Can Christianity Adapt to Survive?

[joe1776]

They can offer the world and the religion will still die out, because people don't respect, don't live for, weak faiths that pander to the lowest common denominator.

What you're casting as "pandering to the lowest common denominator," Pope Francis sees as leading his flock to a higher moral standard. In the past, his church lagged behind on moral advances. For example, in 1866, after slavery had been abolished in the USA and many nations of the world, the Catholic pope decreed that he saw nothing wrong with it. Scripture condoned slavery.

So, you see, if traditionalists had always ruled the moral teaching of their Church, and it hadn't "pandered to the lowest common denominator" as you put it, the church would still be condoning slavery.

 

[joe1776]

OTOH, what I've never seen is Francis saying that some part of the Catechism is wrong..

We aren't likely to ever hear a pope label a teaching of the church as wrong. That would be an admission that the Church is capable of error. That requirement makes change embarrassing for them. They have to change without seeming to change.

I've heard lay Catholics laugh when they repeat the claim that their church never changes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We aren't likely to ever hear a pope label a teaching of the church as wrong. That would be an admission that the Church is capable of error. That requirement makes change embarrassing for them. They have to change without seeming to change.

With Francis, it seems the opposite: people make him out to be revolutionary, but he's really giving the same old doctrines with a slightly different spin.

 

[joe1776]

With Francis, it seems the opposite: people make him out to be revolutionary, but he's really giving the same old doctrines with a slightly different spin.

In my view, he's a practical revolutionary. He's spinning the doctrine so that it supports his change.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What you're casting as "pandering to the lowest common denominator," Pope Francis sees as leading his flock to a higher moral standard. In the past, his church lagged behind on moral advances. For example, in 1866, after slavery had been abolished in the USA and many nations of the world, the Catholic pope decreed that he saw nothing wrong with it. Scripture condoned slavery.

Not surprising that the Church would take this position, since the Church itself kept people as slaves right up until the mid-1990s.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Laundries_in_Ireland

 

[metis]

You make such foolish statements because you don't understand the concept. When a denomination makes up unBiblical doctrines they have become corrupt.

As I mentioned before, your blind beliefs causes you to reject the very simple fact that all religious beliefs are largely subjective, therefore what is "corrupt" to you may be acceptable to some others and vice-versa. For some reason you can't get that through your head.

Secondly, your ignorance of church history is clearly shown because that "corrupt church" that you claim actually chose the canon you use, which is what Luther had used prior to his writing of his Bible in German. Luther chose the exact same canon as the CC did, minus the Apocrypha (but see below), but he did include it in his German Bible.

Some do because some people want them. Surely you know the apocrypha is not accept as Scripture in Protestant denomination. The orthodox churches may. I am not sure.

The Apocrypha was and is found in some Protestant Bibles, but they are not considered to be part of the canon. The Orthodox Church does accept the Apocrypha and it is included in their Bibles.

My guess is that you have never read the Apocrypha and thus don't realize that there really is nothing in it that is not found in the rest of the Bible with the exception of praying for the dead.

My goal is to understand the Bible, not church history, some of which is embellished.

But you don't do a very good job at either since you virtually ignore some scriptures as we've seen.

Since you are ignorant of the Bible, you don't know if you were being sold snake oil.

What an utterly childish statement, and your demeanor here and at some other times as we've seen violates the compassion and understanding that Jesus taught. It's one thing to believe about Jesus, but it's quite another to believe in Jesus.

I taught theology for 16 years, and then I taught several seminars after that in both church and synagogue settings. That does not mean nor imply that I'm right on everything by any means, and my wife can vouch for that.

Your sarcasm and use of demeaning slams is the antithesis of what Jesus and the apostles taught, and it's interesting that I do not see Catholics here or elsewhere acting in such a manner that I think Jesus was deplore.

I've attended my wife's Catholic churches for over 50 years, and I never hear them attacking or demeaning Protestants or people of other faiths. Quite the reverse, often talking about their "brothers and sisters of faith", or words similar to that. It's one thing to disagree with someone else's faith beliefs, but it is unethical, imo, to stereotype and demean them as you so often do.

