Is Islam A Religion Of Truth, Peace And Love Or Not?

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Varg' date='12 December 2009 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1260633992' post='2019090']
Because all Muslims are terrorists, right?

No.
[/quote]

i didnt say that. i said someone. not all Muslims are terrorists but Muslim terrorists do exist obviously. I'm not that stupid.

[Pomak]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='13 December 2009 - 03:43 AM' timestamp='1260636198' post='2019110']
There are religions which, while they feel they have a correct belief, do not think that everyone else is wrong. Both Islam and Christianity are protelyzing religions, and if not similar theologically, both believe that they each have a monopoly on "truth" and an obligation to force it on everyone else. If that isn't hubris, I don't know what is.

I often wonder: if Jesus returned tomorrow, whether he would ask "Who is this Paul fellow and why aren't all you "Christians" who want to live in imitation of me not Torah-observant Jews? I was".
[/quote]

Even I know that both us and Christians would disagree with that.

And the second part is my thoughts exactly.

[Socrates]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='12 December 2009 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1260627907' post='2019058']
Socrates



Sins against humanity approved and committed by the Church(its members), were worse in the past than those today. Punishment for
crimes was like nothing we have today. During the 1500's in Spain during the time of the Inquisition, the crime for stealing a sheep,
was disembowelment. We don't see that in our world today. We have evolved, thanks to Christian understanding.[/quote]
Oh, indeed.
Obviously, plenty of sins and evils were committed in ages past, but it's an extremely dubious and hubristic assumption to say that there's overall less evil and sin in the Church and in the world today.
In the Church, for instance, we've recently seen a massive clerical sexual abuse scandal, with many bishops actively covering up for sexual predators, "Catholic" politicians actively supporting the slaughter of the innocents by abortion, and large numbers of "Catholics" (including in the clergy and religious) completely rejecting Church teaching on abortion, extra-marital sex, contraception, and homosexuality.

I'm sure in your "progressive" mindset, you may not see much of those trends as being a big deal; in fact you may well regard much of it as evidence of "progress" or "spiritual evolution," but the Church sees it otherwise. Read what the Popes have to say.

Yes, we have become more humane in our punishments for the guilty, yet society as large, unfortunately including many "Catholics," supports the outright slaughter of [i]innocent[/i] human life through abortion.
And as the past 100 years have seen state-sponsored violence and murder on an unprecedented scale, including two world wars, the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews, 100 million murdered under atheist Communism, and countless billions of innocent babies murdered by legal abortion, I'd hardly say modern people are less sinful and more "spiritually evolved" than they were 500 years ago.
But what do I know - I no doubt lack your "spiritual evolvement."


[quote]Pope Innocent IV issued the Papal Bull, [url="/wiki/Ad_exstirpanda"][i]Ad exstirpanda[/i][/url], allowing the use of torture on heretics. The Bull also placed limits
on how much torture could be used, but it did allow for it, and of course, it was abused to the hilt.
[/quote]
Power, of course, is never abused today (except, maybe, by conservative Republicans).
Of course, its much easier and politically correct to sit around and condemn evils that happened many centuries ago than it is to speak out strongly against the evils of our own time.

Evil occurs in all times, and the particular evils in vogue change from age to age, but it's foolish and hubristic to claim that man is spiritually better today than ever in the past.


[quote]Yes they were more fair, in fact, our courts today, and based on the ecclesiastical courts of the Inquisition. However, just as our courts today are sometimes abused, so to were the ecclesiastical courts of the Inquisition.
[/quote]
I don't deny that. My point is that these were not problems caused by or exclusive to the Catholic Church.

[quote]Actually, much of what he wrote is accepted by the Church today. Through better understanding of what he wrote, it became clear, he was right.
[/quote]
While his teachings may no longer be officially censured, the Church has never endorsed his teachings.
The Church has specifically condemned the idea of evolution applied to the human soul.

