Habemus Papam...

[Top Gun]

Merlin, all of those quotes regarding the wives submitting to husbands, including one in Corinthians, I believe, were written at a time when the role of women in society was obviously much less; they reflected the values of the time. Obviously, no modern-day Christian (save perhaps the lone nut) is going to follow those verses to the letter and suggest that wives must always submit to their husbands.

[Vander]

"Hmm... scarey... nazi... bent on world domination... Seems like a vaguely familiar allegation but I just can't put my finger on where I've heard it before."

Sounds like a description of every single conservative.

[CDN_Merlin]

TopGun, yeah I figured that but you'd be surprised how many people still follow it almost to a T. I've known people in my age group who want nothing more than to get married, have kids and serve their husbands. This is the part I find wierd that in today's society, we still have people thinking like it was 2000 yrs ago.

[Dedman]

I am not Catholic so I really don't have a dog in this fight. But...

He's the first nazi pope. He was in the nazi youth in WWII.

heh

If you have studied your history, you would have realized that the Nazi Youth was compulsory to all German citizens. He even risked his life to escape Naziasm and became a POW to the Americans. Your troll-like attempt to draw a link to anti-semetism is stupid at best.

I saw no attempt to draw a link to anti-semetism. I only say him state a fact. Benedict XVI was in the Nazi Youth.

In regards to liberal vs conservatism in the church, such a concept should not exist in the first place. The church is not a democracy and Christ's teachings does not change depending on what one or a society thinks. If it was otherwise, where would you go if what they taught changed from time to time? There would be no constant and it would be quite confusing! A foundation does not move. If you do not agree with one or a few teachings of the Church then you are not a Catholic. Hey, no one said that following Catholicism would be easy.

As your comment relates to Christ's teachings I agree with you. But isn't there church doctrine that is man-made and not "of Christ"?

Take the fact that Priests aren't allowed to marry. As I understand it, that has nothing to Christ's teachings. It is a man-made rule. I am sure there are more examples of rules that were made up as the church evolved and grew. Aren't those up for interpretation?

[snoopy]

Top. As society changes shouldn't a religion change, or at least try to understand/accomodate the changes? If not, wouldn't the religion (or body of worship if you will) cease to become relevent.

I think sort of, on both cases. On the first case, I think the fact that society changes and the conerstone principles upon which a religion stands do not is precisely why a given religion cycles in and out of popularity in society, given that it is of high enough of quality. The details obviously carry a cultural context with them, and are the subject of many debates. On the second case, I think that a good quality religion covers the full range of human experience, and therefore will always have relevance. Sometimes the message will be more accepted than others, but it will always be relevant. Take for example technology- say, stem cell research. There obviously isn't any law in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not support stem cell research." At the same time, there are verses that infer that a person becomes a person upon conception. (In Psalms it says the God knew us while we where still in our mother's womb.) One of the ten commandments states "Thou shalt not murder," therefore I conclude that stem cell research on aborted embyros involves the killing of people, therefore I an opposed to it. (Let's not make this into an argument about stem cell research, it's just an example.) some people might interpret it differently, and draw a different conclusion from the same scripture- and there really isn't any clear way to determine who is right and who is wrong. Point being: New technology simple puts new twists on old ways to skin a cat, if the religion properly deals with skinning cats, it will remain relevant regardless of the way society develops.

As your comment relates to Christ's teachings I agree with you. But isn't there church doctrine that is man-made and not "of Christ"?

Take the fact that Priests aren't allowed to marry. As I understand it, that has nothing to Christ's teachings. It is a man-made rule. I am sure there are more examples of rules that were made up as the church evolved and grew. Aren't those up for interpretation?

Yes. But, in theory, all of those rules are intended to extend the spirit of the law found in the Bible. Jesus himself had run-ins with the pharasees concerning such interpolation of the OT law. Basically effectiveness and/or validity of such rules are the cause of many arguments among believers themselves.

As for the passage about women's submission, people covered it pretty well. It's partly a cultural thing, but I think the fact that men should lead women stands. Regardless of how you interpret the passage or agree with it, that's where the Catholic church got the rule that deacons could only be men. End for story.

[CUDA]

TopGun, yeah I figured that but you'd be surprised how many people still follow it almost to a T. I've known people in my age group who want nothing more than to get married, have kids and serve their husbands. This is the part I find wierd that in today's society, we still have people thinking like it was 2000 yrs ago.

I dont understand why you would have a problem with a woman that loved you enough to want to take care of (serve) you. and I dont mean serve as in slavery. I love my wfe enough that I'm willing to work hard enough so she "can" stay home and raise our family. I honor my wife and treat her like a lady every day of my life and she reciprocates, but we both understand that we have our places in the Church and our Family, granted any family decisions our joint made. but when we have reached an impass on a subject, she alows me to make the decision. is there something wrong with this?. most of the teachings go back to the focus on Christ. Women could be a distraction from God and they wanted the Men to focus on the subject not some hottie sitting next to them in church. or teaching a class

[El Ka Bong]

Every time I chime in on one of these biblical threads my words end up shutting down the discourse...

so I'll start by quoting FC:

".... As society changes shouldn't a religion change, or at least try to understand/accomodate the changes? If not, wouldn't the religion (or body of worship if you will) cease to become relevent. "

Fossilized !.. is what the Roman Catholic Church is ! That new pope looks like and sounds like a fossil too !

