Posted on 06/27/2014 3:58:36 PM PDT by NYer
piusv:
I was commenting on your post #154. It was cryptic, at least to me, since you stated invited non-Catholics to Rome. As I stated, Pope Francis has had representatives from 4 different Christian groups in Rome during the last month, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Armenian orthodox [not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox, sometimes referred as oriental orthodox] and of course the American prosperity evangelical-Pentecostals. That is 4 distinct and different groups of Christians he has met with.
You make a good point. I am not the official interpreter of Papal remarks, but in my opinion, I think the Pope asks a valid question. How do we (clergy) minister to those who are divorced, and then to those who are divorced and remarried? One of the major challenges is given what Jesus tells us about marriage and remarriage is pretty clear. However, do we leave them by the roadside, especially those cases where a cheating/beating/drugging spouse asks for the divorce, and then refuses to participate in an annulment (when properly deserved)?
Like so many things in life, Jesus sets the objective standard, but circumstances can mitigate the consequences/guilt.
Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to all mankind in general, but to Catholics in specific, who accept the teachings of His Church.
It is a non sequitur because Christians coming together to discuss ways to cooperate and serve our fellow man has absolutely nothing to do with the Devil tempting Jesus with the kingdoms of the world.
How does the Bible passage you posted relate to the meeting?
Hmmm, your reply is pretty thin. Just because the Church was deficient in the knowledge of science doesn’t mean the Church is deficient in the preaching of the Gospel.
There is a room in the Papal Museum (I have been there and seen it) that houses one of Galileo’s telescopes, along with a plaque explaining his contribution to science.
God used the whole Galileo event to serve a couple of purposes. The first was to humble Galileo, but also demonstrate his humility through obedience. The second was to humble the Church leaders, and allow them to recognize the tremendous contribution of Galileo. Finally, the Church went further to promote scientific exploration as a means to better understand God.
I understand where you are coming from, and think you make a valid argument. I did poorly word my response, but stand by my statement that inviting non-Catholics is a good thing.
Regarding a joined/unified liturgical event, I think you are right. Pius XI clearly teaches that shouldn’t take place.
Regarding pre-VII, my opinion is that the Church had a much stronger position in the world, both as a moral authority and political power, thus negating the need to have events like the Pentecost meeting.
I think you are making a good point. How should the Church handle these types of situations? With the Gospel first, of course. However, we even see Jesus commenting on the Mosaic law with his Apostles gleaning wheat on the Sabbath. Is there wiggle room? If so, how much, etc.?
Inviting is one thing, praying with them and giving legitimacy to their religion is another. And when there has been no clear indications that he believes there is an absolute requirement for any non-Catholic to convert to Catholicism his invitations appear as empty gestures. He’s (and we are) better off not inviting in the first place.
It doesn’t say the use of the word “father” is bad. But why does the Catholic church abuse names so much and why do they walk so closely to lines drawn by God. “Call no one Father” so the RCC makes it a title. “Don’t worship the queen of heaven” so the RCC makes that one of Mary’s hundreds of titles. “Do not worship images” so the RCC fills it’s buildings and houses with images. “Holy Father, keep through your Name” from John 17 and the RCC takes it upon itself to invent a Pope and give him one of God’s names. “Blesses are the breasts which nursed you. Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and do it” so the RCC invents/revives the worship of a Goddess while calling her Mary and using every synonym of worship they can think of to describe how to feel about her.
Why have any laws, even the Ten Commandments, if there’s always “wiggle room”?