[quote]The Church as a whole, is more spiritually evolved than in the past, I have no doubt about it. The average Catholic is able to understand and participate in the deeper spiritual riches of the Church, such as Contemplation.
In the 1500,s during the time of St Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, contemplation was forbidden. Heck, St. John was thrown in prison by his own order, for his teachings on spirituality. St. Teresa was also brought before the Inquisition. Remember, it was only in 1970, that she was made a Doctor of the Church, and average Catholics began to have her writings taught to them without reservation.
[/quote]
Contemplation was never forbidden by the Church. Yes, it takes time for the Church to give approval to new orders and spiritual movements. But such caution is necessary to separate true spiritual movements from false and destructive ones.
It's true that the Church has gained spiritual riches over the year, yet I wouldn't to say unequivocally that Catholics as a whole are more "spiritually evolved" than in the past.
Today, huge percentages of "Catholics" are ignorant of or blatantly reject the most basic tenants of their Faith, including such doctrines as the divinity of Christ and the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and basic moral teachings, such as the wrongness of abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. Do you really think the average Catholic today participates more in the spiritual riches of the Church than in the past?
But, oh well, I suppose that's just "spiritual evolution."
At least they reject "fundamentalism."


[quote]I've seen fundamentalist Catholics take a teaching from the Catechism literally, and misinterpret it. One is a friend of mine,
who showed me how he learned from the Catechism, that the soul of a person existed before conception. He even got into
a heated argument on retreat with the monk, who is a theologian. Finally, God got through to him and he began to understand
that his interpretation was wrong. But he's not unique. I've seen it time and time again throughout Catholic web forums.[/quote]
This sounds like a case of simple ignorance, which thankfully was overcome. So "fundamentalism" according to you is any ignorance or rejection of Catholic teaching in favor of one's own personal opinions?
Personally, I've seen this sort of practice a lot more from "liberal Catholics" than from anyone who could be called "fundamentalist," though stubborness and ignorance is not limited to any one ideology.
And is erroneously understanding a Catechism passage somehow worse than those who never bother to follow what the Catechism teaches in the first place?

(Btw, I've only come across one self-professed Catholic who believed in the pre-existence of human souls, and he was quite "progressive" and liberal in his persuasions.)

Returning to my original question, I'd like some more specific examples of who these Catholic "fundamentalists" are that you talk about. If they're really in danger of taking over the Church, surely you can provide some prominent examples.


[quote]Well I'll trust the Jesuits at American Magazine, before most people who participate in Catholic Web forums. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/P.gif[/img]
[/quote]
Guess that means I shouldn't trust what you say here.
I'll stick with Catholic orthodoxy, thank you very much.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Socrates

[JimR-OCDS]

Socrates

[quote]
Oh, indeed.
Obviously, plenty of sins and evils were committed in ages past, but it's an extremely dubious and hubristic assumption to say that there's overall less evil and sin in the Church and in the world today.[/quote]

Well I think you'll just have to make an honest study of the Church throughout the centuries, to see the dirty laundry. Papal armies being sent in to slaughter, and such. The use of heresy and excommunication, to force people to behave in ways to benefit the Church's coffers.



[quote]
In the Church, for instance, we've recently seen a massive clerical sexual abuse scandal, with many bishops actively covering up for sexual predators, "Catholic" politicians actively supporting the slaughter of the innocents by abortion, and large numbers of "Catholics" (including in the clergy and religious) completely rejecting Church teaching on abortion, extra-marital sex, contraception, and homosexuality.
[/quote]

Are you presuming that there was no sex abuse by Catholic Clergy in the past? Along with the other atrocities, there was as much if not more sex abuse by Catholic Clergy, and in those days, not even noblemen would dare speak out against the Church.

[quote]
I'm sure in your "progressive" mindset, you may not see much of those trends as being a big deal; in fact you may well regard much of it as evidence of "progress" or "spiritual evolution," but the Church sees it otherwise. Read what the Popes have to say
[/quote]

Well you're problem here is you're flawed judgment of what I think.

