pope francis

[wesw]

I really like this pope.

after actually reading the Bible, I found that I had problems with the catholic church other than the obvious ones, the inquisition and other parts of their past. it wasn t just their history that bothered me, it was that they seemed to directly contradict what I read in a few key ways, as most sects probably do, no one is perfect right?. from the fancy robes to the praying to saints to the pope being so godlike in the churches eyes to the celibacy charade. but this guy is really someone I can look up to...

....from his concerns for deforestation (we were given dominion over earth s plants and animals, but that comes with a duty to love our charge, the earth, as jesus loved us, right?) , to his concern for over population (god said be fruitful and multiply, but we ve already checked that box , right? two kids per family, on average, seems about right to me), from his stand on gay folks (hell, as long as they aren t out at the rest stop turnin tricks, and are home with their loving hubby (or hubbess) why would god care?) to his preference for the guest house at the Vatican (jesus did say to sit at the lowest seat and wait for your host to bring you to the seat of honor, right? if he keeps this up, we the people will raise him high in our own house...), and simple robes (I think that jesus mentioned that too...)

I really like this pope....

[wesw]

interesting discussion about the Pope s encyclical about the environment on C-Span s Washington Journal right now....

[dgs49]

This Pope is gaining a lot of friends and support outside the Catholic Church by artfully saying the things that sound nice and are non-controversial, while not articulating the more "difficult" aspects of Catholic belief. Most obviously, he wants Catholics to be more welcoming to homosexuals, divorcees, and other former outcasts - but he does not mention that the Church still considers homosexual ACTIVITIES and re-marriage to be seriously sinful. In other words, welcome - but don't forget to be celibate.

In a broader sense, Pope Frank - being a South American Jesuit - subscribes to what has been described as "Liberation Theology," which is basically Marxism - Catholic Style. The most popular and common expression of this philosophy is the two-word expression, "Social Justice." But unfortunately, when you add a modifier before any word that is in itself good (e.g., justice), you pervert its meaning. Justice is a good, but "social justice" implies that masses of oppressor classes are to be penalized for the benefit of masses of the oppressed classes. Leading to things like Michael Jordan's kids getting college scholarships for being members of an oppressed minority. I'll take my justice individually, thank you very much.

Not surprisingly, much of his pinko nonsense (e.g., more government control of private industry in the name of "climate change") is not well received by traditional U.S. Catholics. There has also long been a similar divide between the Conference of (U.S.) Catholic Bishops and the butts in the pews, over issues such as the death penalty, taxation, and the "social safety net."

[Lord Jim]

I think it's a bit over the top to suggest that Francis has bought into the garbage pseudo-Marxist philosophy of "Liberation Theology"...

Francis's changes to date have been in terms of tone and emphasis; not in terms of Doctrine...

John Paul II, as much as he despised communism, and as important a role as he played in bringing down its influence, was never a great lover of capitalism either...

Essentially Francis has been running a very effective PR campaign...

Which as a Catholic I see as all to the good, but I remain disappointed in some substantive ways..

There are a couple of real changes I think this Pope could move on, that he has taken no action on:

The first is Married Priests...

As I've mentioned before, The Catholic Church has already accepted married priests....

There are several hundred former Episcopalian Priests (under a conversion program created by John Paul II) who are accepted as Catholic Priests who are married...

And the Catholic Church has not collapsed as a result of that...

The second is at least some small move on artificial birth control...

I certainly don't expect The Church to embrace "The Pill" or IUDs, (though as I discussed with the Monsignor at St. Cecilia's;

"If The Church wants to start Excommunicating every Catholic in The American Church who believes in, or practices birth control, you'll be able to fire a cannon through the pews here and not hit anyone"...he agreed with me on that...)

But laying that practical issue aside...

Once you allow for the idea that sex can exist for something other than pro-creation...(which even "the rhythm" method allows for ) it seems to me you open the door for other contraceptive methods (at least those that don't involve post sperm-egg arrangements)

Like condoms, for example...

