. And God willing, they won't.
You know what's the problem? Heterdoxy. Heterodoxy caused your family's woes. Pure and simple.
You know what the fix is? Orthodox bishops with some steel in their spines being appointed.
And I know you don't agree...and I know that doesn't make you feel any better...
And I wish that there was something that could be done to undo what happened to your family.
And I don't blame you for feeling the way you feel.
.....its those colorfully embroidered vestments deary...they are just so fabulous...
:) -no offense intended --I couldnt resist that one
there are probably lots of reasons I woud think mostly a real devotion to what they consider to be the one true faith in spite of their being gay. I've never seen any stats, but in a group as large as the RC Church I would guess that the rate of gay priests is probably about the same or less than you would find in the general population. Being gay doesnt make them child molesters anymore than it would for a heterosexual-besides they all take a vow of chastity-dont they? which should render their sexual orientation moot.
It may work for some or even a lot of them... but the problem is -its not practical to human nature for just anyone to undergo such stringent rules to thwart the sexual drive without it becoming occasionally distorted and coming out in horrible ways
I would think that they would have figured that out sometime over the last 1000 years or so , and if they wanted to keep that discipline, to place more stringent safeguards and mechanisms into their system.
I guess all points of discussion are open, now - Mark. "The Doctrinal Forum"....
AIDS and other diseases that can be transimitted through sexual activity brings an interesting topic to the front actually, as the Catholic priesthood has seemed to attract it's fair share of homosexual men to it's ranks.
You can see my response to that. But yes it does.
I'm kind of picking at the inner conflicts I see there, sorting through the personal side of the Church of Rome, and the people that join the orders and their leadership roles in the church...
As an organization the RCC attracts it's people, and the people are who they are, do what they do, become what they become.
The RCC condemns homosexuality. Yet is seems homosexual men do join the priesthood. Perhaps expecting to change? I don't know. Expecting to be who they are and carry on? I don't know.
Then we see the continual exposing of child molestation by priests, I guess both homosexual and hetero, or perhaps "bi-sexual".
The vast majority of the incidents of abuse are homosexual in nature.
There's two ways you can look at it. Maybe it's because they want to change. Maybe it's a predatory thing (a bunch of males being in close proximity...also having unescorted access to young teenaged boys). The military also seems to attract its share of gays too. Again, a bunch of guys housed together in a close environment.
Trouble is, according to Church teaching, the condition of being homosexual is considered to be 'gravely disordered.' Not sinful (unless acted on), but like a mental disease. You know that the official manual of psychology, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, classed homosexuality as a mental disease up until the 1970s. Then they became 'enlightened.' Bottom line is that I don't know how the mind of a 'gravely disordered' person operates.
Which makes a kind of bizzare tragic irony, as they've chosen a lifestyle that gives up marriage, the sacrament the RCC has that recognizes and blesses sexual activity in marriage, and families. So despite the fact that humans are indeed creatures with a sexual component, they deliberately choose to deny expression through the sacrament, and lead a life that "gives that up", as means of pursuing a greater calling and personal purpose they feel compelled to work towards.
And that in and of itself isn't completely unusual - people of all stripes, certainly religious people, see denial of various kinds as a means to attain greater insight and relationship with "the divine" within themselves. So I or someone else may not see that as a life we'd choose, but we're not the ones choosing it. Within our American society if there are no laws broken, people are free to pursue their lives as they see fit - at least within the norms of what's acceptable let's say. (we know some things are perfectly legal and yet not acceptable and get treated much differently by society)
That's a good point.
So - okay...within that I see some conflicts -
-The homosexuals who choose a church that condemns that lifestyle.
-Those who choose a kind of greater committment in the church that specifically restricts sexual activity
-The fact that amongst that body of people they are assigned a role of leadership and trust within the church, knowing full well that they're in conflict with the faith they're signing on to uphold and defend.
And for the Church itself -
-How it handles and doesn't handle the question of homosexuality in the religious orders ("don't ask don't tell"...? doesn't seem to work if that's it, as the Church has doctrine on it)
-Does and doesn't handle the problems like child molestation committed by both homo and hetero sexuals
-Allows little or no outside intervention or access to information about any of it
Those things - the conflicts of the people involved, and the Church that has a system that allows for it - are big question marks for me. There's clear deception involved.
As is the way the Church has limited access to information about the people and how it's handling them - despite the fact that their very own membership is at risk and effected by all decsions it makes in these issues.
Conspiracy theorists are going to fueled by what can be described as a "secret" society of men and women who are governed solely by their own people and who have these kinds of personal internal conflicts, at least the way I see it.
You raise some very valid points.
