The Church - Is this it?

Hollyg'lightly

Is the Catholic Church as we know it venito? What does the future hold? People gathering in houses to talk about spirituality? Laypersons burying the dead, etc. Is it a gonner?
Would it's haters secretly miss the Church if it went? Do we really need organised religion in our lives, is religion a religion if its not organised?

lmaopml

I sincerely hope not lol...I'm Catholic, and plan on staying that way ...

..I do think we could do with a little more social inclusion and cohesion in Irish Society though...

Fanny Cradock

Hollyg'lightly wrote: »

Is the Catholic Church as we know it venito? What does the future hold? People gathering in houses to talk about spirituality? Laypersons burying the dead, etc. Is it a gonner?
Would it's haters secretly miss the Church if it went? Do we really need organised religion in our lives, is religion a religion if its not organised?

We have had your initial question asked many times before. Here is a recent thread that might answer your question. I´ll leave this thread open for now because your latter questions might generate some interesting discussion.

For my part, and I´m not Catholic, I believe that the RCC´s reach and relevance will continue to decline in our society, which is sad in its own way. However, there is also a growth in what were traditionally considered marginal Christian denominations, which is fantastic.

Added to this, I wonder if there will be concerted attempts (or should that be "further attempts"?) to push religion out of the public square.

dynamopiev

No, it's not. When you look at it in the historical context some of the past issues the Catholic Church has faced in Ireland and worldwide, it's not the case that it will just fade out now.

mehfesto2

dynamopiev wrote: »

No, it's not. When you look at it in the historical context some of the past issues the Catholic Church has faced in Ireland and worldwide, it's not the case that it will just fade out now.

What do you mean?
I can't think of another time when the CC was in such as bad state. When was it like this before?

philologos

People already gather in houses to worship worldwide. The housechurch movement is one that has grown majorly in the past few decades.

I think it is a good way for the Christian Church to develop in a new century, but I don't think it should ever be the only way. The housechurch movement is particularly suited to persecuted countries whereby Christian activities are stifled.

Son Of A Vidic

Deciding to have an organised religion or not in one's life is a personal choice. If I had to pick one positive to come from the recent wave of shocking revelations. It would be that hopefully, individuals would now examine their own belief and faith. To blindly follow is wrong and this has put us in the position we find ourselves today regarding the Catholic Church.

What is organised religion? organised by whom? - man of course. Fallible, egotistical and power hungry man, the message of Jesus was turned into a militarised system of Priests, Canons, Monsignors, Bishop etc,etc. This is religion organised by man - not God. Church Edicts, beliefs etc determined by man - not God. By all means have your Faith and be unwavering in it, whatever it is. However, whether you think you need to follow man made rules is a matter for you to decide.

auerillo

medicman2009 wrote: »

Deciding to have an organised religion or not in one's life is a personal choice. If I had to pick one positive to come from the recent wave of shocking revelations. It would be that hopefully, individuals would now examine their own belief and faith. To blindly follow is wrong and this has put us in the position we find ourselves today regarding the Catholic Church.

What is organised religion? organised by whom? - man of course. Fallible, egotistical and power hungry man, the message of Jesus was turned into a militarised system of Priests, Canons, Monsignors, Bishop etc,etc. This is religion organised by man - not God. Church Edicts, beliefs etc determined by man - not God. By all means have your Faith and be unwavering in it, whatever it is. However, whether you think you need to follow man made rules is a matter for you to decide.

I agree so much with this post. If jesus cam e back today and saw how the Pope lives, in his gold robes with servants and palaces and all the trappings of wealth, I don't think there are many who have much doubt as to what his reaction would be.

The reformation was necessary to make a stand against the corrupt power of the early church, and it seems that a church which is secretive and hierarchical, and non democratic, is unable to be avoid becoming corrupt.

Don't forget that the church still teaches that it is a sin for a man to wear a piece of latex rubber on his penis, and was preaching this at the same time as it was facilitating its priests to abuse and cause serious harm to defenceless children and also conspiring to avoid bringing the same priests, supposedly holy men of god, to justice, and enabling them to continue to abuse and harm and beat children.

How can anyone take what they have to say, on anything, seriously?

homer911

Just to clarify, what you describe is the Roman Catholic Church, Anglican, Episcopalian, Orthodox etc. There are many Christian Churches that are organised locally and have virtually no hierarchy - for example the Presbyterian Church in Ireland is headed up by a regular church minister who is voted into that position for a one year term of office. The Methodist church is similar I think..

Its this kind of grass roots "religion" that means there is no room for power-hungry individuals

rohatch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We have had your initial question asked many times before. Here is a recent thread that might answer your question. I´ll leave this thread open for now because your latter questions might generate some interesting discussion.

For my part, and I´m not Catholic, I believe that the RCC´s reach and relevance will continue to decline in our society, which is sad in its own way. However, there is also a growth in what were traditionally considered marginal Christian denominations, which is fantastic.

Added to this, I wonder if there will be concerted attempts (or should that be "further attempts"?) to push religion out of the public square.

I share the same sentiments with PDN on the catholic church. This episode should finish them off with any luck. I would like to see religion removed from public life and if you want to practise then do so in your own way.

philologos

rohatch wrote: »

I share the same sentiments with PDN on the catholic church. This episode should finish them off with any luck. I would like to see religion removed from public life and if you want to practise then do so in your own way.