[Sue U]

The Pope is coming to Philadelphia in September, and I've already gotten requests from several friends and family members for lodging at our house so they can attend the Mass. I might even go myself. (They're expecting 2 million for the event, which is quite a crowd even for Philly.)

[dgs49]

LJ, I agree with you.

Add "Women Priests" as something the Church needs to do, without delay. There is no doctrinal, logical, or biological reason why women can't make great priest(ess)es; it's merely inertia that keeps them out.

Every time I hear a Priest talk about the "lack of vocations" I roll my eyes. They could have as many priests as they need, and put more butts in the seats, if they would simply add married men and women to the "eligible" list.

[Econoline]

I suspect that married male priests will come long before female priests (since that would involve an actual doctrinal dispute). The Pope could end the celibacy requirement for Holy Orders today, if he chose to.

[Big RR]

While I do think you are right, I think the RC church claims biblical authority for refusing to accept married clergy by one of Paul's letters which counsels that clergy should "remain as they are" after ordination. Hence, a married priest could be ordained and remain married, but a single one could not marry after ordination (I think this is the policy of the orthodox churches). I think this is what the church did when it allowed married episcopal priests to be RC priests, but I'm not sure it would be as easy to permit single priests to marry.

However, in refusing to ordain women, my understanding is that the church claims all priests are called by god/jesus, and that jesus called only male apostles among the "12". This appears to be an overstatement of what occurred, as it was known that many women also followed jesus and did his bidding, but I am not aware of anything else the RC church points to for the refusal to ordain women. I do know there are some statements attributed to Paul about women holding authority over men being wrong, but I would think priests are servants of the people on behalf of god, not the other way around, so I don't think these would be the basis of the doctrine.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Interesting. IMO the Roman church made a severe error in withdrawing permission for priests to marry - it has lead to all manner of evils. It would be a correct step, in my view, for that rule to be removed.

I read somewhere that part of the issue was regarding priests as "married" to Christ or the Church, as was also true of nuns (somewhat confusingly). I don't know where Paul might have given any instruction regarding "priests... after ordination" since in his day there were no priests and no ordination. (I do stand to be corrected on that).

1 Cor 7:8 says it is good for the unmarried and widows to remain as "I am" - that is, celibate. But Paul goes on to say that they should get married if they find that they burn with passion - marriage is better in that case.

He does say that "elders" or "overseers" (same word as 'bishops') should be the husband of but one wife. He is not saying they should be married - only that if they are, then they should have or have had only one wife (1 Tim 3:2). I guess these passages don't appear to be authority for requiring priests to be unmarried. IIRC that was a later Roman church invention - one of those "tradition" things perhaps?

On the second point, the only source for Jesus calling 12 guys to be apostles is the Bible and the only source proving that women were among his disciples (not the same as 'apostle') is er...the very same Bible. One discounts apocryphal and later writings, naturally.

You are correct Big RR in that 1 Tim 2 gives Paul's "I do not permit a woman to teach..." dictum. He repeats this in 1 Cor 14. I suspect this is part of the reason given for the prohibition of women priests and pastors. The other part is that same 1 Tim 3 in which overseers/elders (bishops) and deacons are "he" and not "she" - Paul is definite on the masculine form which also appears in Titus 1:7

At issue is whether strictures such as Paul's in such cases are descriptive or prescriptive. Christians can differ (I believe) without harm on this matter since it does not appear to involve any sin against God and Paul does not seem to claim this as a Godly ordinance but his own. Some churches have only male pastors and elders - others have male and female.

[Big RR]

meade--I will see if I can find it if I get a chance, but I do think there is a writing (I think by Paul, but I am not sure) that married and unmarried persons should remain as they are (and that this was the basis of the orthodox church policy that one could enter the priesthood as a married man but could not marry afterwards). It is not specifically rejected to clergy, but in the early church all persons functioned somewhat as clergy and witnessed and taught to others, not just a specific class of persons. There was some sort of leadership, but not a clergy system I was aware of.

