I don’t think your post is a non sequitur nor do I think any parts of it are. At least that I can say without pitting you. More to the way I felt is that you didn’t give the post the same consideration you gave all the others, and so your answer didn’t strike me as being close to the same quality I expected. I don’t expect you to agree, only to have a discussion at the level you already showed yourself capable.
I assure you, my post is not a non-sequitur, and if you read it with the same open mindedness I read yours and everyone else’s, you will find much worth commenting on.
Nothing as far as I can tell. that is what I was asking you.
Because in America, (are you American? Maybe I am wrong to assume that…) we have a 100% secular government. Government is not beholden to religious rites, indeed is not allowed to use them at all. First Amendment and all.
That is why I was agape at what seemed to be your strong suggestion that if Catholics (and Christians in general) would only band together and actually live what they believed, then following the actual oath of office to support the Constitution was not really necessary.
I don’t think you meant that really, but you sure seemed to be heading that way as your argument evolved. Aside from any Ecumenism issues I also referred to, this alone is offensive to all Americans as Americans, be they Catholic, other Christian, or anything else.
If you feel Americans should NOT be offended that Catholic and possibly wider Christian beliefs, when followed purely at the level the Vatican recommends, treats the secular government as one not worth paying attention to the rules, well, I’d like to hear your explanation.
And if you feel otherwise, can you explain how that does NOT follow from what you have written since the beginning of the thread?
Stuff like this makes me question everything you have written about Catholics in this thread, as I have lived almost 50 ears and never heard this from or about Jews.
On what basis are you qualified to say what Jews believe and why they believe it?
For that matter, on what basis are you qualified to state all you have about excommunication so far, since you mentioned at least twice, you are not Catholic?
I am not saying you need be either Catholic or Jewish to be able to make correct claims, but now I must ask you for cites about everything past and present as you are getting testy with the responses you are getting.
Perhaps the Jewish “street” as you put it, thought the diplomacy that led to and followed Vatican II from the Popes was more solid and trustworthy regarding Holocaust denial and Ecumenism in general. If the Pope said unambiguosly that the (non)-Bishop was redeemed for his sins, and unexcommunicated, but not only is not a Bishop any more, but also just a lay member, I think that would be fine.
I don’t doubt that among the world’s Holocaust deniers or run of the mill anti-Semites, that some are Catholic. I don’t begrudge them that - what I do begrudge is that this Pope would betray the Ecumenical diplomacy of his predecessors over this matter. It seems worth noting that this Pope unlike the others is not only German, but as a youth served in Hitler’s organization. Cause, effect, or just correlated? I don’t know, but an intriguing data point.
The Pope can’t possibly be so insensitive as to think the rest of the world automatically gives him a “I was redeemed” pass. Give him the benefit of the doubt, sure, but also a dose of verify to go with that trust seems to be in order
His condemnation is seen by the rest of the world as being accompanied by a sly wink and a nod. Maybe that is not his intention, I’d like to think so, but it is easy for him to correct. The choice to leave that out there is his, not the “street” of any faith or place.
You can’t be serious. It’s not just Catholics who put their ethical codes above civil law — it’s almost everyone, from the most religious to the most atheist. The Vatican reasonably expects that Roman Catholics should listen to them in ethical matters, since they listen to the Vatican for guidance on other matters informed by religious belief. Further, representatives are not required, by oath or intent or anything else, to follow the public opinion. This is why we elect representatives to pass legislation, rather than simply voting on every major issue by referendum.
There’s always a tension between the political and religious spheres, because both set norms that influence the other: laws on the one side, moral codes on the other. That people in general and Catholics in particular put the religious (you could substitute philosophical sphere for the non-religious) should hardly shock you.
ETA: as I understood it, one could not be removed from priesthood by the Vatican, only the higher offices. Telling the RCC to do something it doesn’t believe it can do isn’t really fair. Also, the extraordinarily offensive comments about Germans really need to stop.
The argument as outlined in the OP, no.
The argument as it’s developed, I’d say yes.
None of the Jews on the trip, for instance, insulted Catholicism, Christianity, Catholics, or Christians. None of the Catholics tired to tell us that in order to be moral/righteous/saved/whatever, we had to convert and believe that Jesus was the Christ. And the priest certainly could have as he felt free enough to disagree with me when I said that there was no reason why a man and a woman who wanted to have should should feel an obligation to do so in the context of marriage.
And I would argue, compared to some of the stuff in this thread, the priest displayed a greater level of respect for religious disagreements as well as an understanding of the Catholic Church’s historical and current impact on global Judaism.
I don’t read it that way.
