Democracy in the Church

[jasJis]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Jul 11 2005, 02:10 PM']Les reminds me of [color=orange][b]corn[/b][/color].
[right][snapback]639671[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What I'm saying is, you seem to digest his post, but it still comes out the same.

[Socrates]

Ho hum - more of the same old LittleLes nonsense. Against the 2000 year old tradition of the One Holy Catholic and apostolic Church, LittleLes gives us the "infallible" wisdom of Raymond Brown, some opinion writer for the Boston Globe, and some half-baked and totally unproven modernist hypothesis concerning the nature of the "early Church" (it was just a big democratic hippy commune that worshipped no-one and believed in nothing before that mean St. Paul, St. John, and co. spoiled everything with their nasty doctrines.)
It's funny how this imagined "original Church" so closely resembles a typical liberal parish.
This "scholarship" is nothing but projecting one's own idea of how the Church should be backwards. Only believe what you choose to beleive in, and throw out everything you don't like as "fiction."

Les, since you obviously don't believe in anything the Church teaches, why don't you just join the Unitarians or some other group whose beliefs are more in line with your own? I'm sure there are plenty out there. Why this weird and time-consuming obsession with the Catholic Church?

Edited July 11, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 02:12 PM']RESPONSE:

No.   The Catholic Church's moral teaching have changed. The "development of doctrine" claim ,in the case of obvious changes in moral teachings, is not a creditable explanation.

For example:
Instruction, Holy Office, 1866  "It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. "

Changed to:
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2414 "The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that .... lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. "

Note the change in this teaching. From "not contrary to the natural and divine law" to a sin against the 7th commandment. And in his Veritatis Splendor, #80, Pope John Paul II calls slavery  intrinsically disordered.

This is a change in morel teaching, not a development in doctrine.
[right][snapback]639673[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Been there, done that. The Church has consistently taught against chattel slavery. Quoting one line out of context does not change this. For the complete story, [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp"]go here.[/url]

Edited July 11, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 11 2005, 03:05 PM']Ho hum - more of the same old LittleLes nonsense.  Against the 2000 year old tradition of the One Holy Catholic and apostolic Church, LittleLes gives us the "infallible" wisdom of Raymond Brown,


Les, since you obviously don't believe in anything the Church teaches, why don't you just join the Unitarians or some other group whose beliefs are more in line with your own?  [/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes. Lets start with the late Fr. Raymond Brown who has held the presidency of the three major biblical societies, including the Catholic Biblical Association, was twice appointed by the pope to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and all of whose works have the Catholic Imprimatur. Obviously a poor authority to quote,don't you think ?

A "2000 year old tradition" eh? Kind of a newcomer to religion when compared to Judaism, even more so the many Eastern religions .

Because a belief is old is no guarantee that its correct. Only that it should be periodically reexamined. Should we still consider it scripturally correct to continue to maintain that the sun revolves around the earth and the earth doesn't move??? That was the church's formal teaching up until 1633 or later.

"Don't believe in anything the Church teaches" Wow!!! That must be one of the broadest generalations on record!

I believe in second collections. Does that count??????

[peach_cube]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 03:59 PM']RESPONSE:

Yes. I'll sure that when the Pope deposed civil authority it was only because he had the peoples best interests at heart  And of course, never his own.

Lets take a look at a few paragraphs of Pope Gregory' VII's "Dictatus Papae" (The Dictates of the Pope) from 1090 A.D.

9.  That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.

12. That  it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.

19. That he himself may be judged by no one.

23.  That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
[right][snapback]639660[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Merely asserting that the Pope cannot be appointed by an emperor and that the emperor is dependent on the pontiff to be declared so. Since the King of whatever nation is appealing to be declared the Holy Roman Emperor, it only makes sense that the head of the church would do so.

As far as the Pope never having his own interests in mind, the point is he always had his interests in mind, for his interests were in the interests of the Church. If you deny that the decrees of the Lateran Council of 1179 dealt heaviy with Simony then you deny history.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 11 2005, 03:16 PM']Been there, done that.  The Church has consistently taught against chattel slavery.  Quoting one line out of context does not change this.  For the complete story, [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp"]go here.[/url]
[right][snapback]639755[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I love that apologetic''s "lets pretend". Are you seriously maintaining that the Catholic Church has "consistently taught against chattel slavery"????

Leviticus chapter 25 teaches us that:

"The LORD said to Moses on Mount Sinai,

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as CHATTELS,
and leave to your sons as their HEREDITARY PROPERTY making them perpetual slaves. "

And you are now trying to tell us that the Catholic Church NEVER supported this biblical teaching??

Instruction, Holy Office, 1866 "It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. "

No doubt a false statement made by "the enemies of Christ," is that what you are claiming Pope Pius IX was?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='peach_cube' date='Jul 11 2005, 03:40 PM']Merely asserting that the Pope cannot be appointed by an emperor and that the emperor is dependent on the pontiff to be declared so.  Since the King of whatever nation is appealing to be declared the Holy Roman Emperor, it only makes sense that the head of the church would do so.