The hierarchy does a pretty pitiful job of handling the issue of homosexuality in religious orders. Religious orders are called to be pretty well self-disciplined within their "rules" which have been approved by the Vatican. There are some religious orders that, from all accounts, are very good and holy orders. There are some that need to be purged. Not only for homosexuality, but for many other incidences of violating Church doctrine in many areas.
Again, as I said before, the vast majority of cases of abuse in the Catholic Church were homosexual in nature.
As I said, above, in my post to excath, the problem of child molestation is largely dependent on the local bishop. They were always kept very private, though, no matter how they were handled. There are, thankfully, a remarkably few cases like the case of the priest that excathedra's family was subjected to (a serial abuser). Like 100 priests out of 4-5000 with cases against them. The vast, vast majority involved a priest who had one incident in his life. Likewise, the bulk of the incidents were dealt with quietly, but they were dealt with. (During the 70s and 80s, the belief in the psychological community was that this was a problem that could be treated and cured. I believe that they have, since then, gotten a lot smarter. But because of that, a lot of the 'dealing with' the situation involved treatment and then returning the priest to ministry after the shrinks said that he was cured). The problem is that they weren't screening out homosexuals out from the seminary...and largely didn't do so through the 70s. JPII re-issued guidance shortly after he was elected that re-iterated the position that homosexuals must not go into the seminary.
And yes, the Church is very private about problems. Maybe too private. But the problem in these days is that if they air their dirty laundry in public, there are socres of people, including not a few here, that would lick their chops in anticipation. On the other hand, it would be better that accurate information is out there so that the inaccurate information can be balanced by facts. So I don't know.
for the center where ive been studying with and supporting for some time now
and no, i'm not posting this cuz i want gscers to buy stuff
...but to point out that there often is a lot more to any given conversation around human religious traditions and practices
there are a lot of good and well-informed people from all over the world involved in the work of this center, too
...a lot of those very authors
drawing from catholic roots, celtic roots, jewish roots, quaker roots, and some interesting others from the east
...a lot of atheists, too (which look more like inside out buddhists, to me)
from what i have seen and done, i am convinced that there really is a whole different level of approaching the very same topics we typically rastle over
...and this skill is neither old or new news, but perennial stuff
i could even go as far as to call them all arts and sciences of of ever deeper ways of friendship
or some such silly thing
but we often fail to believe it is possible, or kept from us in another realm
or we think it would be immoral or wrong or dangerous
or maybe we are offended at the notion that such things can be measured in terms of levels and degrees
or we often just have never been given the tools to do such things
or something else...often even tribal
but regardless
i have seen that it is possible
and there certainly is always a lot more to the story
more ways to talk about religious and philosophical stuff, culturally
and there certainly is a lot more to what has been done in the name of catholicism, or christianity, or by wandering irish poets and the other radical characters of lore
tho all too often...occam's hammer is used where a razor would do just fine
as if we cant handle the complication and messiness of it or something
and so we flatten it all out and get monochromatic about it
so...not sure what else to say about it all right now
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
15
8
32
Popular Days
Feb 17
45
Feb 19
32
Feb 16
26
Feb 18
25
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 21 posts
ChattyKathy 15 posts
Abigail 8 posts
markomalley 32 posts
Popular Days
Feb 17 2007
45 posts
Feb 19 2007
32 posts
Feb 16 2007
26 posts
Feb 18 2007
25 posts
Posted Images
markomalley
Well, in order to intelligently answer you, I had to do some research, as I really wasn't familiar with Celtic Christianity.
They make some interesting claims in all honesty. Some that I hadn't heard of before.
The most interesting site was this one: http://www.the-celtic-church-in-scotland.org/
If the claims pan out, then it would establish their origins from the apostolic period. Unfortunately, their history page cites a lot of names but do not provide a lot of other data to check the source.
For example, the history page says:
It doesn't say in which of Tertullian's writings this statement appears. Tertullian was a fairly prolific writer. And an automated search of key words in this phrase against the databases at both ccel.org and newadvent.org don't show it.
It also says,
But when I look at Eusebius' Church History, the only use of the word "isle" is:
This same site says that they participated in the early councils of the Church. In fact, they say, And at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. the Celtic Church was again well represented, whereas the Roman church did not have a single bishop in attendance.
Again, this data is contradicted: Most of the bishops present were Greeks; among the Latins we know only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, Mark of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Donnus of Stridon in Pannonia, and the two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, representing the pope. (All of the above would be considered "Roman" bishops (with the exception of the two priests representing the pope).
If they participated in the councils, then they obviously were aware of the rest of the Christian Church and participated and were subject to its development. You can see from the quote, above, that they claim to have been there (although I see no independent verification of that). In fact, all the websites of that group that I've seen have the Nicene Creed.