I see it as a question of whether or not Catholics, especially the Catholic hierarchy, should take diplomacy into consideration and hold warm relations as a goal, or not. Whether the Catholic Church should aim at explicitly repudiating their history, wrt to Jews, of persecution, scorn and oppression. And that they should repudiate that history by embracing current attitudes that are conducive to warm relations.
It’s not a question as to whether or not there should be some rabbis in the College of Cardinals, but whether or not the Catholic hierarchy, from the Pope on down, should act with deliberate intent and purposeful actions in order to treat Jews as fellow travelers rather than wayward souls who can only be treated as benighted fools who require Jesus to become whole again. To say nothing of how it’d be nice if folks like the Pope treated Holocaust deniers are morally repugnant slugs.
I am open to clarification of course. These are complex issues diplomatically speaking of course.
My personal view is that while I hear Benedict say how horrible the Holocaust is, I don’t think he understands that his views on that are seen as negated by his actions in the current matter.
Maybe he doesn’t care what others not Catholic think, because it is truly not his concern.
But the rest of us (including Catholics) live in the real world, and if the Pope as a leader leaves the impression uncorrected, then some people, Catholic and non-Catholic are going to act on those impressions because they see implicit if not explicit permission from the Pope.
I have no doubt that this is the strategy of SPXX in insisting that all doctrine must come from the Pope and filter down, not the other way around. They judged their chances of getting a Pope at some point form whom they could get signals they could twist and propagandize as supporting all their views, the explicit ones about doctrine and the implicit ones about Jews - like this Bishop is the only anti-Semite among them, yeah right, the only one dumb enough to speak, or sly enough to be designated to take the bullet - they waited 20 years or more, arguably since Vatican II itself, and only a handful of years after a German Pope, one who was a Hitler Youth, and even if he did desert the army, was indoctrinated as a Youth for better or worse, a few years after he became Pope, then SPXX apparently has their man.
They aim to change the Church doctrine to their views, which are pre-Vatican II. So the question is, what was it about Vatican II that was so abhorrent to them?
This thread has answered some of that, and some of it really is internal matters. But the external world found plenty that affected the outside. SPXX has clearly taken the position that this outward facing change of Vatican II also must be rolled back. Or at least they have not unequivocably stated that it is of no import to them whatsoever and those parts can remain in their view.
So in that regard, the outside non-Catholic world most certainly does have an interest in the matter. It goes to the trustworthiness of the Pope (as a position) and the Vatican in general when they discuss Ecumenism with all, internally and externally.
IMHO, but I am open to being shown the flaws in that argument. Because it is not a pleasant conclusion, I will be the first to admit.
And I agree, as I learn more about this here and elsewhere, Protestants of all or most stripes SHOULD say “What about us”. Not that they don’t have their own strange views about what Jews are good for in some cases either, but sure, wide diplomacy is better in principal then narrow diplomacy.
Abortion, to take an example, is a governance matter in our pluralistic society, not a religious one, and not an ethical one.
Relgion =/= ethics btw either.
And in general, we are not keen on those participating in the governance of our secular society taking directions from non-Americans, be they religious, ethical, or secular.
That’s what I alluded to. If the Pope said “Don’t forget what you learn in Church as you go about your secular governance responsibilities” I am generally fine with that. I always assume that is how it always was.
But then in this thread, I learn:
1 - Excommunication is a state of being out of communion with the Church taken by individuals, not ruled on by the Vatican
2 - Being in communion is more important than life itself to Catholics
3 - Recently a representative of the Vatican has not so subtly explained to Catholic politicians everywhere that all votes but one, regardless of circumstances, by such politicians, will be equivalent to excommunication.
Given Mswas’s meltdown, I am not sure I buy # 2 anymore, but I do buy #1 and # 3.
The only conclusion in a heterogeneous, secular governed country such as the US is to unfairly put suspicion on the motives and in effect loyalty of good men and women.
The Pope is smart enough to understand that.
But is he smart enough to fix it?
Or does it serve his “world domination” plan that mswas (and maybe sarafeena) attributed to RCC? That until all souls are Catholic, the work is not done and there is nothing else more primal in the doctrine that he oversees?
But since they are representatives, after all, in a representative form of government, the voters are allowed to decide on the trustworthiness of the representative to represent them. This is not a good thing for the Pope to do. In a country where everyone is Catholic already, OK. But in a heterogeneous society, it is not helpful at all.
That is not the reason why, actually. I refer you to Madison’s notes at the Constitutional Convention among related documents. Our government is one where the voice of the people is filtered in various ways so that the essence of it can be gotten to. No one thinks that a democracy where every issue is voted on everyone is a good idea. But your reason is just wrong historically. It makes some sense, but it is not the reason why.