As for the difference between apostles and disciples, and the consequences of the "apostles" being men, I will leave that to you. I do recall, however, that in Acts the remaining 11 apostles voted another in to make 12 (I think his name was Barnabas, but he's not mentioned all that much afterwards), but others refer to paul as the 12th disciple selected directly by Jesus and not a vote, so I am not sure why this difference is of any import. Presumably god can call whomever god wants to call--we don't need an ordination commission or bishop to do that.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Big RR - I think you'll find it's Cor 7

All apostles are disciples - not all disciples are apostles. Apostle derives from the Greek for "messenger" i.e. charged with spreading the gospel; teacher. Disciple means follower/learner. "The" Twelve Apostles" refers to the 12 disciples chosen by the incarnate Jesus to be the messengers of the good news.

I think you will find the early church was a bit less anarchic than your description suggests. In Jerusalem, the apostles were leaders and brought on board "Greeks" like Stephen and others, appointing committees to ensure proper welfare provison for widows (for example). The non-Jewish groups followed the pattern of Jerusalem and had elders, prophets and overseers to provide structure right from the start - see the Antioch church, the one where Christian first became a name for the faith.

Who are these " others (who) refer to paul as the 12th disciple selected directly by Jesus and not a vote". He refers to himself as an apostle chosen by Jesus. He refers to himself and others as disciples. He was the 12th selected directly by Jesus but the 13th overall - the number had no significance to Paul at least, just that he was called by Christ. He was at pains to show the original 11 that his call was as valid as theirs. They seem to have accepted that.

[Big RR]

Thanks, I'll check your cite.

As for the 12th disciple/apostle being paul, I am referring to the part of Acts wherein the remaining 11 got together and voted in another to keep the number at 12, but that person is not mentioned again in the bible (so far as I recall). In the meantime, Paul, who never met jesus before the crucifixion became the most prolific NT writer and is widely read to this day (and if you google it, you will see that some denominations even today call Paul the 12th disciple/apostle, presumably striking judas from that list for his actions on Maundy Thursday). Which I think challenges the presumption that the leaders/apostles/whomever can somehow elect others to their midst--that privilege is that of god, not theirs.

And FWIW, I did not mean to say the church was in anarchy--as I said it clearly had some who were recognized as leaders. But in the early church all were presumed to have been called to preach and witness and teach the "good news"--they did not require any election or appointment by anyone. Those formalities, including the development of a clerical/priestly class came later.

[Econoline]

The fact that Jesus himself and all 12 (or 13) apostles he chose (not to mention God the Father ) were all male is what will make the ordination of women so difficult. The Church always has and always will give this great significance and search for (and, of course, find) some very important meaning to it.

As for celibacy...I quoted this before, in another thread:

1
Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,”
2
but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.
[ ... ]
5
Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
6
This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command.
7
Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8
Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
9
but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

(Emphasis added.)

So even Paul, the only one (correct me if I'm wrong) of the earliest disciples/apostles to promote celibacy, showed a clear understanding that it was not commanded by God, and left plenty of wiggle room for anyone--including clergy--to be married.

[Crackpot]

The selection of Barabas for the replacement of Judas is in acts. Paul is considered #13

[Big RR]

CP--I guess that's the point; whoever was elected in Acts is not mentioned again, while Paul is probably the most prolific and influential of all the early church leaders, which raises the question, was that election of any consequence, or did god select Paul as an example to the others to say they should not presume to elect their own replacement, or maybe that a replacement was not even necessary? Some denominations will tell you that apostolic succession is achieved by election of those who received the power to make these choices from the previous generation of the apostacy (and so on all the way back to the original apostles), others say god chooses who god chooses and it is not their place to substitute their judgment for god's, still others will say that there is no need for apostolic succession at all, and that their religious leadership is comprised of servants and teachers, and not anyone having authority over them (that authority being reserved solely for god).