Their claims to pre-date Augustine's mission to Britain are undoubtedly valid. However, it should be pointed out that St. Columba, whom they venerate, was raised in the Irish Church, founded by St Patrick. St. Columba was known for spreading Christianity to Scotland...not St. Augustine.
In fact, there is a legend that King Lucius petitioned Pope Eleutherus to be baptized. (According to Wikipedia, Unfortunately, Lucius is a non-existent King of Britain invented through confusion. The Catalogus Felicianus mentions the famous letter from 'Lucio Britannio rege' to Pope Eleutherius. This letter was in reality from the historical Lucius Aelius Septimius Megas Abgarus IX, King of Britium in Edessa.)
Their claims that the person who brought Christianity to the British Isles was Joseph of Arimathea is interesting. There are legends of this -- and I have no way to verify them. There is, likewise, a legend that St. Paul ordained Aristobulus to go pave a way to preach the Gospel in the British Isles. But once again there is no documentation. Just legend. But if you think about it, Gloucester comes from the area that spun the tale of King Arthur and the Round Table.
Here is an interesting link on this: http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/avalon-history.html
Bottom line is that I think claims that they are a pre-Nicene church is contradicted by their own history page. There is, in fact, a Celtic Rite, and there's nothing to say they don't worship in that rite. Any claims of apostolicity are HIGHLY suspect (they might, in fact, have some claim on apostolicity through St. Columba...so I don't discount it entirely). Their claims of independence from Rome are undoubtedly true (but the Celtic Church was reconciled to Rome in 644 AD at Whitby Abbey).
What it sounds to me is like it's a group like the Old Catholics, but considerably smaller in size.
But, mstar, I appreciate the challenge. Rather than spending an evening bickering back and forth with people, I had to actually exercise my brain tonight. That was a lot of fun. I had never heard of the Celtic Church prior to tonight. It was a lot of fun looking into it! Thanks!
Frankly, if the clergy in question is not Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, or Armenian then it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other.
The response was made in response to her attack.
I learned how Google does its associations and its web links.
Everybody should know after the political tactic of "google-bombing" was developed.
I don't see it because I don't allow the blasted things on my computer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
I've never heard of Jack Chick either.
Is that how you deal with it O'Malley? The truth, I mean. When you don't like it. Put the label on it. The label as prophylactic, preventing your mind from conceiving its fertile message, and bearing fruit? Hey, in that context it might be a sin. Better add it to this Sunday's mea culpas and see.
What did we say in TWI? The memory fades... Something about the Adversary maybe. Or about "world wisdom" which we knew wasn't spiritual, but merely "sense knowledge." The speaker was "tripped out," or "from the pit."
The end result was the same - shutting down the dialogue, hanging the "out to lunch" sign in the window until the other person shrugged and went away. That's what cults do. You may have thick skin, but what about your skull? Even moreso, that needs to be exceedingly thick, if it is to block out every self-evident refutation of the world's biggest cult. And so it is. You even brag about it, and rightfully so.
There is nothing over-the-top "Jack Chick-ish" about pointing to the obvious. Even the RC church has been debating whether condoms prevent AIDS transmission, although to be deliberating over the obvious in 2006 shows their contempt for human life persists unabated. And why should the church care about those lives? They're only an amalgam of molecules, pushed together like HTML code on the internet. Transigent. Temporary. Irrelevant. Totally irrelevant.
Although - according to the Post article, they may even be coming around on the AIDS thing, some day.
As for contraception-ban-engendered starvation, why would you compel impoverished people to bring children they can't hope to feed into the world? What demented soul conceived of that doctrine? Teaches that doctrine? Enforces that doctrine? Defends that doctrine? Real sickos, that's who. They know what they're doing.
We wonder about Vatican opulence, in direct contradiction to everything Christ seemed to stand for, or its army of black-frocked bachelors and burqa-draped bachelorettes over-seeing the spiritual lives of families and children. (Which among today's priesthood would Jesus have chosen as disciples? If any, not many.)
The RC church long ago became a carnival, a monstrous parody of the body of Christ. And you as a Christian can see no alternative?
Repeat after me, Mark, and this post will go away: "Jack Chick, Jack Chick, Jack Chick, Jack Chick..."
Do it enough and you'll never have to think about jack sh...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Satori,
Your comments are in italics.
Not surprised by that. But the philosophy espoused by Jack Chick resounds through any post you touch that deals with Catholicism.
I call it the way I see it. When I see black helicopters flying around, whether they be the black helicopters put up by the fertile imaginations of the militia movement that espoused Timothy McVeigh, the black helicopters put up by the anti-Bush crowd, the black helicopters put up by the anti-Freemason crowd, the black helicopters put up by the anti-Catholic crowd, they are still black helicopters...and they exist in the mind of the person spewing the garbage.
