Time for Vatican III

thesultan

As a church goer and a young one (very few) at that, it is time for a radical change in the church's teachings and rules. With an African the favourite to be the next pontiff surely there in lies the first change.

1 Let people use contraceptive. Aids is widespread in Africa and most couples used the pill. Surely the church can say it is right to do so.

2 Let priests marry. This was halted in the medieval times because it cost the church too much when couples separated.

3 Let women be priests. The time has come and with less and less priests joining the seminary it is a logical decision.

4 Let divorcées remarry in churches..

Mind is a bit blank at the moment but feel free to add and debate.

hames

Can you provide any arguments in favour of one of these points from the sacred scripture or tradition of the church which forms the deposit of faith?

I am a liberal myself and I sometimes find it difficult to reconcile my belief system with the important and official or inferred church teachings, but you simply must recognize that some teachings are not really up for debate and it's important to recognize why that might be.

It is unthinkable that the Church could instigate a debate on women priests, although contraception and celibacy are slightly more realistic points of discussion.

Levito

TheSultan,

You don't seem to understand Church authority, and the Church' mission.

1. Christ is the authority over his Church, since he is her author. Only the author has authors rights over his Church. Not the pope, not priests and not the laity. As a Catholic, you believe that the current teachings are Christs teachings inspired and led by the holy spirit (as Jesus said he would). If you don't believe the Church teachings are Gods, then you are protestant.

2. The Church is not for human fulfillment, comfort, happiness and certainly not for empowerment. But to save & sanctify souls. To make the laity holy and lead them home. When the teachings are understood in that context, they make perfect sense. God wants his people turning to him in prayer, not to sex for comfort. Think of the first commandment.

Onto the next part..

1 Let people use contraceptive. Aids is widespread in Africa and most couples used the pill. Surely the church can say it is right to do so.

No, lets not. Since it in principle, is identical and sometimes does work as abortion. Read this woman's story. Also contraception makes it too easy for husband and wife to use each other as sex objects, since sex is reduced to a mere recreational activity: pleasure. See divorce rates among Catholics using contraceptives.

3 Let women be priests. The time has come and with less and less priests joining the seminary it is a logical decision.

No, because Christianity isn't Pantheism or paganism. There is not a single basis for ordaining women. God had two priesthoods before the Catholic one, remember. Peter Kreeft gives a great lecture on this here it is: http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses/peter-kreeft_priestesses_.mp3

Secondly, to say that Jesus disobeyed his Fathers will and bowed to social norms, and committed the sin of sexism is a denial of the incarnation.

4 Let divorcées remarry in churches..

Again Christ, speaking through his Church, says no. He explicitly forbade divorce in all four gospels.

"Rome has spoken, the book is closed. That formula used to be about love and loyalty" - Peter Kreeft

hames

Levito wrote: »

TheSultan,
If you don't believe the Church teachings are Gods, then you are protestant. I'm afraid you fall into the category of the heretic.

This is a deeply unfair and somewhat cruel statement in my opinion.

You cannot go around calling people Protestants and heretics without yourself being aware of the state of apprehension or magnitude and degree of pertinacity on behalf of the subject with regard to the material which he or she is discussing.

It is perfectly reasonable that the poster may have made an error, failed to comprehend the Dogmata correctly, or have had an inadequate awareness of the consequences of disagreeing with necessary points of faith.

We would be far better placed in serving the Church and God to simply point out the necessity for reconsideration, or the importance attached to a specific Dogma for the good of the contributor, instead of calling them unhelpful names.

Personally I would be more than comfortable, within the parameters of what I believe the Church allows, to argue over the possibility of increasing the role of women in the Church (certainly not as Priests, but perhaps as Deacons), and instances where contraception may ought to be permitted. I am comfortable discussing these things because I have read nothing in Sacred Scripture or scared tradition that has sought to silence similar debates when precedents on such discussions were established in the past.

Nevertheless, these debates may be unlikely to take place within the Church, and I do agree that we should not debate women priests.

I also think we should deal with questions which clearly have no willfully malicious intent a little more sensitively.

Levito

hames wrote: »

This is a deeply unfair and somewhat cruel statement in my opinion.

You cannot go around calling people Protestants and heretics without yourself being aware of the state of apprehension or magnitude and degree of pertinacity on behalf of the subject with regard to the material which he or she is discussing.

It is perfectly reasonable that the poster may have made an error, failed to comprehend the Dogmata correctly, or have had an inadequate awareness of the consequences of disagreeing with necessary points of faith.