DungeonMaster:
Because the way you understand those things is not the way Catholic Theology understands those things. Icons and images are not worshiped they are venerated and honored. The question regarding the incons/images, sacred art, etc was one dealt with in the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787. Rejection of Icons/images is taken to be an attack on the Incarnation.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum07.htm
The Catholic Church does not give the Pope one of God’s names. Calling Pope Holy Father is not calling him God. The Pope is not Holy on his own power, it is a sign of respect sense he has been called or dedicated to serve God in a special way. In fact, Saint Peter in his Letter [1 Pet 1:14-15] writes “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, be {holy} yourselves in all your conduct since it is written “You shall be holy for I am holy” [Saint Peter again citing OT scripture here from Lev 11:44; Lev 19:2; Lev 20:7]. Saint Paul demonstrates a similar theology as Saint Peter with respect to the use of “holy” when he writes “I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, {holy} and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be {transformed} by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” [Romans 12:1-2]
In the Nicene Creed, it speaks of the Church as “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic”, again not Holy because of its members, but because Christ is the head of it which is His Body and he is fully present in her.
As for Mary as “Queen of Heaven”, it is prefigured in the OT as shown in the 2 cites below, one of them Eastern Orthodox, not Catholic. In the OT, the Mother of the King was anointed Queen, not the wife. Jesus thus as the true eternal King, and Mary as Queen of Heaven fits this OT typology perfectly.
http://theorthodoxfaith.com/mary-as-the-queen-of-heaven/
http://www.catholic-convert.com/blog/2012/08/21/mary-queen-of-heaven/
Actually, there have been countless Catholics Priests and Bishops who were great Scientist. Here is a quick list. Many of the great breakthroughs of Science were done by Catholic priests and Bishops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists
Because the intent of the Law was to lead us to Christ, not to save us.
It's meant to show us God's standard and our need for redemption.
If righteousness could be gained through the Law, Christ died for nothing.
I'm sure Galielo could have a few things to say about the RCC and science.
Never heard of that one. Do you have a source?
metmom:
That doesn’t change the fact that there were countless Catholic Scientist, many of them Priest. The Father of modern Genetics, Mendel was a Catholic Priest, the father of the Bing Bang theory, Lamatrie was a priest. Roger Bacon was a Franciscan priest.
You only know what polemist, primarily, secular ones, say about Galielo. He got in trouble by going beyond accepted science. In fact, most of the Jesuits, who had telescopes as well and were viewing the same things he was agreed that his theory was “likely correct”. Galielo went beyond science and what got him into trouble was getting into Theology and personal attacks on the Pope.
The issue of Galileo is one that both fundamentalist protestatns [which you seem to be] and agnostic empiricist both use to attack the Church. The reality is that neither ever gets their facts straight. Galileo was promoting the Copernican Theory, which was published before his time and the historical evidence indicates that the two leading astronomers of Galileo’s time were split on the question of the Copernican Theory as Kepler accepted it and Brahe did not (Carroll, History of Christendom Volume 4 “The Cleaving of Christendon” p. 492).
In 1610 Galileo made observations which he claimed supported the Copernican Theory, which he argued was proved by the oceans tides [which was false] as it was Bessel in 1838 who found the evidence that proved the Copernican theory.
The Vatican had long been in favor of Scientific Discovery as evidenced by the Catholic Papal Universities in Rome which supported astronomical research in the 16th century and of course the work of the great Jesuit Mathematician, Father Clavius whose work helped formulate the “Gregorian Calendar.” It was Fr. Clavius and the other Jesuits who made the same observations as Galileo and felt that his discoveries were true, ie. that the Copernican theory was probably true, although the evidence was not there yet to fully support it. So again, the notion that the Catholic Church was “anti Science” is nonsense as at the same time of Galileo, the Pope’s had set up observatories in Rome, staffed by the Jesuits, many of whom were also leading scientist.
As Carroll notes again on page 492 in Volume 4 of his work “The Cleaving of Christendom,” some of the Priests of the Dominican order began stating that mathematicians and supporters of the Copernican theory are nothing short of fomenters of heresy. For the record, the Jesuits and Dominicans were at odds against each other [actually accused each other of heresy, the Jesuits accusing the Dominicans of Calvinism, the Dominicans accusing the Jesuits of Pelagianism] and eventually it was Pope Clement VIII who called a commission to settle the dispute, which he resolved by stating that both sides need to “chill in essence” and both can hold their theological systems as being complimentary to the Catholic Church’s understanding of Grace, Divine Providence and human free will, etc. As Carroll notes (p.492), the Dominican Priest Caccini argued that the passage where Joshua commanded the sun to stand still is incompatible with the Copernican theory.