I think I've had enough.

 

[metis]

I gotta leave, but he has made it clear that he views the issue of who may possibly be saved to be broader than what the Catechism says, and he's showing this with both the groups he's talking with and what he has said about respecting their beliefs.

I looked through that. I still didn't see anywhere where Francis disagreed with the Catechism.

I see places where he emphasizes parts of the Catechism that his predecessors might not have emphasized as much (though they still upheld them as part of Catholic teaching).

You repeated what I had actually said (top quote). IOW, it's not that he goes against the Catechism as much as he pretty goes in the direction of being more ecumenical.

BTW, some of the more conservative bishops aren't too happy with him because of this and some other things he's said.

 

[metis]

That would be an admission that the Church is capable of error. That requirement makes change embarrassing for them. They have to change without seeming to change.

That's really not true, and I know this from my own personal experience.

In 1991, I was sponsored by the Holocaust Memorial Center on a study here in the States (3 days), in Poland (2 weeks), and in Israel (1 week), and in Poland we met with both Catholic and government officials.

The RCC, to it's credit, has apologized to the Jewish community for not acting quick enough to try and stop the Holocaust, plus having too many of its members, including some clergy, that were complicit in cooperating with the NAZI's. As far as I know, no other churches have done this.

The Pope (JPII) had a priest that was monitoring anti-Semitic words and actions there in Poland, and that priest had a direct channel to the pope. And on numerous occasions there have been joint conferences and activities between the Jewish and Catholic communities, and I was involved with meeting that same priest both in Poland and here in the States.

This is not the only area whereas the church has apologized, such as dealing with the Inquisition, the Crusades, and even in regards to Galileo (OK, so it took several decades to get around doing it ).

BTW, a few decades ago I was at a United Farm Workers conference, and at one of our smaller discussion groups, one of the priests said to another priest that "We may get into heaven some day in spite of the church", and everyone laughed.

 

[metis]

BTW, in regards to why some of the conservative bishops have trouble with PF, here's an article that can explain: Conservative opposition to Pope Francis spurs talk of a schism in the Catholic Church (mostly dealing with divorced/remarried Catholics)

or here: Pope Francis Has Single-Handedly Destroyed Catholicism (some other areas)

 

[joe1776]

That's really not true, and I know this from my own personal experience.

You misunderstood the subject of my exchange with 9-10ths Penguin. We were discussing changes in doctrine. We were not talking about apologies. I mentioned more than a hundred public apologies by John Paul II in the OP.

Do you know of any instances of the Church admitting to changes in doctrine? Don't they always just put a different spin on the teachings to make it appear that in taking a new direction they haven't really changed anything as Pope Francis does here with the Catechism?

 

[omega2xx]

As I mentioned before, your blind beliefs causes you to reject the very simple fact that all religious beliefs are largely subjective, therefore what is "corrupt" to you may be acceptable to some others and vice-versa. For some reason you can't get that through your head.

First of all you are not qualified to say my faith has made me blind. Once I was blind but now I see. You Are the one who is spiritually blind because of your liberal, unbiblical theology. Second, all religions beliefs are not subjective. Only the ones not supported by Scripture are subjective and hey come from liberal theology. Are you really suggesting that a denomination that approves of selling tickets to heaven and responsible for the inquisitions is not corrupt. Hiding the pedophile priest and letting them continue their sin, is as sign the CC is still corrupt.

Secondly, your ignorance of church history is clearly shown because that "corrupt church" that you claim actually chose the canon you use, which is what Luther had used prior to his writing of his Bible in German. Luther chose the exact same canon as the CC did, minus the Apocrypha (but see below), but he did include it in his German Bible.

Your ignorance of the Protestant canon is amusing. Luther did not determine the Protestant canon. In fact He wanted to leave the Book of James out of our canon. You need to brush up on the history of the canons.

The Apocrypha was and is found in some Protestant Bibles, but they are not considered to be part of the canon. The Orthodox Church does accept the Apocrypha and it is included in their Bibles.