We would be far better placed in serving the Church and God to simply point out the necessity for reconsideration, or the importance attached to a specific Dogma for the good of the contributor, instead of calling them unhelpful names.

Personally I would be more than comfortable, within the parameters of what I believe the Church allows, to argue over the possibility of increasing the role of women in the Church (certainly not as Priests, but perhaps as Deacons), and instances where contraception may ought to be permitted. I am comfortable discussing these things because I have read nothing in Sacred Scripture or scared tradition that has sought to silence similar debates when precedents on such discussions were established in the past.

Nevertheless, these debates may be unlikely to take place within the Church, and I do agree that we should not debate women priests.

I also think we should deal with questions which clearly have no willfully malicious intent a little more sensitively.

There was no willful malicious intent. You've just said, I had intent to insult the man, why on earth would I do that, here?

So I'm not the best communicator, but my points are valid. I didn't mean to insult, but he must learn that posting those demands, calls for an understanding on what he is trying to change.

But I agree, it would be best for him to seek truth, and actually read what the Church has to say. Most don't.

hames

Levito wrote: »

There was no willful malicious intent. You've just said, I had intent to insult the man, why on earth would I do that, here?

I haven't said whether or not you had intent to insult him. The willfully malicious intent, or presumed lack of it, related to the first poster. When dealing with such statements, it is first necessary to look at the willfulness attached to the statement of dissent. It is perfectly common for people to make fleeting errors without realizing what they are saying, and that should be pointed out calmly and sensitively, not with fiery accustaory language.

In any case, I'm sure we can agree that the OP must reconsider any statement and I hope this doesn't spin off into an argument over who said what.

I'm sorry if you think I was harsh in my post but I think it's important we don't completely alienate people arising merely out of inadequate apprehension of a specific point of faith.

Chimpokomon

thesultan wrote: »

1 Let people use contraceptive. Aids is widespread in Africa and most couples used the pill. Surely the church can say it is right to do so.

People always use this example, as though Catholicism instructs its followers to have sex without contraception. It doesn't. If you are following the letter of the law, then you don't have sex with anyone but your husband or wife. Following Catholicism properly would lead to less AIDS, not more!

thesultan

It's still time for a Vatican III with a new liberal pope hopefully.

totus tuus

thesultan wrote: »

It's still time for a Vatican III with a new liberal pope hopefully.

Dream on! The Catholic Church can never be liberal with Truth, She must always safeguard and preach the Truth in accordance with Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. She has Christ's promise that she will always be protected from teaching error!

thesultan

Well the church badly needs it. Vatican two's main call was changing the languages of masses. Vatican III needs alot more drastic action.

Paddy De Plasterer

Disgraceful the way Rome has treated good priests like Brian Darcy & Tony Flannery. And this at a time when priests are in such short supply, are getting older and having to work harder.

hames

hames wrote: »

This is a deeply unfair and somewhat cruel statement in my opinion.

You cannot go around calling people Protestants .

There's nothing wrong with being a protestant. And if people in this country found a church which actually suited their beliefs, a lot of them would be.
There is no point whatsoever remaining in the catholic church if you disagree with so many of its fundamental tenets. Why bother, when there are other christian churches he does seem to agree with

totus tuus

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

Disgraceful the way Rome has treated good priests like Brian Darcy & Tony Flannery. And this at a time when priests are in such short supply, are getting older and having to work harder.

Disgraceful the way some priests are bordering on teaching heresy and breaking their vow of obedience, they needed to be reminded that they are to Preach the Truth!

Daveaherne

Ya the RCC could do with coming into the 21st century, it could treat people a lot better like women leaving them be priests not telling them what to do with there bodies. It could do with saying condoms are not bad/evil. Show they are sorry to abuse victims of rape and being slaves to them by paying out to them. They could sell of some of its gold to help the poor. What are the chances thou

Paddy De Plasterer

i think a good start would be inviting back all those priests who left to get married, allowing married men become priests,and allow priests to marry. Wake up to presence of contraception, marriage break down -and remarriage - not the Rome annulment thing which is a cop out. Engage with women for more active role. Church is dying on its feet here and in Western world.

joseph brand

bluewolf wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with being a protestant. And if people in this country found a church which actually suited their beliefs, a lot of them would be.
There is no point whatsoever remaining in the catholic church if you disagree with so many of its fundamental tenets. Why bother, when there are other christian churches he does seem to agree with

Good article here.