See above.
Now is that your objection? That Catholicism is religion and you oppose religion (particularly Catholicism)? Or do you oppose Catholicism specifically and have no problems with other religions? Because if you oppose religion in general and Catholicism in particular (as the epitome of religion), then I respectfully withdraw the above comments and officially apologize. (A characteristic of Jack Chick "Christianity" is that Christianity Good...Catholicism Bad...)
However, pending hearing a response from you on that, I will continue, conditionally, as if your vitriol is aimed specifically at the Catholic Church and is not simply using the Catholic Church as the personification of religion in general...
But, as they occasionally do, the Post got it wrong. Please note this Zenit article, posted a few days after the Italian Paper La Rebubblica published the original interview which caused the media whirlwind.
On June 6th, the Vatican issued a re-iteration of its long-held stance on such subjects as birth control, condom use, in vitro fertilization, etc.
Problem is, Satori, that there is one way to prevent the transmission of AIDS. And you as well as I know exactly what that one way is.
As to contempt for human life, that comment is beneath comment so you'll pardon me if I just don't sink to your level and address it.
You wiil, of course, acknowledge that all of Christianity prohibited contraception before the Anglicans changed their minds at the Lambeth conference of 1930 (Resolution 15).
Population control is a good thing. The muzzies over in Europe like population control, since Europe will be a Muslim-majority continent within 50 years or so, since the stupid Christian Europeans are contracepting themselves into extinction. In fact France is paying women a bonus of $1,200 to have a baby. And Russia is paying women $9,500 if they have a second child.
You will, of course, be able to show me a time when there wasn't starving children in Africa and in South Asia? And, of course, you will explain how many majority-Catholic countries there are in Africa and South Asia that have those emergency starvation issues because of overpopulation? (Hint: most are muzzie). And, of course, you will explain how the Vatican (that does not have a vote at the UN) has been able to block the efforts of UNICEF and other UN agencies...that all have very vigorous programs for population control. You will explain how this position impacts ANYTHING whatsoever?
You know, I heard an interview about that very subject many months ago.
And, frankly, there is, periodically, a lot of dicsussion of that within certain circles of the Church, as well as you pointing your finger at the Church.
Before I address that, though, I'd like to take you to Northeast DC, to the Basillica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. An absolutely BEAUTIFUL building. If you go to DC, I encourage you to visit it sometime. (Click on the link to see a virtual tour of the building). Do you know how it was funded? From donations (including some from me). Now there are literally millions of dollars of treasure in that building, alone. The Church could sell the building and do a fire sale on all the contents of the building to feed the poor of DC. But I didn't donate the money I donated to them for them to sell the building to feed the poor. I would feel quite betrayed if they did so. I DO donate a lot of money and donate a lot of time to care for the poor. And I would be quite upset to find that the money I donated to the poor was used to build a church.
In my parish, we have beautiful things, as well (nothing like what's at the Shrine). All of them provided by donation. Should they be sold off? What about the wishes of the donors who gave the money to get those beautiful things?
Now, the Vatican. I am confident that there are literally BILLIONS of dollars of treasure in the Vatican. They COULD sell it off. And they could give ALL of the money to Caritas for distribution to the poor in Africa. They really and truly could. Would that solve world hunger? What long term good is it?
The British could sell off all of their treasure in the British Museum and use the money for social programs. That would likely help people for a short time and then they'd be in the same straits they were in to begin with.
The Turks could do so with their Ottoman museum, the Egyptians with their museum, the Russians with their museums, and the Americans with their museums.
Would wealth be redistributed? Yes (never knew you to be a socialist Satori). But would it solve world hunger? Yeah, right.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the treasure was always righteously acquired. St. Peter's Basillica was funded in large part through the sale of indulgences, a practice that was a grievous sin. And one that was condemned by the Council of Trent (and never repeated). Does that mean the St. Peter's Basillica should be ripped down? Should it be sold and reparations paid to those whose money was taken? How do you propose to do that?
(Of course, that same logic, applied to the United States, says that we should return all of the land taken from the Aboriginal tribes in this country should be returned to them, as well)
Your opinion. One which, at least the "evidence" you've supplied above, is clearly not supported by fact.
As I said before, the reason I am Catholic is doctrinal. There is plenty wrong with the Catholic Church. But your Jack Chick responses haven't even hit one point of what's really wrong with it. (I'll give you a hint: it's called heterodoxy)
OK.
Jack Chick
Jack Chick
Jack Chick
Nope, your post is still here. Along with your black-helicopter, Council on Foreign Relations, Mind-Control chip implanted in the head of special operations soldiers, Bush blew up the WTC, illuminadi impregnated conspiracy theories. In other words, Jack Chick Christianity.