It is included in some Bibles because it does have some good historical information. I see no sense in reading something for my religious advancement that was not inspired by God.

My guess is that you have never read the Apocrypha and thus don't realize that there really is nothing in it that is not found in the rest of the Bible with the exception of praying for the dead.

I have a Bible with the apocrypha and read some of it year ago. The Catholics get their doctrine of purgatory from the apocrypha. You wont find that in the real Bible.

but you don't do a very good job at either since you virtually ignore some scriptures as we've seen.

You are not qualified to say I don't do a good job and I don't ignore any Scripture in this forum. I challenge you to post any I have ignored.

What an utterly childish statement, and your demeanor here and at some other times as we've seen violates the compassion and understanding that Jesus taught. It's one thing to believe about Jesus, but it's quite another to believe in Jesus.

If you are going to accuse me of something, be specific, and I will show you where you are wrong.

I taught theology for 16 years, and then I taught several seminars after that in both church and synagogue settings. That does not mean nor imply that I'm right on everything by any means, and my wife can vouch for that.

Teaching it doesn't mean you understand it. I have taught adult Sunday school for over 35 years and I have probably studied the Bible much more than you have.

]Your sarcasm and use of demeaning slams is the antithesis of what Jesus and the apostles taught, and it's interesting that I do not see Catholics here or elsewhere acting in such a manner that I think Jesus was deplore.
Evidently you have skipped over or ignored Jesus's "woes" to the Pharisees. If you can show where any statement I have made is not true and thus demeaning, I will apologize. It seems liberals think disagreeing with someone theology is demeaning, yet you disagree with mine.

I've attended my wife's Catholic churches for over 50 years, and I never hear them attacking or demeaning Protestants or people of other faiths. Quite the reverse, often talking about their "brothers and sisters of faith", or words similar to that. It's one thing to disagree with someone else's faith beliefs, but it is unethical, imo, to stereotype and demean them as you so often do.

You need to evaluate what your pope and some in the past have said about Protestant churches---they are not real churches. If that is not demeaning, nothing is. They also call us heretics.

I think I've had enough.

Fine with me but you should at least show the forum where I have demeaned the CC. Of course you can't. Your remarks about me are more demeaning than anything I have said.

So take some of Jesus' advice---get the plank out of your own eye before you try to get the splinnter out of mine.

 

[metis]

You misunderstood the subject of my exchange with 9-10ths Penguin. We were discussing changes in doctrine.

Sorry 'bout that.

Do you know of any instances of the Church admitting to changes in doctrine?

The church moves slowly, but it does move. Ecumenism is strong whereas it didn't even exist within Catholicism before Vatican II. It's moved to try and better deal with the pedophile situation (my wife literally stopped going for a couple of months because she was so upset with how the church was not taking appropriate actions). It has made it easier for divorced and remarried Catholics to be welcomed back into full participation in the church, as well as members of the LGBT community. There's more discretion being give to local priests on dealing with matters similar to some of this. Etc.

Don't they always just put a different spin on the teachings to make it appear that in taking a new direction they haven't really changed anything as Pope Francis does here with the Catechism?

See above.

I'm 72 years young , been attending mass with my wife for over 50 years, and I've seen lots of changes, including that with significant implications.

BTW, are you Christian and are you affiliated with any denomination? If so, may I ask which?

 

[joe1776]

BTW, are you Christian and are you affiliated with any denomination? If so, may I ask which?

I think a Creator might exist. If it does, it loves unconditionally, which logically means that we are loved whether we are theists, agnostics or atheists. And since the authors of the sacred texts of religion didn't understand that genuine love is always unconditional, they created a god who acts much like an arrogant human king. So, as to the gods of traditional Western religion, I am an atheist.

Does the Christian version of God satisfy you?

 

[metis]

Ya know, the OP says this: "Can Christianity Adapt to survive?", and yet all this thread has done is to turn into just another anti-Catholic rant. What is next, an anti-Jewish rant? an anti-Muslim rant?