Of 1,000 Catholics surveyed, 87% said priests should be allowed to marry. 77% said women should be priests. 60% disagreed with the Catholic church’s views on homosexuality. Three-quarters believe that the church’s teachings on sexuality have no relevance to their family. 55% think a bishop should be like a mayor, serving a fixed term, which of course raises all manner of bizarre scenarios including the danger that all Irish bishops will turn into Willie O’Dea.

On the basis of these figures, since three quarters of Irish Catholics disagree with the fundamental teaching of the Vatican that women way not be priests, it seems that three quarters of Irish Catholics are actually Protestants.

My own view is that most Irish Catholics have not the slightest understanding of what their faith entails and therefore there are very few Catholics of any sort in the country.

I reckon there's plenty of catholics who think that being a protestant means that you wave the Union Jack regularly and enjoy the Queen's xmas speech.

lmaopml

I think most Catholics don't believe that most people who are other Christians are merely Christian in order to wave a British flag. I'd even go so far to say they don't believe that athiests eat babies too...

I'd be willing to say that they would recognise them as other Christians who are very deep and very genuine spiritual brothers and sisters who believe that Jesus Christ was crucified, died and was buried and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures.

Perhaps there are some who do equate their Christianity or Catholicism in strictly patriotic and tribal ways, but I'd imagine they are just the very few and unfortunately very loud minority.

hames

bluewolf wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with being a protestant.

Well no, I think there is.
And the Protestants would say the same of Roman Catholics.
We are all broadly similar Churches but we have our differences, and if we didn't there would be no doctrinal distinction.
Whatever Church is best suited to the OP's beliefs is up to him. My point to the other poster was that he simply cannot be accused of being a Protestant because he may have erred or failed to be fully aware of the repercussions of challenging a necessary Roman Catholic point of faith.

Benny_Cake

Ok,I'm happy to leave this thread open as long as it doesn't become a Catholic vs Protestant or Atheist vs Christian bunfight.If anyone wants to bicker about sectarian differences they can do so elsewhere.

Paddy De Plasterer

Now its time for a Vatican 3, last 2 popes (JP 2 and Benny) have been a disaster for RCC. John Paul 1 lasted only a month, he would have shook things up, but his death was strange.

Manach

Vatican II was only a half century ago. Given the size and the historical traditions of an institution of the Church, even the short term effects of it are just beginning to be felt. Given the changing demographic changes of the growth of the Church in developing countries away from the stagnant and increasing irrevelant Europe, then Benedict can be seen you made one last effort to rekindle the historical faith of that continent but had also laid a foundation for the torch to be passed to a new generation of engaged clergy.

Levito

lol - People are still calling for the Church to change things she does not have the authority to change, and for things which would cause no less than an Ecclesiastical disaster, since the Church in the developing world does not want any of these things.

Christ without the cross.

Have Catholics nothing to learn from the Jews? How they continually attempted to fit in with society, doing abominable things in the eyes of God. Trying to be 'nice people' instead of saints.

It's insane!

lmaopml

Levito wrote: »

lol - People are still calling for the Church to change things she does not have the authority to change, and for things which would cause no less than an Ecclesiastical disaster, since the Church in the developing world does not want any of these things.

Christ without the cross.

Have Catholics nothing to learn from the Jews? How they continually attempted to fit in with society, doing abominable things in the eyes of God. Trying to be 'nice people' instead of saints.

It's insane!

I don't think it has much to do with the developing world or the west one way or the other Levito - and it's not the first time that people talk about these things, they have for centuries, and they are quite entitled to get a decent answer as to the how, whens and whys rather than an abrupt 'NO' that's just that, at least then they may understand..lol...

Levito

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't think it has much to do with the developing world or the west one way or the other Levito - and it's not the first time that people talk about these things, they have for centuries, and they are quite entitled to get a decent answer as to the how, whens and whys rather than an abrupt 'NO' that's just that, at least then they may understand..lol...

The Church has given reasons for the answer: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html

There is also that Peter Kreeft link I posted earlier on. It's an attempt by secular culture to mould the Church into a pagan Religion, which was a problem for the Israelites too. Replace the word Priestess with Goddess, and the real agenda behind this is revealed.

philologos

I think Vatican III could be useful on a few issues. Indeed if it went far enough to bringing the RCC to Biblical principles on a number of issues they could count me among their own I suspect. A church with as much critical mass as the RCC if it reformed on a number of issues could be a great vehicle to tell the world about the Lord Jesus, how he was pierced for our transgressions, and indeed His wounds we are healed.