The RCC has ceased to "be relevant" long ago, but the self-limiting, hyper-crusty conservative, non-egalitarian, male "Princes" of the church still appeal to the superstitious masses as an institution to commune with God. Seriously; how can you want to be a part of something that is just that stuck, old, non-vernal, and un-evolving... contracted and myopic ?!

As though you cannot be aware, commune with and have "God" in your life without having to ascribe to a fossilized, non-democratic doctrine that is no longer relevant or current.

When we have proof that there is other life in the Universe ( say Mars in 10 years), will there be a third Testament written ..? A "Modern Testament" .. ? Maybe that'll change the RCC... We need something so universally true and grand to happen or be discovered that we can see beyond our sheepish needs to be herded.

[El Ka Bong]

oops double post...

[CDN_Merlin]

TopGun, yeah I figured that but you'd be surprised how many people still follow it almost to a T. I've known people in my age group who want nothing more than to get married, have kids and serve their husbands. This is the part I find wierd that in today's society, we still have people thinking like it was 2000 yrs ago.

I dont understand why you would have a problem with a woman that loved you enough to want to take care of (serve) you. and I dont mean serve as in slavery. I love my wfe enough that I'm willing to work hard enough so she "can" stay home and raise our family. I honor my wife and treat her like a lady every day of my life and she reciprocates, but we both understand that we have our places in the Church and our Family, granted any family decisions our joint made. but when we have reached an impass on a subject, she alows me to make the decision. is there something wrong with this?. most of the teachings go back to the focus on Christ. Women could be a distraction from God and they wanted the Men to focus on the subject not some hottie sitting next to them in church. or teaching a class

I actually have no problems with your situation but you both have an understanding. That's the difference. According to that passage, the way I understand it is the wife has no say in how her life will be once you are married. She can't go out to work, she must stay home. In today's society, more and more men are staying home and taking care of the kids. Is this a sin in God's eyes?

When I was growing up, my mom stayed home and raised my sister and I but only because my father made enough money to support that way of life. In today's times, thats hardly an option.

[Lothar]

the way I understand it is the wife has no say in how her life will be once you are married....

Then you misunderstand it, which is far too often the case with people's criticisms of the Bible... El Ka Bong, I'm looking at you. (And no, you don't tend to shut dialogue down -- you tend to get shut down. Subtle distinction, I know.) Unfortunately, it's also far too often the case with people who follow the Bible. It's hard to criticize, or follow, something you don't really understand.

If this topic was intended to be on the role of women in Christian society, I might chime in, or wait for my wife to do it (I don't even have to grant her permission!) But instead, I'm going to drag discussion back toward the original topic. (If you want to ask more about women in the church, please, start a new thread.)

On the topic of the Pope himself, I read a hilarious quote earlier:

Iâ??m still astonished that some can see a conservative elevated to the papacy and think: a man of tradition? As Pope? How could this be?

Heh.

[Flabby Chick]

Fossilized !.. is what the Roman Catholic Church is !

Don't want to be a nit-picker but thats a seperate thread. The talk is about the leader of the RCC not the religion itself.

I'm sure when lothar has finished his cheese sandwich he'll do a bit of splitting.

EDIT: lol... or maybe not. As you were guys.

EDITX2: lol ok.

[Lothar]

I'd do a bit of splitting, but it's really a pain and I have a class soon... and homework... and grading... I might have a break in about a month

[Top Gun]

I actually have no problems with your situation but you both have an understanding. That's the difference. According to that passage, the way I understand it is the wife has no say in how her life will be once you are married. She can't go out to work, she must stay home. In today's society, more and more men are staying home and taking care of the kids. Is this a sin in God's eyes?

Not at all; in fact, if anything, it's really the sign of a true vocation and dedication to one's family, something that I at least think that God would look very favorably upon. As I said above, gender roles are different now than they were at the time the New Testament epistles were written. Some aspects of this do not change, however. For example, the Church places an enormous amount of emphasis on the importance of the family in society, calling it the "cornerstone" of a stable society. In that context, the Church views the raising of children as one of the most noble vocations that anyone, male or female, can undertake. As such, the traditional role of a woman as mother and homemaker should not be disparaged as old-fashioned, but praised as a fundamentally important role in society; it's obviously quite a contrast to popular culture, where being a homemaker seems to be looked down upon by many female "professionals." In the example you provided, the stay-at-home dad would be fulfilling the same role as the mother; it's just a sign of changing social structure.