From you, of all people Satori, I am shocked that you have consistently displayed this tiny-minded attitude. From your earlier posts in 'tacks, I have always given you far more credit for having a sharp mind and a keen intellect. You usually have displayed a great ability for critical thought. I have no earthly idea why you have this chink in your intellectual armor.
I am NOT trying to convert you nor am I trying to convert anybody else. And if you choose to disagree with the doctrines of the Church, that's your business. Again, I really don't care one way or the other.
But the stuff you come out with is straight from the Alberto Rivera series of comics produced by Jack Chick. Seriously, it is.
And the reason why I'm shocked that YOU, of all people, spew this stuff is that it is usually spewed by fundamentalist types who have turned off their brains and believe such hogwash like the King James Version of the Bible was the original that was delivered to the Apostles...along with the red lettering. And so on..
But I guess everybody's got their foibles.
Yup. Straight from a Jack Chick comic book found in a men's room of a greasy spoon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Your welcome!
I honestly dont know all that much about them myself, ( as I said Im not up on my church history) but I find they are a very interesting group. I find it especuially interesting that they have somehow stayed off the frontpage and out of the limelight of history for a very long time unlike their Roman brothers.
Im not sure if thats because their church developed more along monastic lines as opposed to having a dioscesene model but I have atendency to think so. Whether the two different structures were actually laid out as formats in the NT I doubt but am of the opinion that they were picked up and adapted to the church (especially Rome) from the political structures that were working in the empire at the time, which had an emphasis on centralized power and control, and the contemplative monastic model of the celtic church from the existing spiritual communities and traditions of Britannia (like the Druids) that esteemed each individual and revered community...Ones not necessarily betteror righter than the other but it did give the Romans a huge leg up in the PR Department via political involvement for the last few millenia
Unfortunately (well for us anyway) the Celts , like a lot of other cultures, were a culture that had oral tradition as one of its centerpoints, (It still does have a reverence for poets, bards, sages, and stories--try any Irish Pub!) and wasnt as meticulous in its written records as the Romans or the Hebrews, so all things Celt are bathed in legend and mystery and verfication of actual details via written records unless one has an incredibly diligence (like yourself) are difficult---but I suppose not impossible.
Your questions are honest--and to be honest I am not going to read the entire works of Tertullian or Eusebius just yet to hunt down a phrase that some well meaing web geek may have botched in the first place ( maybe womeday i will-but not today)--there are email addresses to all the leaders of the church that you provided the link for-they'd no better than I---
anyway glad you enjoyed the time reading about them---you just found out about them yesterday maybe they'll hold something for you.
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
what is the one way to prevent the transmission of AIDS ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Well, the single best way is to keep certain parts of the male anatomy out of certain places on your body. The second best way is to avoid intravenous drug use. The rest is a crap shoot.
-JJ
Edited by JumpinJiveLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
mstar,
One thing I'll say, though, is 'tho I doubt that I'd ever convert to Orthodox Christianity, because of the issue of schism, I have learned a lot about the spirituality of Eastern Catholicism as a result (as both the Orthodox and the eastern Catholics of different rites share a lot of elements of the same spirituality). And there is a tremendous amount to learn from both.
I am a bit constrained right now, as my daughter attends the parish school (and thus I am required to be an active parishoner to maintain the 'in parish' tuition rate), so I can only occasionally go to an Eastern Catholic liturgy, after she graduates, there is a distinct possibility that I may make my search significantly more serious. I don't know that I will ever actually switch rites, but it is something that is a possibility.
(For those who may not be aware, the Latin (Roman) Church is only one of several distinct "Particular Churches" that form the Catholic (Universal) Church. It is, by far, the largest, but the others are there and are in full communion with the Holy Father and with each other. An interesting article in Crisis Magazine gives a thumbnail overview of these churches for those who might be curious)
The point being that, although it would be doubtful that I would ever 'convert' to Celtic Christiantiy, there might be something to learn from their spirituality. So I'll keep my eyes open when I go to the bookstore...might see something interesting to read.
Thanks, again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Actually, JJ, the best way is for certain males to keep certain parts of the male anatomy out of certain parts of other males' anatomy. That would eliminate about 95% of the cases of it.
Then, if males would only place certain parts of the male anatomy in certain parts of only one female's anatomy and if females would allow only one male to place that part of the anatomy in their anatomy, that would eliminate about 99% of the remaining 5%.
Then we only have those who pick it up from toilet seats.
:asdf:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Mark,
In the Mass, do RC communicants partake of the bread only, while the priest alone partakes of the wine? Or, does the laity partake of both the bread and the wine?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Mark, I have really enjoyed following your responses on this thread, as well as the input by Mstar. I am not a Catholic, by any stretch of the imagination. Nonetheless I find the subject interesting.