The sex abuse scandal has caused great harm to the Catholic Church, and it will take generations to overcome. Fact is, because of it, the Pope and Bishops can no longer speak with moral authority, without having the sex abuse scandal thrown in their face.

[quote]
Yes, we have become more humane in our punishments for the guilty, yet society as large, unfortunately including many "Catholics," supports the outright slaughter of [i]innocent[/i] human life through abortion.
[/quote]

There will always be those who have not evolved spiritually. Those who support abortion, generally don't have much of a spiritual life, other than going to church for either social/political purposes, or out of a sense of guilt. Of course neither of these two reasons have anything to do with spiritual faith, but rather, the mere practice of religion.

[quote]
And as the past 100 years have seen state-sponsored violence and murder on an unprecedented scale, including two world wars, the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews, 100 million murdered under atheist Communism, and countless billions of innocent babies murdered by legal abortion, I'd hardly say modern people are less sinful and more "spiritually evolved" than they were 500 years ago.
But what do I know - I no doubt lack your "spiritual involvement."
[/quote]

Like I said, not everyone evolves spiritually. However, I believe there are more people in the world today, who have evolved spiritually, and live lives of true contemplation, than in years past.


[quote]
Contemplation was never forbidden by the Church.
[/quote]

Contemplative prayer and spiritual teachings on contemplation were prohibited during St Teresa and St. John of the Cross's time in Spain. Pick up a copy of the Collected Works of St Teresa, by Fr. Kavenaugh OCD, its all in there.

[quote]
Yes, it takes time for the Church to give approval to new orders and spiritual movements. But such caution is necessary to separate true spiritual movements from false and destructive ones.
[/quote]

Actually, in the case of St. Teresa and St John of the Cross, it was the suppression of spirituality from the past going back to the desert fathers. The Church in the East, never abandon it as they did in the West.
Quiet Prayer was seen as dangerous, and St Teresa was prohibited from writing about it and was brought before the Inquisition. Luckily, the inquisitor was her confessor, who had already accepted her experiences and teachings on prayer.


[quote]
It's true that the Church has gained spiritual riches over the year, yet I wouldn't to say unequivocally that Catholics as a whole are more "spiritually evolved" than in the past.
[/quote]

Oh I do. I see the difference between the spiritual level of pre-Vatican II Catholics and Catholics today.
In both eras, there were those who were spiritually deep, but I believe there are more today, who are going into contemplation, where the older generation, it was limited to religious and those living in monasteries. The average Catholic would've been dissuaded from reading about Contemplative Prayer by their parish priest, because even they were ignorant on contemplative prayer. Even today, the majority of diocesan priest, do not study spirituality and have only vague knowledge of it. However, their don't discourage their parishioners for going into this deeper form of prayer. That's except of course, neoconservatives. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]


Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='14 December 2009 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1260802176' post='2020229']

Oh I do. I see the difference between the spiritual level of pre-Vatican II Catholics and Catholics today.
In both eras, there were those who were spiritually deep, but I believe there are more today, who are going into contemplation, where the older generation, it was limited to religious and those living in monasteries. The average Catholic would've been dissuaded from reading about Contemplative Prayer by their parish priest, because even they were ignorant on contemplative prayer. Even today, the majority of diocesan priest, do not study spirituality and have only vague knowledge of it. However, their don't discourage their parishioners for going into this deeper form of prayer. [b]That's except of course, neoconservatives. [/b][img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]


Jim
[/quote]
I like how nearly everything, or maybe everything you say here, is ultimately meant to be a not-so-subtle dig against "neoconservatives." You'd think all us neocons would have learned by now with someone as enlightened as yourself to guide us out of our barbaric pre-Vatican II mindset.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='14 December 2009 - 11:41 AM' timestamp='1260805291' post='2020242']
I like how nearly everything, or maybe everything you say here, is ultimately meant to be a not-so-subtle dig against "neoconservatives." You'd think all us neocons would have learned by now with someone as enlightened as yourself to guide us out of our barbaric pre-Vatican II mindset.
[/quote]


I try to do my best to help you.
[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/P.gif[/img]

Jim

[Antigonos]

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 December 2009 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1260636652' post='2019117']
And where in our dogma does is say we can/must "force" conversions?