Regarding women serving as priests/deacons, I can at least provide a little insight as to why this vocation is restricted to males. Part of it is in the sense of tradition; Jesus' apostles, from whom modern-day bishops take their authority, were all males, as were the seventy-two disciples whom he sent out to minister; they can almost be seen as the forerunners of priests. Another part of it, however, has to do with the concept of vocations. At least in Church terms, a vocation isn't a job; it's a special calling to some service in life. Different people are called to different vocations; this in part reflects the inherent uniqueness of every person. In the sense of the priesthood and diaconate, these are vocations that are given to men. Women are called to different forms of service to the Church, including the sisterhood and lay service. (Interesting sidenote: the early Church actually provided a much greater sense of gender equality than did the Church of the Middle Ages up until relatively recently; the early Church did have a specific role for women that was roughly equivalent to that of a modern deacon. It's only in the past several decades that we've seen many more opportunities develop for women in lay service, including that of altar servers, lectors, ministers of the Eucharist, etc. Who knows, perhaps someday, female permanent deacons will be allowed; I can't really say that either way. At the present, though, I doubt this, if for no other reason than the fact that the permanent diaconate has seen relatively sustained growth recently.) This isn't really the best explanation; if there's enough demand, I'll do some research and try to come up with some better phraseology. Suffice it to say that part of the reason is because of the fact that priests have always been men, and part of it has to do with Christ's own selection of men as his appointed disciples and apostles, and indeed with Christ's own role as a male.

There's another point I should mention here: the term "Tradition" refers to something different when referring to the Church than it does in the popular sense. Snoopy briefly touched on this issue earlier. There are many fundamentalist Christian groups that follow a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible; in other words, if it isn't written in the Bible, then it isn't a legitimate belief. We as Catholics believe differently. For the Catholic Church, the teachings of the popes on matters of faith and morals, along with the Church councils and decrees of the College of Cardinals, are viewed as divinely inspired; they are classified under the role of Tradition. (Many people have a misconception about part of this, namely, papal infallibility. This doctrine does not state that the pope can do no wrong; it states that, when he is speaking with his full authority as the bishop of Rome in matters of faith and morals, his proclamations are considered without moral fault.) This gathered body of Church teaching, from the time of the apostles, carries equal weight with regards to faith as does the actual text of the Bible. This does require a clarification, though; as Snoopy said, all of these teachings were derived in some way or another from the teachings and actions of Christ, in the same way that the Church views the seven sacraments as each having been instituted by Christ. I hope this helps to clear up some misconceptions.

El Ka Bong, I think you've really missed the entire point of what the Church is and what Catholics believe. I don't wish to derail the thread any further, but we can take the discussion up in another thread if you so choose. I'll repeat something I've often said, however; true faith has nothing to do with being a "sheep," at least not in the sense that you mean; it does not entail blindly following decrees and rules. Instead, it is a constant challenge of evaluating your beliefs and struggling to implement them in your own life. I believe in what the Church teaches not simply because the Church says so, but because I also believe it to be the truth. And, as another side note, the discovery of life on Mars would have absolutely no effect on the Bible. In closing, if you insist on calling me a sheep, I'll just have to acquiesce; to use the oft-repeated joke, at least I'm following a Good Shepherd.

Edit: Looks like a few people snuck in before me. Guess that's the price you pay when writing long-winded posts.

[Top Wop]

I guess its my turn to say "good post" Top Gun.

I keep reading that Benedict XVI is the herder of 1.1 billion people. If, as you claim, there are so many 'Non-Catholics" what's the real number?

Not a whole lot, thats for sure. At least in America its pritty bad.

[Drakona]

Man, the issue of women in the church is a thorny one. I wish I had the time to write a balanced post about it. The best I can do is leave a link.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html

It's egalitarian, and the analysis is kind of "take it or leave it"... some good points, sometimes he's a little excitable. But there's a lot of good history and theology there, and if you want to read an altertnative to the standard interpretation of certain verses... there ya go.

[dissent]

Man, the issue of women in the church is a thorny one.

Interesting juxtaposition of words there, Drakona!

As to El Ka Bong's point about why the church shouldn't just 'get modern', one point of discussion is to look at the track record of typical fads and talk about their staying power. Say, got any Nehru shirts in your closet? (Boy, did I just date myself or what?) Pick any other fad you want in the last 200 years. Ok, where are they now? Gone, you say - forgotten??; I'd call that irrelevant. Scripture and Church teaching often refer to "reading the signs of the times". Reading them doesn't mean that you hop on every happy bandwagon that rolls by. The object of religion in not too make you happy, but to try to convey universal truths.

Sorry to break the news to you.

[Ferno]

Is it me or does the new pope look kinda.. creepy?

that and the whole 'the whole world needs to change, not the church' comment is just retarded... the whole world needs to suit one religion? not gonna happen pops. sorry.

[woodchip]

Is it me or does the new pope look kinda.. creepy?

Actually now that I think about it, the rotweiller does kinda look like uncle Fester in the Adams family.