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thanks Big RR. I see that discussions about 12 apostles are all over the shop on the interwebs. Some want Matthias to be looked at as a "human error" and Paul is the replacement for Judeas. Others point out that the Holy Spirit was involved and Matthias was, after all, one of those who sat at Jesus' feet and was a witness of all that had transpired. Some want Paul not to be an apostle at all - or a sort of second-hand one. To me, whether he's one of "The" 12 is just a bootless argument.

Of course, these worldwidenet writers are all men (and perhaps some women) with their various theories - even the ones who say that Peter was "just a man" in errantly picking Matthias. The lack of mention of Matthias after being chosen in Acts doesn't mean a hill of beans. Most of the apostles are not mentioned after that anyway!

Note: Barsabas (sp.) was the loser in the 2-horse race; Matthias the winner

But in the early church all were presumed to have been called to preach and witness and teach the "good news

Is that in the Bible? I'm curious as to where you find such specific information.

[MajGenl.Meade]

My own experience tells me, Big RR, that God tends to choose exactly the person that the key people in the church have chosen. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical but having been on pastoral search teams....

The Bible is the authority - not churches or men (or women). Nowhere does Paul claim to be "the twelfth apostle". He claims that he is an apostle. That's all. I'll leave the angels on the head of a pin arguments to the different opinionators who are not satisfied with the plain word of God.

If anyone's paying attention, I'm not claiming to have any special interpretation of scripture. I'm just letting it speak for itself. It's other people who want to add their conflicting theories to it or to become confused by listening to all of them and rotating gently in the hot air.

[Crackpot]

Point of fact Peter was just a man (as are nearly all the the other characters in the bible that people ascribe divine infallibility to)

[Big RR]

Is that in the Bible? I'm curious as to where you find such specific information.

Specifically, no; nor is there any mention of priests or other clergy. There were some who were respected as leaders, but many who had no connection with jesus during his time on earth (Paul among them) preached and taught. And on Pentecost the accounts are not that just the 11 or 12 apostles present were filled with the spirit and possessed of the gifts to preach, but all (or at least many) in the crowd. The orthodoxy of a requirement that those who preached had to be approved by the leadership came later, when a system of bishops and a pope were instituted. Face it, much of the early church in Jerusalem were originally from the jewish tradition where all (or at least all men) studied the scriptures and opined on them and could speak in the synagogues, one would not expect that tradition to change.

My own experience tells me, Big RR, that God tends to choose exactly the person that the key people in the church have chosen. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical but having been on pastoral search teams....

If that comment was serious one, that has not been my experience; I have seen horrendous ministers who divided congregations, and good ones, but mostly I think it's hit or miss.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes I was serious but perhaps I should have put "God" in inverted commas. My intent was to suggest that people choose and by an amazing coincidence it happens to be what God chose first... ahem.

Don't confuse synagogue and the Temple. The latter very much had a priestly hierarchy and even the synagogue had leading lights. True part of the Jewish method was to have dialog between the rabbi and the disciples but not in the Temple.

I don't know how to read Acts (and more particularly Paul's letters which preceded the gospels and Acts in date of writing and conclude that there was no leadership in the early Christian church. It is replete with episkopai - overseers and elders (again, bishop is another word for the same thing but not the bishops we're used to seeing). Of course the hierarchy developed over time, yes - but there never was a time when someone wasn't .... first among many?

James in Jerusalem is by all evidences the key man and may even have served as priest at the Temple. Timothy and Titus themselves were church leaders as was Barnabas in Antioch. Well, perhaps we're discussing something not all that important. I'm just going by what the Bible says

CP - yes the writers of the books of both Old and New Testaments were men (and perhaps a woman or two). They were writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to reveal what God wants us to know about what was going on. It is entirely sufficient for faith and knowledge of God etc. It is the only authority - all else is commentary (to steal a line). Men and women for centuries have taken the word of God and created their additional commentary and speculation - me too. However, I prefer to read it and rely on what it says - not one what I think it says. That's not always successful. I do get in the way sometimes