What would you change about the church?

mr_angry

Seeing as a lot of people seem to have complaints about the church (including myself), I thought I'd see what people have to say they'd change. Maybe afterwards we can try to evaluate what effect they'd have on the church.

Please remember that these are changes to the church itself, and not the congregation. Try to keep your responses to a list, and not 10 pages of continuous text!

Here's what I'd change.

During Mass:

---

1. Cut out everything between the Liturgy of the Word, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

2. All preachers should be encouraged to give positive sermons, rather than moaning, despairing ones.

3. All major masses should be encouraged / forced to include a choir and / or have the congregation sing hymns.

The Church In General:

---

1. The Pope should make way for someone much younger, and more positive. This person should be capable of dealing with the tough dilemmas that the church faces, rather than simply ignoring them, or dismissing any notion of change. This person should also have regular contact with the general congregation, and should listen to them, rather than sitting in a big chair, and telling them what to do all the time.

2. Women priests should be allowed.

3. The church should stop criticising other religions ALTOGETHER. The church should accept that some people choose not to believe Catholic docterine, and these people will not be converted by condemning them, but instead may come away with a better opinion of our religion if we love and respect them.

4. Priests should be allowed to marry. I fail to see why a church that promotes love so much should keep its servants from actually experiencing this emotion. If a priest chooses to devote him\her-self to God alone, then fine, but this should not be mandatory.

5. The church should stop condemning homosexuality. The bible says nothing against homosexuality. However, it does praise love between two people. In my opinion, the church has no right to tell these people that what they are doing is inherintly wrong.

Please feel free to agree / disagree with anything I have said. These are simply my opinions, but I am curious to see how many people agree.

watty

The Bible does condem Homosexuallity and Sodomy (which can be between Hhetrosexuals or homosexuals).

Reason for not having Women preists is that the Apostles where all men. Actually Juno (certinally a woman) may have been an apostle, but the orignal twelve all men. OTH there is NOTHING a Priest does that any "suitable" lay-woman or lay-man should not be able to do if the need arose.

Priests did marry. In Anglical and Estern Orthodox they still do. Thier is good argument for optional celebacy. Rome if pushed admits that this can change in future.

Yes sermons should often be positive. Depends who the preacher is. Not something you can legislate.


In England RC churchs have Hymbooks and Choirs. In Ireland Anglicans and others often do. A pecularly Irish RC lack?

There is a great flexibility in Liturgy, esp. since now it can be in English not just Latin. St Cyril was first to get dispensation for non Latin Mass (in Slavic countries, he invented Cryllic script). Methodists ironically may have been first with Irish Language Services.


3. The church should stop criticising other religions ALTOGETHER

The WHOLE POINT of the Church is proclaiming the Grace of God of Salvation through the completed work of Jesus the Christ and secondly a community to encourage the believers in the Faith. You might as well ask Tesco to promote Lidl


Wait a month or two and perhaps there will be a new Pope. Why rush? (Thinks of Jameison Advert....). A less "centralised" and more transparent Church might avoid some past excesses and mistakes. After all the present arrangement is IDENTICAL to Paisely's Church (He is BOSS for life!), which is NOT Presbyterian in structure at all....

mr_angry

You might as well ask Tesco to promote Lidl

I'm not asking the church to promote other religions. I just don't believe that openly condemning them doesn't do any good. Instead of the Pope saying:

"The Catholic church is the only true way, and all other religions are inherintly wrong."

I would rather he said:

"I believe the Catholic church is the only true way. However I accept that some people believe differently. I invite any non-catholics to examine our religion, and decide for themselves what they believe."

Frankly, I think the latter response paints the Catholic church in a much better light, and does not discourage anyone from converting to Catholicism.

Do you have any suggestions yourself? After all, that's what this post was all about.

sanvean

I think Paul also was quite explicit on what women could and couldn't do during church services. Whatever about the nature of the apostles, as far as i know it is from Paul that the Church derives it's attitude to women priests. (he also is quite explicit on the imorality of homosexuality).

I think the Church needs to cement its traditional beliefs. It needs to become far more conservative and reactionary. No pandering to liberal agendas whatsoever. Rumours concerning the next pope suggest he will be from Africa (or possible Latin America) so this will probably come in very soon.

The Church also needs to completely remove itself from any association with the state. It is a misconception in religious circles that the seperation of Church and state is/was a bad thing. It is only when the Church removes itself from the state that it can legitmately criticise it.

Manach

The Church is an ancient organisation, tasked with the responsibility of saving souls. By and large it has tried to achieve this primary aim. It can from a PR viewpoint come across as a somewhat sombre, ponderous body.
This perhaps does not reflect the joyful message of the gospels & doctrine. In my view, the Church should use a little humour as a medium to spread it’s message.
For instance on the Pagan board, a quite funny posting, "ooooh so honestly which one are you"
Perhaps we sometimes are too earnest and bound up in our beliefs not to have the occasional laugh at our own expense.

tHE vAGGABOND

until the church stops talking ****e about condoms and the spread of aids Im not entering another church...

JustHalf

What sh*te are you talking about?

sanvean

Originally posted by JustHalf
What sh*te are you talking about?

he's probably talking about the (Catholic) church attempting to stop the spread of AIDS yet not endorsing the use of condoms. Most of their policies concentrate on helping those already suffering with the disease and not actually halting the spread of the disease. And any of the other policies which attempt to stop the spread are biased towards their own religious ideologies (which they call 'education'). I don't mean to speak for the person, but it's fairly obvious which general area s/he's referring to.