[/quote]

In dogma, perhaps not. But in history the Church certainly has. And one of the things that nowadays seems to get not just Catholics but a huge number of ordinary Christians really hot under the collar is that the Islamic world is behaving very much as the Church did until very recently -- being exceedingly intolerant of anyone who is not a Moslem, to the point of actual persecution of "infidels". Shoe is on the other foot, it seems, and the Christian world is affronted.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Antigonos

[Socrates]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='14 December 2009 - 09:49 AM' timestamp='1260802176' post='2020229']
Socrates



Well I think you'll just have to make an honest study of the Church throughout the centuries, to see the dirty laundry. Papal armies being sent in to slaughter, and such. The use of heresy and excommunication, to force people to behave in ways to benefit the Church's coffers.[/quote]
I don't deny that there was sin and abuse in the Church in past ages, however you seem to be relying on accounts with an anti-Catholic bias, and painting an exaggeratedly ugly picture of Church history to fit your own ideological agenda.

My point is not that everything was wonderful and churchmen were without sin in the "old days," nor that everything is all gloom and doom in the Church today. My point is that it is absurd to claim that people (both within and without the Church) are really any more "spiritually evolved" or less sinful in modern times than in the past.

It's interesting that you seem to have nothing positive to say about the Church in times past, but seem focused only on the bad and "dirty laundry." It's like you think the history of Christ's own Church was nothing but rottenness until Vatican II or whenever, when the Church finally received modern enlightenment.

The truth is that in the Church there have always been saints and sinners, wheat and chaffe, sheep and goats. Things are not substantially different in this regard than in the past.

[quote]Are you presuming that there was no sex abuse by Catholic Clergy in the past? Along with the other atrocities, there was as much if not more sex abuse by Catholic Clergy, and in those days, not even noblemen would dare speak out against the Church.
[/quote]
I don't presume anything, but I don't think you have anything to substantiate your assertion that clerical sex abuse was worse in the past. Much of the abuse took place post-Vatican II. My point was that there is still plenty of evil and abuse in the Church today, and that there's really no factual basis for the claim that things are spiritually better in the Church in the modern era than ever before.
And interestingly, many of those involved in the scandal and cover-up of abusers were pretty progressive-minded "spiritually-evolved" guys, like Archbishop Weakland.


[quote]Well you're problem here is you're flawed judgment of what I think.

The sex abuse scandal has caused great harm to the Catholic Church, and it will take generations to overcome. Fact is, because of it, the Pope and Bishops can no longer speak with moral authority, without having the sex abuse scandal thrown in their face.
[/quote]
I actually was thinking, not of the sex abuse scandals, but of the current widespread acceptance among "Catholics" of abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc. After all, such causes are all the rage among "progressive Catholics." Not that I consider the two problems to be completely unrelated.


[quote]There will always be those who have not evolved spiritually. Those who support abortion, generally don't have much of a spiritual life, other than going to church for either social/political purposes, or out of a sense of guilt. Of course neither of these two reasons have anything to do with spiritual faith, but rather, the mere practice of religion.
[/quote]
Agreed.
The increased acceptance of abortion among both "Catholics" and society at large in recent times is hardly a sign of spiritual progress for the better.

[quote]Like I said, not everyone evolves spiritually. However, I believe there are more people in the world today, who have evolved spiritually, and live lives of true contemplation, than in years past.
[/quote]
That's your opinion, but rather hard to prove.