On another topic within this thread - what you said above may have been true a long time ago, but unfortunately the cat is out of the bag now. Sushi says the best way to prevent aids is to use an aspirin. He had to explain what he meant, but once he did, I had to agree. [Put it between your knees and hold it there
]. The next best way is to stick with one partner for life. I have never heard of a case of two homosexual MONOGONOUS males contracting HIV.
Unfotunately, needles are also a problem. I am not sure, but at one time so were blood transfusions, don't know if that is still true today. I know a man, however, who lost his wife to aides, which she contracted via a blood transfusion. He will one day likewise succomb to the same disease, which he contracted through his wife before they ever knew she had it.
However, I hardly think one can blame the Catholic Church for HIV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I guess all points of discussion are open, now - Mark. "The Doctrinal Forum"....
AIDS and other diseases that can be transimitted through sexual activity brings an interesting topic to the front actually, as the Catholic priesthood has seemed to attract it's fair share of homosexual men to it's ranks.
I'm kind of picking at the inner conflicts I see there, sorting through the personal side of the Church of Rome, and the people that join the orders and their leadership roles in the church...
As an organization the RCC attracts it's people, and the people are who they are, do what they do, become what they become.
The RCC condemns homosexuality. Yet is seems homosexual men do join the priesthood. Perhaps expecting to change? I don't know. Expecting to be who they are and carry on? I don't know.
Then we see the continual exposing of child molestation by priests, I guess both homosexual and hetero, or perhaps "bi-sexual".
Which makes a kind of bizzare tragic irony, as they've chosen a lifestyle that gives up marriage, the sacrament the RCC has that recognizes and blesses sexual activity in marriage, and families. So despite the fact that humans are indeed creatures with a sexual component, they deliberately choose to deny expression through the sacrament, and lead a life that "gives that up", as means of pursuing a greater calling and personal purpose they feel compelled to work towards.
And that in and of itself isn't completely unusual - people of all stripes, certainly religious people, see denial of various kinds as a means to attain greater insight and relationship with "the divine" within themselves. So I or someone else may not see that as a life we'd choose, but we're not the ones choosing it. Within our American society if there are no laws broken, people are free to pursue their lives as they see fit - at least within the norms of what's acceptable let's say. (we know some things are perfectly legal and yet not acceptable and get treated much differently by society)
So - okay...within that I see some conflicts -
-The homosexuals who choose a church that condemns that lifestyle.
-Those who choose a kind of greater committment in the church that specifically restricts sexual activity
-The fact that amongst that body of people they are assigned a role of leadership and trust within the church, knowing full well that they're in conflict with the faith they're signing on to uphold and defend.
And for the Church itself -
-How it handles and doesn't handle the question of homosexuality in the religious orders ("don't ask don't tell"...? doesn't seem to work if that's it, as the Church has doctrine on it)
-Does and doesn't handle the problems like child molestation committed by both homo and hetero sexuals
-Allows little or no outside intervention or access to information about any of it
Those things - the conflicts of the people involved, and the Church that has a system that allows for it - are big question marks for me. There's clear deception involved.
As is the way the Church has limited access to information about the people and how it's handling them - despite the fact that their very own membership is at risk and effected by all decsions it makes in these issues.
Conspiracy theorists are going to fueled by what can be described as a "secret" society of men and women who are governed solely by their own people and who have these kinds of personal internal conflicts, at least the way I see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Theoretically, if two monogomous males were virgins when they started doing each other and were faithful throughout their life, then I'd reckon you would be right.
You can take a look at the statistics on exactly who has HIV and you will see that I am pretty close to being right. (I just don't have time to give the link now, but I believe it's on the NIH or the HHS dot gov websites someplace.
As to transfusions, that makes up a tiny, tiny percentage...as is transmission from any other form of contact.
As to needle use, again, one has to take a look at the behaviors of the people passing the needles.
Bottom line is that if, in an ideal world, people did those two things I suggested (not that I'm the originator of the suggestion), the vast, vast, vast majority of cases would be eliminated. And the remaining cases would drop off dramatically as they are secondary to those two causes.
Cynic,
Short answer:
Latin Rite: both sometimes
Eastern Rite: both always
I have to run so don't have time for a full answer. I would be happy to provide it for you if you're interested (start a thread please).
Have to run. Daughter has to be at church for the Rite of Election for her confirmation.
Sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
a
Edited by ChattyKathyLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i don't know if he's allowed to use a condemn (sp?) ha
-----
YUCK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I don't care who sticks what where, but I really don't get gays being priests or anything related to Christianity. It's like they have to glom on to Christianity, instead of making their own gay religion. Why would that be?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
and another thing
my two little brothers were too young to know anything about where that certain part should or should not go in and where
then they were taught by father butler. and monsignor knew all about it. butler had been transferred to our parish because he was doing the molestation in brooklyn or somewhere before that..... guess when he got "exposed" ? when he was in his early 80's
one of my brothers went and testified against him. the other one couldn't handle it.
the dog monsignor is still at my neighborhood parish. when HE found out my brother would be testifying, he didn't show
the parish is still going strong
my brothers, well they're alive and functioning
one of them could not enjoy hetero sex FOR YEARS because of what happened to him before he reached puberty
he used to go secretly into the city for homosexual sex
gee i hope he doesn't have aids
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ps. if all this sounds confusing, i have five brothers
i also have priests, nuns, the whole bit..... generations
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I find it rather easy to be an a_sshole but if I were a Romanist, even I probably couldn't bring myself to lecture Excathedra about her opinion of the RCC.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Ex,
As I have said to you before on other threads, I do feel very sorry for you and your family. I think the abuse you had to tolerate and the treatment you had to endure (primarily the neglect) from your hierarchy is reprehensible at best.
I would have never brought that stuff up as I don't recall whether you had brought it up publically on the forum before.
(I'm trying to speak circumspectly so that if you later on decide to edit your stuff out of your post, I won't be violating any confidential information)
But your family's troubles epitomize what I see as being wrong with the Church in the past decades. Heterodoxy.
Everybody KNOWS what is in the Bible about homosexuality. Everybody KNOWS what the Church has traditionally taught about it as well. We can argue back and forth whether or not the Bible means it or not, but the bottom line is that it is real clear to anybody what is taught.
But for some reason, in the post-war era, the hierarchy in the Church, particularly in this country, decided to get all nice and warm and fuzzy and decide that the Vatican didn't mean it when it said homosexuals shouldn't be ordained priests. After all, since they're going to be celibate anyway, who cares, right?
And where did that lead us? Well, excath, I think you can answer that one far better than I can...
And JPII put in corrections to fix the situation shortly after he was elected Pope. They were followed some places. In fact, in time, I'd say most places. Unfortunately, there were a number of bishops (Law, Mahoney come to mind in particular) who decided that they didn't need to consider their promises of chastity and obedience to the Holy Father and disregarded clear instructions. As a result, a few years ago, an official apostolic visitation (consider that the Vatican's Inspector General team coming in) went and visited all the seminaries in the US. Why? #1, to make sure they were screening seminary candidates properly and #2, to make sure that they were teaching them properly how to be priests.
Religious institutes are even worse! (In fact, the only reason why the stats make it appear that the incidence of abuse among diocesan priests is worse than the incidence of abuse among religious priests is the opportunity, in my opinion)
(Having said that, the incidence of abuse have gone down since JPII was elected and put in those reforms. The levels now are about the same or maybe a bit lower than the levels seen in Protestant and Jewish groups...and considerably lower than in the public schools, by the way)
And it's not just that...it's the quality of relgious education out there. The textbooks the kids have to study are pitiful. A high degree of the teachers out there are morally unqualified, not just educationally incompetent. A bulk of Catholic Colleges out there are out-and-out heretical. JPII published an apostolic exhortation titled Ex Corde Ecclesia, which directed certain actions that had to be taken by Catholic colleges in order to retain their status. Among those is that the educators in those institutions had to sign a pledge to teach matters of faith and morals in accordance with the Magesterium of the Church. A surprising number of those colleges and their faculty refused to sign the documents. And where were the bishops? Noplace to be found (they were busy attending rallies supporting illegal immigration or something else along those lines). The Holy Father gave the bishops the tool they needed to do their job and the bishops just plain refuse to do so.
Again, not all of the bishops. And, thanks be to retirement age, a shrinking number of bishops, but it's out there.
And I think it is an absolute miracle that with the characteristic of a large number of bishops out there that they haven't succeeded, at least on the national level, to change the doctrine taught by the Church. But they haven't. And God willing, they won't.
You know what's the problem? Heterdoxy. Heterodoxy caused your family's woes. Pure and simple.
You know what the fix is? Orthodox bishops with some steel in their spines being appointed.
And I know you don't agree...and I know that doesn't make you feel any better...
And I wish that there was something that could be done to undo what happened to your family.
And I don't blame you for feeling the way you feel.
But that doesn't really change anything, does it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
.....its those colorfully embroidered vestments deary...they are just so fabulous...