Why? - If our country is to respect common freedoms, this is impossible.

rohatch

Jakkass wrote: »

Why? - If our country is to respect common freedoms, this is impossible.

Religion is not freedom.

No religion in schools.
No religion in government.
No religious paraphernalia in public.

philologos

Freedom to believe and to share those beliefs is a common freedom irrespective of how much you like religion.

Fanny Cradock

rohatch wrote: »

I would like to see religion removed from public life

Dear Lord! The implementing such desires has been tried before. The context was, of course, different, but the result was always ugly.

"Religion is not freedom" might make a slogan that trips off the tongue, but I don't see how you can justify it. Indeed, do you not find it at all ironic that your desire to remove religion from the public square is in itself a denial of freedom?

PDN

rohatch wrote: »

Religion is not freedom.

No religion in schools.
No religion in government.
No religious paraphernalia in public.

I suggest you moderate your intolerance, or at least learn to express yourself more diplomatically in this forum.

Freedom of religion is a recognised right according to the United Nations. And, in a secular society, religious people have the right to display their affiliations in public - as do the godless.

rohatch

PDN wrote: »

I suggest you moderate your intolerance, or at least learn to express yourself more diplomatically in this forum.

I do not want to come across as intolerant. The evidence for atheism like evolution is overwhelming.

PDN wrote: »

Freedom of religion is a recognised right according to the United Nations. And, in a secular society, religious people have the right to display their affiliations in public - as do the godless.

Not in France:)

Jakkass wrote: »

Freedom to believe and to share those beliefs is a common freedom irrespective of how much you like religion.

I Agree but not in schools or government, it should be completely private. History of 'In God We Trust'

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War.

Fanny Cradock

There is religious freedom in France. You seem to be confusing secularism (which is not to be confused with atheism) and an active attempt to quell religious freedom. You opinion came across as very much the latter of the two.

As for the evidence for atheism being overwhelming, I disagree, of course. But this isn't the thread to bring it up, nor is this the correct thread to be discussing evolution (something you erroneously assume Christians reject).

PDN

rohatch wrote: »

I do not want to come across as intolerant. The evidence for atheism like evolution is overwhelming.

Most people in the world are distinctly underwhelmed by your 'evidence'.

rohatch

PDN wrote: »

Most people in the world are distinctly underwhelmed by your 'evidence'.

It is very interesting that out of 5 billion believers on this planet that they all believe in different things.

35,000 christian groups.
1.2 billion muslims.
Nearly a billion hindu.

Do I even need to mention all your work on JC was written at least 70 years after he was dead. There are more holes in your beliefs, and you use to be an atheist.

rohatch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is religious freedom in France. You seem to be confusing secularism (which is not to be confused with atheism) and an active attempt to quell religious freedom. You opinion came across as very much the latter of the two.

As for the evidence for atheism being overwhelming, I disagree, of course. But this isn't the thread to bring it up, nor is this the correct thread to be discussing evolution (something you erroneously assume Christians reject).

Thats what the smile was for

philologos

1st Corinthians was written 55AD, 15 years after the death of Christ.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

1st Corinthians was written 55AD, 15 years after the death of Christ.

Now, now. Don't go upsetting his faith-based assertions with real facts.

PDN

rohatch wrote: »

It is very interesting that out of 5 billion believers on this planet that they all believe in different things.

35,000 christian groups.
1.2 billion muslims.
Nearly a billion hindu.

They all believe in different things from you, anyway. The difference, of course, is that you are claiming 'overwhelming evidence'.

Do I even need to mention all your work on JC was written at least 70 years after he was dead.

No, you don't need to make false statements about stuff you evidently know nothing about.

I suggest you try googling a little about the dates that the biblical books were written. The general consensus is they most were written between 25 and 65 years after the death of Jesus Christ.

lmaopml

I'm actually not sure PDN...I do know he has written some fairly harsh and 'tar em all with the same brushy' types of things, about not only the Church and it's faithful, but a LOT of other things too...He's not my favourite Journo..a little on the extreme side, never does things by half.

He has an excellent command of the language though no doubt :pac: that leaves an impression - or 'indentation' on it's target! LOL

auerillo

homer911 wrote: »

Just to clarify, what you describe is the Roman Catholic Church, Anglican, Episcopalian, Orthodox etc. There are many Christian Churches that are organised locally and have virtually no hierarchy - for example the Presbyterian Church in Ireland is headed up by a regular church minister who is voted into that position for a one year term of office. The Methodist church is similar I think..

Its this kind of grass roots "religion" that means there is no room for power-hungry individuals

What I described was the RC church, and specifically the pope and the hierarchy. The anglican church ( isn't anglican the same as episcopalian?) is a democracy, with synods and vestries and the finances are reported on each year to every parishoner. The Archbishop of Canterbury has no juristiction in Ireland, or France, or the USA, or anywhere outside England.

Having said that, the anglican churc h in ireland has become more autocratic of late, with the clergy demonstrating that they are the leaders of their parishes, rather then the servants of their parishoners. Anyhow, thats a tangent!