[quote]Contemplative prayer and spiritual teachings on contemplation were prohibited during St Teresa and St. John of the Cross's time in Spain. Pick up a copy of the Collected Works of St Teresa, by Fr. Kavenaugh OCD, its all in there.



Actually, in the case of St. Teresa and St John of the Cross, it was the suppression of spirituality from the past going back to the desert fathers. The Church in the East, never abandon it as they did in the West.
Quiet Prayer was seen as dangerous, and St Teresa was prohibited from writing about it and was brought before the Inquisition. Luckily, the inquisitor was her confessor, who had already accepted her experiences and teachings on prayer.
[/quote]
Yes, contemplative prayer's wonderful.
However, that has little to do with the main point of the discussion.
If we were really so much more "spiritually evolved" than in the past, there'd be a lot more prayer, period, and there wouldn't be so much confusion and dissent in the Church regarding the most basic teachings of faith and morals.

[quote]Oh I do. I see the difference between the spiritual level of pre-Vatican II Catholics and Catholics today.
In both eras, there were those who were spiritually deep, but I believe there are more today, who are going into contemplation, where the older generation, it was limited to religious and those living in monasteries. The average Catholic would've been dissuaded from reading about Contemplative Prayer by their parish priest, because even they were ignorant on contemplative prayer. Even today, the majority of diocesan priest, do not study spirituality and have only vague knowledge of it. However, their don't discourage their parishioners for going into this deeper form of prayer. That's except of course, neoconservatives. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]


Jim[/quote]
What exactly is a "neoconservative"? Is that anything like a "fundamentalist"?
You throw out a lot of vague labels, while giving evasive replies and saying little of real substance.

"Neoconservative" is a term from secular politics, which has little relevance to the issues here.
However, it seems to have become a slur that (oddly enough) both religious liberals and "rad trads" like to use to throw at anyone who disagrees with their opinions.

I'm still genuinely curious as to who exactly these "fundamentalists" are whom you see as such a threat to the Church.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Socrates

[Pomak]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='15 December 2009 - 06:04 AM' timestamp='1260817441' post='2020443']
In dogma, perhaps not. But in history the Church certainly has. And one of the things that nowadays seems to get not just Catholics but a huge number of ordinary Christians really hot under the collar is that the Islamic world is behaving very much as the Church did until very recently -- being exceedingly intolerant of anyone who is not a Moslem, to the point of actual persecution of "infidels". Shoe is on the other foot, it seems, and the Christian world is affronted.
[/quote]
I disagree with this. At an institutional level we kinda never had a "Church" that tried the whole convert or die bit. With a handful of obvious exceptions. (I believe that having an institutionalized religious authority is inherently problematic because God is usually with the kid in africa starving not with the politicians cozzing up to Ceo's who earn millions.) At the personal level we are about the same. I know a Greek convert who was taken to a priest and made to repent his faith and was stopped from meeting any non Christian friends, I know of another convert whose parents think he is going through a "phase"....after 30 years and a few kids. And a while back we had some stories of some ex coptic converts who were killed by their parents. Nevertheless almost every religion can come up with a similar list.

I honestly do not think its a case of the Christians being affronted because supposedly Muslims are as bad as Christians were, its a case of identity politics. It just so happens that the crimes that they accuse the others are the crimes of their forefathers.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Pomak' date='14 December 2009 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1260845019' post='2020758']
I honestly do not think its a case of the Christians being affronted because supposedly Muslims are as bad as Christians were, its a case of identity politics. It just so happens that the crimes that they accuse the others are the crimes of their forefathers.
[/quote]
We were better with swords and pitchforks than you will ever be with bombs.