As Carroll states (pp. 492-493), the critics of the Copernican theory were unprepared to recognize that a universe generally governed by physical laws could still accommodate miracles due to the direct action of God. The sun standing still at Joshua’s command was not an action that could be explained by natural laws, but it did not need to be explained by those laws; the miracle could not be seen as disproving the Copernican theory and Scientific Laws since God can override His laws when it suits His purpose.
In addition, the Dominican Caccini accused Galileo of making “scriptural interpretations.” In response, the future Pope Urban VIII [then Cardinal Barberini] told Galileo that he should not extent his arguments beyond the scientific theories of both Ptolemy and Copernicus and when discussing those theories stay within the limits of both Mathematics and physics. As Pope Urban further noted, the interpretation of scripture is ultimately for the Theologians and the Church.
In a similar fashion, Cardinal Bellarmine stated that the Copernican theory may be true, but was not yet conclusively proved and should not be applied to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture until it was definitively proved (Carroll, p. 493 in Volume 4 of his work) Galileo it seems went beyond the limits suggested by both Cardinal Barberini and Bellarmine and he preached the Copernican theory as Truth [which again, was not fully proved until the 19th century]. The critics of Christianity [Renaissance had started] used this debate to mock Christianity.
In the end, regardless of where the earth is in the center of the Universe, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that the earth and all creation has been redeemed via the Incarnation of Christ, i.e. the Word became Flesh (cf. John 1:14) for “many deceivers have gone into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist” (cf. 2 John: 7).
Now, back to Galileo, it is true that Pope Paul V asked for a formal decision about the “Copernican Theory” via the Roman Inquisition. However, Cardinal Bellarmine told the Pope that he should not make any statement on this question [again, remember that Cardinal Bellarmine had publicly stated that he though the Copernican theory was probably true]. So what we have is a group of 11 Theologians making a statement about the Copernican Theory [which is a scientific theory, not a theological one] and none of these 11 Theologians was according to Carroll (p. 493) a natural philosopher or mathematician [Perhaps the Pope should have put some of the Jesuits on the panel]. The Eleven member panel of Theologians stated that the Copernican Theory was “false, absurd and heretical”. However, the Roman Inquisition in its formal decree rejected the word “heretical” and took it out and further more, the Pope made no pronouncement. Still, as Carroll again notes, the statement that the Copernican Theory was “false and absurd” was one of the most grievous mistakes in the History of the Catholic Church for the Church was not empowered by Christ to make formal statements about Science. St. Augustine, who lived from 360 AD to 430 AD made that same statement during his time.
So Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to tell Galileo that he could not teach the Copernican Theory as definitively true, which meant he could teach it as a valid Theory. Carroll then points out (pp. 494-495) that an unsigned document was inserted into Galileo’s file which forbade him from teaching the Copernican System as a Theory. When the controversy arose again in 1632, Galileo testified that he never remembers this document being in the File and Cardinal Bellarmine had gone on record as to what the decree he gave Galileo entailed. Most scholars now conclude that this “unsigned Document” was false and most probably was inserted by a Dominican member of the Inquisition who objected to Galileo, the Copernican System and perhaps the Jesuits who tended to support him.
As Carroll again notes, Galileo was a good Catholic and consented to the decrees of Pope Paul V sent via Cardinal Bellarmine. Nevertheless, the statement the “Copernican system as a scientific theory was false and absurd” was not a smart move, even though the word heretical was correctly taken out of the statement.
I used to read those to try to determine why the circuit I was testing was not working...
Surely one side or the other was offering SOMETHING...
Hmmm, your reply is pretty much off in a rabbit hole. Because the Church's preaching of the Gospel was never mentioned at all; but the UNSUPPORTED claim that there is NO TIME IN HEAVEN..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.