In the modern world,
I think box office decides.
It's numbers, baby!
Posted on 09/29/2005 8:08:26 AM PDT by NYer
The media is rife with stories about the meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and famed Catholic dissident Hans Küng. There is also much heated debate within Catholic circles over what the (according to Küng) 4-hour meeting, signified.
Many orthodox Catholics are chalking the meeting up to the fact that Küng and Pope Benedict are old friends turned enemies and now reacquainted in their old age. So-called 'liberal' or dissident Catholics are reading into the meeting a 'new openness' to dissident views. Küng himself is musing about the meeting as a sign of new "openness" on the part of Pope Benedict.
While Küng has given several interviews following his meeting with the Pope, the only official message to come from the Vatican on the meeting contained few details. For the best summary of Küng's take on the meeting and his dissident history see John Allen's report in the National Catholic Reporter here: (warning: it is a dissident Catholic publication) http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn09260...
Küng suggests that Pope Benedict himself penned the Vatican statement on the meeting, checking it with Küng prior to releasing it. The text (which can be viewed here: http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=6086... ) acknowledges the meeting but does not note the duration, and confirms that it was held in a "friendly atmosphere" and did not delve into doctrinal disputes. The statement notes that the discussion centered on Küng's 'Weltethos' (global ethics) project. The Vatican statement says "The Pope welcomed Professor Kung's efforts to contribute to a renewed recognition of the essential moral values of humanity through the dialogue of religions and in the encounter with secular reason. He stressed that the commitment to a renewed awareness of the values that sustain human life is also an important objective of his own pontificate."
The push for "values that sustain human life" on the part of the Pope seems to be the only significant point the Vatican has made with the announcement.
But for those following the global ethics project, that intervention by the Pope is significant indeed.
Küng first pushed his notion of a global ethic at the United Nations in 1991 and then at the Parliament of World Religions in 1993. There the gathered religious leaders adopted the declaration "Towards a Global Ethic" which became a rallying cry both in UN documents and gatherings of international leaders culminating in the formation of the Earth Charter by former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev and Canadian-born UN environmentalist guru Maurice Strong. The founding documents of the Earth Charter credit Küng's global ethics with its underpinning.
While the global ethics document is amorphous and open-ended, the Earth Charter is in favour of abortion under the UN code words of 'reproductive' health in relation to population control. The Charter's resolution 7 calls all to "Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth's regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being" and in subsection 'e' calls on people to "Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction."
The Earth Charter has been criticized as a "new age Ten Commandments" seeking to supersede religious moral codes. Indeed the Earth Charter website (http://www.earthcharter.org ) boasts of nearly 15,000 "Groups, organizations and individuals from around the world, representing millions of people" which have officially endorsed the Earth Charter.
With the Pope stressing pro-life concerns to Küng, the progenitor of the Earth Charter, he can be seen as addressing the problem of the global ethic at its root. The Catholic Church has long acknowledged a system of moral ethics which can be agreed upon even without religious belief - that of natural law. However, current secular morality, such as that of the Earth Charter, has rejected natural law on issues of life and family and has turned evil into good and good into evil.
In the new morality, the right to life of the unborn has been translated into an anti-woman stance. In fact, the UN frequently pushes for abortion in the context of stopping maternal mortality, thus opposition to the availability of "safe, legal" abortion is seen as an anti-life position.
Faithful adherence to religion is also seen as tantamount to extremism leading to violence. The terrorism of Muslim extremism has lent itself neatly to that thesis.
Thus a moral code or global ethic superseding religious tenets sits well with many - a prescription for a world religion, not calling itself a religion, but a religion nonetheless.
The best analysis of B16's meeting with Kung by far. Enjoy!
While she does not have anti-cahtolic bias, she very much beleives that many Catholic teachings are wrong.
I have gotten her to accept that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, however she thinks it has gone totally astray. Anyway, her major problem is the refusal to accept the idea of confessing to men i.e. Priests. Anyone have any advice?
bump
How can anyone prove that a religion is false?
Welcome home!
*her major problem is the refusal to accept the idea of confessing to men i.e. Priests. Anyone have any advice? *
Perhaps the following Scriptural references will clarify the matter for her.
I. Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins
John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.
John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.
John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.
Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to "men." Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles' successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?
Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the "Son of man" has authority to forgive sins on earth.
Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus' authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.
Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church.
John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ's ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an "indulgence").
2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as "in persona Christi"). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins.
2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance.
James 5:15-16 - in verse 15 we see that sins are forgiven by the priests in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man's authority to forgive sins on earth. Then in verse 16, James says “Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” in reference to the men referred to in verse 15, the priests of the Church.
1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness.
Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.
I think you need to listen to your wife more, but the bottom line is that all religions, along with apostate Protestants and Catholics (under the next Pope probably) are on a path to unite and find their purpose under the New Spirituality of the UN/URI. The key thing is that you want to be in the remnant of Protestants or Catholics who oppose the New Fake Christianity. It will probably be slightly easier to oppose Rick Warren as a Protestant than it would be to oppose a globalist Pope as a Catholic.