Now at keeping occupied territory, I have to admit, you guys are pretty awesome. We retook Spain, but we never did reclaim Turkey.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='14 December 2009 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1260817441' post='2020443']
In dogma, perhaps not. But in history the Church certainly has. And one of the things that nowadays seems to get not just Catholics but a huge number of ordinary Christians really hot under the collar is that the Islamic world is behaving very much as the Church did until very recently -- being exceedingly intolerant of anyone who is not a Moslem, to the point of actual persecution of "infidels". Shoe is on the other foot, it seems, and the Christian world is affronted.
[/quote]
The Church is her dogma. All else is individual behavior.

The muslims have no "pope," so it's a bit different. I reckon in a few centuries, they will be every bit as pitiful as Christianity.

[JimR-OCDS]

Socrates

[quote]
I don't deny that there was sin and abuse in the Church in past ages, however you seem to be relying on accounts with an anti-Catholic bias, and painting an exaggeratedly ugly picture of Church history to fit your own ideological agenda.
[/quote]

Actually, my information comes from Catholic Historians.

One good source is; Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, by H.W Crocker III.


[quote]
My point is not that everything was wonderful and churchmen were without sin in the "old days," nor that everything is all gloom and doom in the Church today. My point is that it is absurd to claim that people (both within and without the Church) are really any more "spiritually evolved" or less sinful in modern times than in the past.
[/quote]

I think the Church, that is its members, are less sinful than those of the past. Take an honest look at the past history of the Church, and you'll see, we today live in very mild, tolerant times.

[quote]
It's interesting that you seem to have nothing positive to say about the Church in times past, but seem focused only on the bad and "dirty laundry." It's like you think the history of Christ's own Church was nothing but rottenness until Vatican II or whenever, when the Church finally received modern enlightenment.
[/quote]

I've said plenty positive about the Church. As I stated, the Church has evolved Spiritually, and is far better than it was in the past. The rich spirituality of the past is not only more accessible to average Catholics, but also better understood because good Catholic writers were able to translate the writings into understandable language.


Yup, always have been saints and sinners, but the institutional policies are not nearly as barbaric as in the past. Also, I think God is actually producing more saints today than ever.

It seems to me, you're the one who is more negative about the Church of today, and have some dreamy ideas about the past, that aren't real.

[quote]
I don't presume anything, but I don't think you have anything to substantiate your assertion that clerical sex abuse was worse in the past.
[/quote]

OH, there was plenty of sexual abuse in the past, especially when the Church was at the height of power throughout Europe, were people feared the Clergy. Do you think humans suspended their inordinate desires and didn't take advantage of their positions?

[quote]
Much of the abuse took place post-Vatican II. My point was that there is still plenty of evil and abuse in the Church today, and that there's really no factual basis for the claim that things are spiritually better in the Church in the modern era than ever before.
And interestingly, many of those involved in the scandal and cover-up of abusers were pretty progressive-minded "spiritually-evolved" guys, like Archbishop Weakland.
[/quote]

Evil mindsets don't hold to political labels such as progressive or conservative. Give men power, and their will be abuse. In all the cases of sexual abuse committed by Catholic priest, it was the level of the authority and respect they held, that allowed them to take advantage of the innocent. Most of the
sexual abuse happened over 20 years ago. Many of the priest were in the seminary before Vatican II, so don't attempt to place the blame there.

[quote]
I actually was thinking, not of the sex abuse scandals, but of the current widespread acceptance among "Catholics" of abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc. After all, such causes are all the rage among "progressive Catholics." Not that I consider the two problems to be completely unrelated.
[/quote]

You seem to have a belief that sin is limited to progressives. Cardinal Law was considered a conservative, when he came to the Archdiocese of Boston. He, wrote a glowing letter of approval, in order to get Fr Shanely transferred out of his dioces and out to San Bernardino California. Fr. Shanely was a know pedophile. Shanely was convicted and is in jail today. Cardinal Law was removed from his post and placed in charge of a shrine.