Pwpane

thesultan wrote: »

As a church goer and a young one (very few) at that, it is time for a radical change in the church's teachings and rules. With an African the favourite to be the next pontiff surely there in lies the first change.

1 Let people use contraceptive. Aids is widespread in Africa and most couples used the pill. Surely the church can say it is right to do so.

2 Let priests marry. This was halted in the medieval times because it cost the church too much when couples separated.

3 Let women be priests. The time has come and with less and less priests joining the seminary it is a logical decision.

4 Let divorcées remarry in churches..

Mind is a bit blank at the moment but feel free to add and debate.

But Catholic priests are allowed to be married. Weren't married Anglican priests allowed to become Catholic priests? And isn't it common in the Eastern church?

lmaopml

Anglican Priests who convert to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, and are already married are allowed to be Priests in the Church and obviously stay married - However, if they are not married they would take a vow of celibacy -

Yes Priests in the Byzantine rite of the Catholic Church are allowed to marry. A vow of celibacy is a discipline of the Latin Rite ( or more commonly known as the Roman Catholic Church ).

lmaopml

philologos wrote: »

I think Vatican III could be useful on a few issues. Indeed if it went far enough to bringing the RCC to Biblical principles on a number of issues they could count me among their own I suspect. A church with as much critical mass as the RCC if it reformed on a number of issues could be a great vehicle to tell the world about the Lord Jesus, how he was pierced for our transgressions, and indeed His wounds we are healed.

Wouldn't it be something to have you Phil among our numbers, a wonderful addition - I'm sure you would be celebrated and welcomed wholeheartedly.

Pwpane

lmaopml wrote: »

Anglican Priests who convert to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, and are already married are allowed to be Priests in the Church and obviously stay married - However, if they are not married they would take a vow of celibacy -

Yes Priests in the Byzantine rite of the Catholic Church are allowed to marry. A vow of celibacy is a discipline of the Latin Rite ( or more commonly known as the Roman Catholic Church ).

Yes, as I said. Priests are allowed to be married in the Catholic church.

Allowing Anglican priests to become married Catholic priests is a real slap in the face for those Catholic priests who have to leave the priesthood to get married. If an Anglican priest wishes to convert to Catholicism of course they should be welcomed - as a new Catholic, not by any means as a priest. Unless of course the rules are changed for all. Because it is only a rule, not something essential to the priesthood, as is well established.

Gumbi

Why do you consider yourself Catholic when you are so opposed to so many of the core values of that faith? This is one of the few things about which I resolutely agree with the Catholic/Christian posters here. If you don't agree with it/don't believe it, then you're not a Catholic. Find a faith more suitable to your own values, found your own, or abandon religion altogether.

Don't waste everybody's time with your nonsense, OP.

Manach

I'd reckon the OP is aware of a disconnect between the Catholic doctrine and whatever is the current mores of the world. Raising questions of reform, perhaps is warranted as without such there would be no Trent or Vatican II. However the OP might wish to study instead the ways of the world and see if instead it is those that are to be reformed.

Levito

Manach wrote: »

I'd reckon the OP is aware of a disconnect between the Catholic doctrine and whatever is the current mores of the world. Raising questions of reform, perhaps is warranted as without such there would be no Trent or Vatican II. However the OP might wish to study instead the ways of the world and see if instead it is those that are to be reformed.

Exactly. The rebels say "The Church has lost the plot", but this is impossible since the Church hasn't changed. So the ones who have lost the plot are those who have changed - the world, followed by a majority of Catholics who want to be like them.

The real change needs to come from the laity, to live authentic Christian lives, striving for holiness (the lack of which is the cause of the shortage of priests and nuns), and to be different, and not be afraid of being different. We are called to be a light in a darkened world after all.

Pwpane

Levito wrote: »

Exactly. The rebels say "The Church has lost the plot", but this is impossible since the Church hasn't changed. So the ones who have lost the plot are those who have changed - the world, followed by a majority of Catholics who want to be like them.

The real change needs to come from the laity, to live authentic Christian lives, striving for holiness (the lack of which is the cause of the shortage of priests and nuns), and to be different, and not be afraid of being different. We are called to be a light in a darkened world after all.

Don't be silly. The Church has changed many times since its inception.

Levito

Pwpane wrote: »

Don't be silly. The Church has changed many times since its inception.

I was referring to recent changes. In say, the last 50 years. Think of the (so-called) sexual revolution etc.

I'm aware the Church has changed since its inception.