More here from the book False Dawn:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44772
Thanks, I appreciate it!
I do, we are having a logical discussion about it (although she was upset at first).
The key thing is that you want to be in the remnant of Protestants or Catholics who oppose the New Fake Christianity.
Yeah, we are on board there.
I can recommend an excellent book on the Biblical principles behind confession - by Scott Hahn, who converted IIRC from the Presbyterian Church. Lord, Have Mercy. He has written a lot of books, and he stands as sort of a "bridge" for new Catholics (or even old Catholics) to understand traditional doctrines from a Biblical point of view.
Anyhow, to cut to the chase, here's the deal on confession as I understand it from a scriptural point of view. Christ gave specific authority to the apostles to hear and pardon sin in his name: John 20:23 "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."
When you go to confession, you aren't confessing "to a man" i.e. the priest - you are instead confessing to God, through the method that Christ himself appointed. The priest is Christ's official stand-in, who may offer advice and counsel, who will usually give a small penance (an act for you to perform to show your true contrition and make some small recompense for the offense - it may be to God as in saying a number of Our Fathers or Hail Marys, or it may be to the person offended as in returning something that was stolen or making amends for harsh words). But it is God that hears the confession and God's power that pardons the sin.
Since the Episcopal church officially has "auricular confession" but nobody ever uses it, I had never gone to confession before we converted. The first time is the worst! I was very nervous and had a long list which I did NOT want to lose ("OMG! I left my sins in the Kroger!") But the priest was very kind and patient, and I can't explain how good it felt to get all those lifelong things I STILL felt rotten about straightened out. The only thing I can say is that I felt heavy as lead going in, and light as air coming out.
I think that auricular confession forces you to really THINK about what you have done wrong, who you have hurt, and what you can do to change. Just standing up and reciting the words of the General Confession during the Episcopal service does not require one to think about EXACTLY what you have done wrong, or how to fix it.
Hope that helps!
What a load of dung!
Violence against non-believers is against Christ's teachings, unless it is in self defense (look it up), whereas violence against, and enslavement of non-muslimes is part and parcel of the Satanic verses of islime.
If Christians adhered faithfully to the word of our Lord, we would have true peace....Mohammedans adhering to the ravings of their pedophile phony prophet leads to bombings, beheadings and slaughter of unimagined proportions! Ask the Christians of Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt and other countries with sizeable muslime populations what adherance to the unholy Koran means!
Sometimes I'm absolutely stunned by how STUPID so many "Christian" theologians can be! Comparing the word of the Son of God to the blatherings of the spawn of Satan is the most UN-Christian thing that these idiots can do!
Since the Episcopal church officially has "auricular confession" but nobody ever uses it, I had never gone to confession before we converted. The first time is the worst! I was very nervous and had a long list which I did NOT want to lose ("OMG! I left my sins in the Kroger!") But the priest was very kind and patient, and I can't explain how good it felt to get all those lifelong things I STILL felt rotten about straightened out. The only thing I can say is that I felt heavy as lead going in, and light as air coming out.
At your first confession, do you try to go back and confess everything that you know you have done? How specific is it? Can I say "I have lusted after lots of women" or do I have to list every one? That could go on all night. LOL.
Anyway, I am actually very eager to confess.
In the modern world,
I think box office decides.
It's numbers, baby!
What you are speaking of is a general confession which covers your whole life or a long time period. This and all you need to know about confession is covered in this great little booklet:
Confession It's Fruitful Practice
I keep a bunch of them to give out to anyone thinking of returning/entering the Church.
Great. Thanks!
In most cases, since you let the priest know that it is a first confession ("Bless me Father for I have sinned. This is my first confession. I accuse myself of the following sins . . . ") the priest will lead you through the process. The priest that my husband made his first confession to actually has a special method for first confessions, which makes it very easy.
My method, FWIW, was to start with the mortal sins and check off the ones that seemed to me to be a particular problem in terms of severity or frequency. I put those at the top of the list, and I did try to give some idea of frequency, even if it was only "I have always had a problem with . . . " Because my list was so long, I stuck mainly to mortal sins, although I did confess some venial sins that are a particular recurring problem for me, such as losing my temper and detraction.
There are plenty of "Examination of Conscience" guides circulating around the internet. Here and here are a couple that I have found helpful.
They also have This Is the Faith which is a classic - and perfect for a converting Episcopalian because it was written by the head of the Catholic Missionary Society in England.
Thank You! I appreciate it!
I was a lapsed Catholic who had been away from the Faith for approximately 24 years. The priest who heard my first confession in years walked me through the ten commandments asking yes or no questions relevant to each commandment. For example, the commandment regarding murder, he also asked about anger. I did not have to describe each and every sin that I could recall.
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.