[quote]
Yes, contemplative prayer's wonderful.
However, that has little to do with the main point of the discussion.
[/quote]

It has everything to do with my point. Spiritual growth only comes through contemplation. Without contemplative prayer, there is no relationship with Jesus Christ, and no transformation of the soul.
This isn't my idea, but that of the Doctors of the Church, like St. Teresa of Avila.

[quote]
If we were really so much more "spiritually evolved" than in the past, there'd be a lot more prayer, period, and there wouldn't be so much confusion and dissent in the Church regarding the most basic teachings of faith and morals.
[/quote]

I believe that there is a lot more prayer that is done well today, than in the past. I'm not talking about reeling off prayer by rote, which was common in the past, but deeper levels of prayer. Contemplatives and especially Charismatics were unheard of before Vatican II. Deeper levels of prayer were restricted to monasteries.

[quote]
What exactly is a "neoconservative"? Is that anything like a "fundamentalist"?
[/quote]

Similar, except that a neoconservative opposes change and unlike a conservative, who resist change, a neoconservative wants to move backwards.
A fundamentalist is one who takes what he has read literally, and accepts it so blindly, that he has stopped listening, especially to God who speaks within.

[quote]
"Neoconservative" is a term from secular politics, which has little relevance to the issues here.
However, it seems to have become a slur that (oddly enough) both religious liberals and "rad trads" like to use to throw at anyone who disagrees with their opinions.
[/quote]

Actually, the first time I heard it, was from George Weigel, in the forward of his book, "Witness to Hope."

Apparently the concept has been around since the council of Trent.



Jim

Edited December 15, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='15 December 2009 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1260887939' post='2020910']

It has everything to do with my point. Spiritual growth only comes through contemplation. [b]Without[/b] [b]contemplative prayer, there is no relationship with Jesus Christ[/b], and no transformation of the soul.
This isn't my idea, but that of the Doctors of the Church, like St. Teresa of Avila.

[/quote]
That is incorrect.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='15 December 2009 - 10:42 AM' timestamp='1260888168' post='2020912']
That is incorrect.
[/quote]


Transformation comes through the transforming grace given to us through Jesus Christ. We open ourselves to this grace in contemplation.


Jim

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='15 December 2009 - 09:38 AM' timestamp='1260887939' post='2020910']
Socrates



Actually, my information comes from Catholic Historians.

One good source is; Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, by H.W Crocker III.

[/quote]

Socrates point stands. In this day and age, the Catholic label does not mean much.


[quote]I think the Church, that is its members, are less sinful than those of the past. Take an honest look at the past history of the Church, and you'll see, we today live in very mild, tolerant times.[/quote]

So that's why nobody goes to confession anymore! If your using short confession times and lines as evidence of people sinning less I say your wrong. Since when is not a sin to vote in a pro-death political candidate when there was a better option? Yet the Catholic vote went to this guy. Since when is it not a sin to intentionally miss Mass without health reasons? http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/ Apparently only 36% are going. And as I first pointed out, virtually none of these Catholics that committed these sins are going to confession over it.

[quote]I've said plenty positive about the Church. As I stated, the Church has evolved Spiritually, and is far better than it was in the past. [/quote]

Yes 36% of Catholics going to weekly Mass is a good number. We have had a huge priests shortage of the past twenty plus years...we've had massive abuse scandals in the past forty years...Catholic education of the past forty years has failed and Catholics show massive ignorance of their faith. Yes, we are doing much better than we used too! If we have gotten better spiritually, then we wouldn't have had all these problems that have grown out of proportion in the last forty years.

[quote]The rich spirituality of the past is not only more accessible to average Catholics, but also better understood because good Catholic writers were able to translate the writings into understandable language.[/quote]

Like any Catholic actually knows their faith! The large percentage of Catholics today do not go to Mass, Confession, vote for a candidate most closely aligned with Church teaching....where are these people? Are they sitting at home reading the rich spirituality of the past? NO!


[quote]Yup, always have been saints and sinners, but the institutional policies are not nearly as barbaric as in the past. Also, I think God is actually producing more saints today than ever.