:) -no offense intended --I couldnt resist that one
there are probably lots of reasons I woud think mostly a real devotion to what they consider to be the one true faith in spite of their being gay. I've never seen any stats, but in a group as large as the RC Church I would guess that the rate of gay priests is probably about the same or less than you would find in the general population. Being gay doesnt make them child molesters anymore than it would for a heterosexual-besides they all take a vow of chastity-dont they? which should render their sexual orientation moot.
It may work for some or even a lot of them... but the problem is -its not practical to human nature for just anyone to undergo such stringent rules to thwart the sexual drive without it becoming occasionally distorted and coming out in horrible ways
I would think that they would have figured that out sometime over the last 1000 years or so , and if they wanted to keep that discipline, to place more stringent safeguards and mechanisms into their system.
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You can see my response to that. But yes it does.
The vast majority of the incidents of abuse are homosexual in nature.There's two ways you can look at it. Maybe it's because they want to change. Maybe it's a predatory thing (a bunch of males being in close proximity...also having unescorted access to young teenaged boys). The military also seems to attract its share of gays too. Again, a bunch of guys housed together in a close environment.
Trouble is, according to Church teaching, the condition of being homosexual is considered to be 'gravely disordered.' Not sinful (unless acted on), but like a mental disease. You know that the official manual of psychology, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, classed homosexuality as a mental disease up until the 1970s. Then they became 'enlightened.' Bottom line is that I don't know how the mind of a 'gravely disordered' person operates.
That's a good point.
You raise some very valid points.
The hierarchy does a pretty pitiful job of handling the issue of homosexuality in religious orders. Religious orders are called to be pretty well self-disciplined within their "rules" which have been approved by the Vatican. There are some religious orders that, from all accounts, are very good and holy orders. There are some that need to be purged. Not only for homosexuality, but for many other incidences of violating Church doctrine in many areas.
Again, as I said before, the vast majority of cases of abuse in the Catholic Church were homosexual in nature.
As I said, above, in my post to excath, the problem of child molestation is largely dependent on the local bishop. They were always kept very private, though, no matter how they were handled. There are, thankfully, a remarkably few cases like the case of the priest that excathedra's family was subjected to (a serial abuser). Like 100 priests out of 4-5000 with cases against them. The vast, vast majority involved a priest who had one incident in his life. Likewise, the bulk of the incidents were dealt with quietly, but they were dealt with. (During the 70s and 80s, the belief in the psychological community was that this was a problem that could be treated and cured. I believe that they have, since then, gotten a lot smarter. But because of that, a lot of the 'dealing with' the situation involved treatment and then returning the priest to ministry after the shrinks said that he was cured). The problem is that they weren't screening out homosexuals out from the seminary...and largely didn't do so through the 70s. JPII re-issued guidance shortly after he was elected that re-iterated the position that homosexuals must not go into the seminary.
And yes, the Church is very private about problems. Maybe too private. But the problem in these days is that if they air their dirty laundry in public, there are socres of people, including not a few here, that would lick their chops in anticipation. On the other hand, it would be better that accurate information is out there so that the inaccurate information can be balanced by facts. So I don't know.
But some good points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Mark, you have to be one of the most honest men I've ever encountered on an online board, or any where else for that matter.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
mark
i haven't read your post yet except for a few lines
i'm hoping you distinguish between homosexuality and sexual molestation of children
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
for what its worth...and correct me if im wrong, but it seems fitting to mention...
Here is a bookstore i've helped put together
for the center where ive been studying with and supporting for some time now
and no, i'm not posting this cuz i want gscers to buy stuff
...but to point out that there often is a lot more to any given conversation around human religious traditions and practices
there are a lot of good and well-informed people from all over the world involved in the work of this center, too
...a lot of those very authors
drawing from catholic roots, celtic roots, jewish roots, quaker roots, and some interesting others from the east
...a lot of atheists, too (which look more like inside out buddhists, to me)
from what i have seen and done, i am convinced that there really is a whole different level of approaching the very same topics we typically rastle over
...and this skill is neither old or new news, but perennial stuff
i could even go as far as to call them all arts and sciences of of ever deeper ways of friendship
or some such silly thing
but we often fail to believe it is possible, or kept from us in another realm
or we think it would be immoral or wrong or dangerous
or maybe we are offended at the notion that such things can be measured in terms of levels and degrees
or we often just have never been given the tools to do such things
or something else...often even tribal
but regardless
i have seen that it is possible
and there certainly is always a lot more to the story
more ways to talk about religious and philosophical stuff, culturally
and there certainly is a lot more to what has been done in the name of catholicism, or christianity, or by wandering irish poets and the other radical characters of lore
tho all too often...occam's hammer is used where a razor would do just fine
as if we cant handle the complication and messiness of it or something
and so we flatten it all out and get monochromatic about it
so...not sure what else to say about it all right now
...except that i wish you all peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.