As far as the Pope never having his own interests in mind, the point is he always had his interests in mind, for his interests were in the interests of the Church.  If you deny that the decrees of the Lateran Council of 1179 dealt heaviy with Simony then you deny history.
[right][snapback]639792[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

It seems either your reasoning or argument is a bit confused.

Your first sentence isn't a sentence.

The king "Whatever nation" cannot be the Holy Roman Emperor. Only the Roman emperor can be. Do you find that confusing?

Popes are not suppose to be civil rulers.

His interests were his interests masked as Church interests.

We are not discussing the decrees of the Vatican Council that dealt with simony in 1179. Your remarks are way off topic. We are dealing with Pope Gregory of 1090 and Pope Leo of 440.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 07:33 AM']
[quote name='Cam42']And incidentally, just because something has an imprimatur doesn't mean that it is a definitive teaching source.  It is simply free from doctrinal error.[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Thank you for admitting that!
[right][snapback]639216[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That has never been in question. Well, except by you. Informed Catholics know what an imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat are all about. Don't turn this into something other than what it is.....oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to.

LittleLes, you are a twisty noodle.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 11:30 AM']RESPONSE:

Of course Catholic moral teachings change. In past posts I've given a number of examples. The easiest of course and one of the best documented is the reversl of the Church's traditional teaching on the biblical and natural law moral legitimacy of slavery.
[right][snapback]639340[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


trolling a dead topic again.....typical.....

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 11:33 AM']RESPONSE:

And who appoints the cardinals from among favored bishops?
[right][snapback]639341[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Cardinals are not necessarily bishops.....sheesh....more inconsistencies....

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 11:57 AM']RESPONSE:

.......What I claimed, and is historically correct, is the Pope Leo expanded the concept of the Papacy..........


[right][snapback]639371[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Prove it.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 03:12 PM']RESPONSE:

No.  The Catholic Church's moral teaching have changed. The "development of doctrine" claim ,in the case of obvious changes in moral teachings, is not a creditable explanation.

For example:
Instruction, Holy Office, 1866  "It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. "

Changed to:
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2414 "The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that .... lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. "

Note the change in this teaching. From "not contrary to the natural and divine law" to a sin against the 7th commandment. And in his Veritatis Splendor, #80, Pope John Paul II calls slavery  intrinsically disordered.

This is a change in morel teaching, not a development in doctrine.
[right][snapback]639673[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Another dead topic...........more trolling.........

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 04:30 PM']RESPONSE:

Yes. Lets start with the late Fr. Raymond Brown who has held the presidency of the three major biblical societies, including the Catholic Biblical Association, was twice appointed by the pope to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and all of whose works have the Catholic Imprimatur.  Obviously a poor authority to quote,don't you think ?

A "2000 year old tradition" eh? Kind of a newcomer to religion when compared to Judaism, even more so the many Eastern religions .

Because a belief is old is no guarantee that its correct. Only that it should be periodically reexamined. Should we still consider it scripturally correct to continue to maintain that the sun revolves around the earth and the earth doesn't move??? That was the church's formal teaching up until 1633 or later.

"Don't believe in anything the Church teaches" Wow!!! That must be one of the broadest generalations on record!

I believe in second collections. Does that count??????
[right][snapback]639773[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Only in your world.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 03:27 PM']RESPONSE:

Lets take a look at Pope Leo's:

To The Synod Of Ephesus

"The devout faith of our most clement prince, knowing that it especially concerns his glory to prevent any seed of error from springing up within the catholic Church, has paid such deference to the Divine institutions as TO APPLY TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE FOR A PROPER SETTLEMENT: as if he wished it to be declared by the most blessed Peter himself what was praised in his confession..."

So the Apostolic See is to settle disputes. And are you claiming this really isn't to centralize authority in the papacy?
[right][snapback]639689[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, he was supporting the words of Christ to Peter from Matthew's Gospel:
[quote name='Matthew 16:15-19']15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.[/quote]

It is called Petrine Supremacy.....instituted by Christ, himself.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 11 2005, 07:55 PM']RESPONSE:

It seems either your reasoning or argument is a bit confused.

Your first sentence isn't a sentence. [

The king "Whatever nation"  cannot be the Holy Roman Emperor. Only the Roman emperor can be.  Do you find that confusing?

Popes are not suppose to be civil rulers.[/quote]

1. The Pope declares a king to be the Holy Roman Emperor.
2. Therefore, the Pope can denounce this Emperor.

[quote]His interests were his interests masked as Church interests. [/quote]

That is mere opinion. In protecting the primacy of the papacy the pope was strenghting the church against the feudal lords. Pick up a history book. I personally like Strayer of Princeton and Gatzke of Yale. I am of course using their "The Mainstream of Civilaztion" text.

[quote]We are not discussing the decrees of the Vatican Council that dealt with simony in 1179.  Your remarks are way off topic. We are dealing with Pope Gregory of 1090 and Pope Leo of 440.
[right][snapback]640128[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You stated that the loss of the democratic element in determining a bishop was a mere power grab by the papacy. I stated that those changes in how a bishop were determined were changed due to the abundant simony within the fuedal culture, where the bishops were viewed as fiefs and thus contributed to the coruption of the church. The Pope(s) made declarations to limit this coruption and treatment of the bishops and their diocese as a fief.