My recommendation: if one doesn't like Catholicism or Catholics, then don't go to a Catholic church, and then maybe have the decency to leave Catholics and their church alone. Maybe rant on one's own denomination if one just wants to rant because this kind of bigotry is really getting old because it's largely destructive, not constructive.

 

[metis]

Does the Christian version of God satisfy you?

See my "faith statement" at the bottom of the page as I already have answered this in several posts in this thread.

 

[omega2xx]

You misunderstood the subject of my exchange with 9-10ths Penguin. We were discussing changes in doctrine. We were not talking about apologies. I mentioned more than a hundred public apologies by John Paul II in the OP.

Do you know of any instances of the Church admitting to changes in doctrine? Don't they always just put a different spin on the teachings to make it appear that in taking a new direction they haven't really changed anything as Pope Francis does here with the Catechism?

They have given up the doctrine of limo and they have eliminated eating meat on Friday as being a sin.

 

[metis]

Limbo (not "limo") was never an official teaching of the church as it was just a theological concept attempting to deal with a serious question as what happens if a child dies without being baptized; and not eating meat deals with "fasting" that was left up to the bishops to decide as to whether it should be encouraged in their given area. The Bible mentions "fasting", but maybe some never get around to those verses.

 

[Confucian Mormon Buddhist]

What you're casting as "pandering to the lowest common denominator," Pope Francis sees as leading his flock to a higher moral standard. In the past, his church lagged behind on moral advances. For example, in 1866, after slavery had been abolished in the USA and many nations of the world, the Catholic pope decreed that he saw nothing wrong with it. Scripture condoned slavery.

So, you see, if traditionalists had always ruled the moral teaching of their Church, and it hadn't "pandered to the lowest common denominator" as you put it, the church would still be condoning slavery.

A lower moral standard.

In case you haven't noticed, you're not God. Pope Francis isn't God.

If the scriptures of a religion do condone slavery (I don't know enough of either argument myself), then it's clearly not immoral within that religion.

See, I'm not so childish as to supposed that religions thousands of years old should bow to my modern sensibilities. People should accept their religions wholly or just dispense with the pretensions and be atheists.

 

[joe1776]

Ya know, the OP says this: "Can Christianity Adapt to survive?", and yet all this thread has done is to turn into just another anti-Catholic rant. What is next, an anti-Jewish rant? an anti-Muslim rant?.

After we exhausted the argument in the OP, I thought it turned into a Pope Francis versus the Church traditionalists battle with me supporting the Pope and you defending the traditionalists.

Nevertheless, frame it anyway you like. The posts are there for others to read. They can make up their own mind.

 

[metis]

After we exhausted the argument in the OP, I thought it turned into a Pope Francis versus the Church traditionalists battle with me supporting the Pope and you defending the traditionalists.

I'm hardly a "traditionalist". How you derived the above from what I previously wrote is beyond me as I made it clear in more than one post that I believe what the Pope is doing is in general great with me.

Nevertheless, frame it anyway you like.

I'm "framing it" as it has turned out to be.

The posts are there for others to read. They can make up their own mind.

Of course as I was complaining about the anti-Catholic bigotry that was being posted and not about trying to silence it or anyone.

And let's not kid ourselves in that there was plenty of anti-Catholic bigotry involved, largely because any objective look at the CC, whether it be contemporaneously or historically, would include some good things that the church has done and continues to do, but that's not what we see here with some of the posters. It's fine to question, but it's not fine to constantly harp on the negative while avoiding the positive-- that's what "bigotry" is.

I disagree with probably around 99.9% of what the CC teaches as I'm quite agnostic, but I think it is intellectually and morally repugnant to just attack-attack-attack any religious organization and then justifying it on the basis that this is somehow just a spin-off from what the title of this thread was about. It started out as being a discussion I was enjoying, but then just turned into just another Catholic-bashing forum (several weeks ago, there were at least four anti-Catholic threads going at the exact same time).

You had plenty of opportunities to redirect the discussions back to what the thread was about but you didn't.