It seems to me, you're the one who is more negative about the Church of today, and have some dreamy ideas about the past, that aren't real.[/quote]

Saints? EXCUSE ME! Record numbers of Catholics don't go to Mass, couldn't respond to a Protestant who shows them that Jesus says to call no man father, they don't go to confession because they are like Mary and were conceived without sin, ....your logic doesn't line up. If we have more saints today, then they must be the saints of satan. The saints of today are the Catholics that live their Catholic faith despite persecution from their "Catholic" family members and the "Catholics" of society.



[quote]OH, there was plenty of sexual abuse in the past, especially when the Church was at the height of power throughout Europe, were people feared the Clergy. Do you think humans suspended their inordinate desires and didn't take advantage of their positions?[quote]

You not prescribing to the falsehood that the Church has always had massive abuse? You wouldn't have any evidence for that would you? I guess sex abuse must have never existed anywhere else the way you talk. I mean, those public schools....talk about a cover-up. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102100144.html

I am not denying that sex abuse has happened in the Church, however I contest the idea that the Church is the only place of it. The fact is that abuse happens everywhere because of the fallen nature of man.



[quote]Evil mindsets don't hold to political labels such as progressive or conservative. Give men power, and their will be abuse. In all the cases of sexual abuse committed by Catholic priest, it was the level of the authority and respect they held, that allowed them to take advantage of the innocent. Most of the
sexual abuse happened over 20 years ago. Many of the priest were in the seminary before Vatican II, so don't attempt to place the blame there.[/quote]

Vatican II was closed on November 21, 1965. Assuming 8 years for priestly studies...that gives us 1973. How many of these sex abuse cases clearly happened several years before this date? Nearly all the abuse cases I have read about came out in the 70s and 80s which would fit after Vatican II. Your point does not hold water.



[quote]You seem to have a belief that sin is limited to progressives. Cardinal Law was considered a conservative, when he came to the Archdiocese of Boston. He, wrote a glowing letter of approval, in order to get Fr Shanely transferred out of his dioces and out to San Bernardino California. Fr. Shanely was a know pedophile. Shanely was convicted and is in jail today. Cardinal Law was removed from his post and placed in charge of a shrine.[/quote]

Irrelevant point, all men sin. However it is the age of progressiveness that has produced massive abuse. Sex abuse will happen everywhere at every point in time. However some environments give it much more growth.

[quote]It has everything to do with my point. Spiritual growth only comes through contemplation. Without contemplative prayer, there is no relationship with Jesus Christ, and no transformation of the soul.
This isn't my idea, but that of the Doctors of the Church, like St. Teresa of Avila.[/quote]

And if there is no knowledge of one's faith, then you get today's typical Catholic who doesn't go to Mass every week, doesn't go to confession at all, and can't counter any other religious ideas because they frankly don't know their faith much less know why. Not denying you need spirituality, however Sola Spirituality is a false doctrine.

[quote]I believe that there is a lot more prayer that is done well today, than in the past. I'm not talking about reeling off prayer by rote, which was common in the past, but deeper levels of prayer. Contemplatives and especially Charismatics were unheard of before Vatican II. Deeper levels of prayer were restricted to monasteries.[/quote]

That prayer is really working! We got massive abuse cases, no one goes to Mass, no one knows their faith.... I am not advocating that going through the motions of prayer is good, I am pointing out that we do not have better praying today. I would say we have a total lack of praying today.

[quote]Similar, except that a neoconservative opposes change and unlike a conservative, who resist change, a neoconservative wants to move backwards.
A fundamentalist is one who takes what he has read literally, and accepts it so blindly, that he has stopped listening, especially to God who speaks within.



Actually, the first time I heard it, was from George Weigel, in the forward of his book, "Witness to Hope."

Apparently the concept has been around since the council of Trent.



Jim
[/quote]

Point hardly does anything...what exactly does that prove?