Stark

The church should stick with the teachings of Jesus and just that. Forget about old testament crap about right and wrong, jesus himself spoke out against that - "there is only one rule" and all that. Especially since most Bible-bashing makes reference to Leviticus which is accepted by many Bible-scholars as being a pile of crap compiled from common law at the time (just as the russian orthodox church is now making jaywalking a sin).

Capt'n Midnight

So is there any truth in the story that the original priests were married and the church banned them so that church property would not be inherited by their offspring...

sanvean

Originally posted by k.oriordan
Forget about old testament crap about right and wrong, jesus himself spoke out against that - "there is only one rule" and all that.

I think the Old Testament was left there for a reason by the early church fathers. Didn't jesus also say that he didn't come to abolish the (OT) law, but to fulfil it? and a lot of the bible bashing stuff comes from Paul (especially the virulent anti-woman and anti-gay sentiment). Alot of people actually use Leviticus to criticise this over-emphasis on latter day homophobic attitudes (therefore, if homosexuality is a sin, surely according to Leviticus, we're all commiting sins by wearing (say) polyester).

LFCFan

for starters I was born a catholic but now have no religion apart from having to accept certain things because I live in Ireland. eg. I'm gonna have to get married in a church which is not what I want but because my Fiancè wants it and our familes etc. I will get my children christened because kids have enough to deal with without being sees as different. Again this is something the State and Church have brought about.

As for what I'd change? Everything to be quite honest. I wonder how many of you would be Practising Catholics etc if you hadn't been born into it. I think it's a joke that there are so many religions yet each one is supposed to be the one true religion. If I was born into a protestant familiy, I'd be a protestant. Same with any other religion. How can this be a true faith? Religion should be more like supporting a Footy team. You should be able to make your own mind up once your old enough and not be forced into it. Of course the Church would never allow this as they would lose most of their congregation as I'm sure if people aren't forced into one religion or another, a lot would choose none.

So, in short, I'd change everything about all religions and not make it 'compulsory', if you know what I mean!

JustHalf

I was born in a Catholic home but I'd consider myself a protestant now (going to an Anglican church in town).

Sarky

I'd change its beliefs completely. Instead, we'd all worship knowledge/technology, its discovery, and its proper application.

JustHalf

Worship our own acheivements you mean?

Sarky

Not really.

More of a "research is sacred, technology is holy, praise the machine" sort of thing.

At least then I'd almost be guraenteed a job...

sanvean

Originally posted by LFCFan
I wonder how many of you would be Practising Catholics etc if you hadn't been born into it.

Then surely by calculating the conversion rate, you'd get which religion is the true religion? Which, in the western world anyway, would be Islam.

I think it's a joke that there are so many religions yet each one is supposed to be the one true religion.

I think religion - and specifically monotheistic religion - lends itself to calls of 'the one true church', otherwise there would be no reason to practice it. So, if the Catholic Church wasn't the One True Church, then what would we make of her claims that salvation comes through Christ alone? She'd essentially become redundant. Same goes for all other Churches.

LFCFan

Originally posted by sanvean
Then surely by calculating the conversion rate, you'd get which religion is the true religion? Which, in the western world anyway, would be Islam.

If ever there was an advert against religion that Islam is it. Religion has caused more problems on this planet then it has solved. How many major conflits or wars has there been that weren't a direct result of Religion?

neuro-praxis

A real church is its community, not its leaders.

McGinty

In response to the original question, the only thing I would change, (which incidentally would change a lot) is for the church to preach spirituality, not religion - religion is similar to politics. Spirituality is placing one's faith in God, knowing that God is a complete mystery, and also to preach that the Bible is not the literal word of God, but a pointer, a hint to the mystery of God. At the moment the church (well all of them) believe they have the answers, and they don't. None of us do, if the church were to explore, discuss, theorise the mystery of God and yet paradoxically accept that God is a mystery, it would save a lot of confusion. Thats my belief anyway.

Walls

I agree a real church is its community not its leaders Neuro. But there is an emphasis within the catholic doctrine that alienates some members, at the very least.

To start with, the Church in Rome (independent from the Doctrine of Catholism) actually appears to be a self serving institution in that it acts for its own preservation rather than the saving of souls. An example of this is its failure to act positively to save lives or to speak out, during the second world war.

Secondly, the life of Jesus is given a somewhat distinct slant by the works of St Paul. These policies and ideas of his are somewhat developed from the simple message contained in the Gospels. While one can argue for and against his ideas, they are corporal and sourced in the individual and so much more open to debate.

Deciding doctrine on its being in the Bible is not to be advised. Anyone read what happened to Lot in the desert after his wife was turned into a pillar of salt? And as it was unpunished by the Lord one must assume it was in accordance with his wishes. Boggle.

Where I to make changes in the church there would be a first principle of First Do No Harm. Hence contraception would permittable for health and finacial reasons. The church's concern with condoms spreading Aids would also be swept from the face of the earth. The WHO itself argues against this idea.

In terms of our priests, I would move more in accord with the Hebrew idea of the rabbis in the community, and therefore encourage more interaction between the Clerics and the Laity. I would focus hugely on the power of prayer, I would have a forum for discussion and decision for all non ecumenical issues within churches/parishes, and I would finally remove the ban on Homosexual partners, and of course permit women priests. (God created the world and all in it in 7 days, but with women he is impotent to create a vessel that allows ordination?Pfft! Pfft I say!!)

My spare change, if you will.

loismustdie

apparently there will now be group christenings every 2 months where all babies born around the same time are christened together as opposed to traditional private ceremony. i think this is ridiculous as baptism is surely one of the most nb sacraments when a baby is welcomed into gods family. this is just for convenience of the priest instead of bein special for parisioners