So the Pope is essentially ordering Catholic who run for office or advocate political matters, or even work in civil service positions, to toss aside the Establishment claus of the 1st Amendment, and to serve him and the RCC doctrine rather then represent the voice of those who elected them, and that is OK for all? You are OK with that?
If that is the case, and I am willing to be shown how it is not, well, I am not OK with that. I already live in a town that voted 83% for Prop 8 at the behest of the City Government and Churches alike. The town where I live is probably very likely to find itself before the Supreme Court someday on and Establishment case - it has been skirting fuzzy lines since long before I got here apparently. So I already have a taste of what politics are like when Churches run the place. We are just a small rural place though, and to be honest, far from majority Catholic too I believe. I would not wish this on any American.
As was mentioned upthread, people’s radar is really sensitive to this stuff out on the horizon because of the past and even the current, which are good predictors of the future.
So, to be blunt, after all this, regarding failure to meddle with internal doctrine, but willingness to meddle with secular governance of distant heterogeneous nations, why should any non-Catholic not be suspicious of this Pope?
Maybe he is being a really really good Pope, in serving the mission to disrupt and supplant all other faiths, as was mentioned is his primary role somewhere earlier. Well good for him if he is good at his job, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the world secretly want to become Catholic (or even Christian). We like when people do their jobs well, but we don’t like when it comes at our expense.
That may be. I don’t know and no one has explained otherwise, but sure I would like to know if it is so.
If it is, then I am sure there are lots of remote places that need priests where they can be hidden and forgotten. I believe there are some Cardinals from the US that could advise on that. There could be worse fates for the SPXX folks to become priests in some, well, pardon the expression, God-forsaken places of exile. Let them test their faith that way by healing the damage of those who came before them.
I’d say no too, no one is suggesting there should be a Jewish observer in the College of Cardinals (right? everyone?).
But I’d also say you are reading the thread a little wrong.
It is not the internal administration that is the concern, it is where the effects of that meet the external world that is the issue.
If the RCC chooses to not recognize it exists in a world that is not all RCC, that is their right, but for them to think that there are no consequences or interactions externally is foolish beyond belief. No one at the Vatican is even close to that foolish, I am certain of that.
That’s how I read it.
ETA: I wrote this entirely before reading Finnagain’s comment to the same line, and we independently came up with the College of Cardinals line.
Which might say something about how some people at least are reading the thread
Not to pile on the point but … it is indeed about how the Church chooses to interface with “others” that this thread is about. The process of how they choose to interface and treat others may indeed be “an internal matter” but the effects of the decisions made are not.
To claim that the fact that different groups have “beliefs that simply cannot be reconciled” means that there can be no movements to acceptance of interfaith pluralism is nonsense unless those irrenconcilable beliefs include that others beliefs are to be not tolerated, that your beliefs are to imposed by force if needed, or that religious liberty is a Bad Thing. These are core subjects to us “others” and were among the core areas of disagreement between the SSPX group and V2. The movement of the Church back away from the acceptance of religious pluralism that was part of V2 in order to have a tent that includes the SSPX group is highlighted by the fact it included embracing a Holocaust denier but the issue is, I have learned, larger than that alone.
Actions by the Pope and the Church matter much more than words.
After this post you have no ground to stand on talking about religious respect. You are asking for respect you are unwilling to give.
Bringing these people into communion is not a political but a theological matter. What you are essentially saying is that, ‘If they REALLY cared about Jews they’d throw these guys under the bus.’
Taking communion isn’t about having BEEN redeemed, it is about SEEKING redemption. The problem here is everyone continues to see communion as reward/punishment, it’s not.
I have to say that in this thread the most religiously intolerant posts have come from the posters crowing the most about how THEIR religion needs to be tolerated. Their idea of tolerance of course requires the other religion to completely abandon its own theological doctrine.
As for whether or not my claim is ridiculous. I have had several Jews on independent occasions tell me that Jews often dismiss Christianity as Polytheism because of the Trinity. You can call it silly all you want, but these are people who have taken time to sit down and TELL ME about this. Were they lying? If so why would they lie?
Certainly, Jews and Catholics have theological differences which cannot be reconciled - otherwise there would not be either Jews or Catholics, but some single religion.
I strongly disagree with your claim as to what ecumenism is “regularly understood” as meaning. There are obviously different meanings understood by different people. There are lots of people who hold that ecumenism means a dialogue of mutual respect and toleration between religions. There exists a more specialized meaning peculiar to some Catholics of in essence gathering together all of the various Christian splinter groups under the ageis of a single, united Catholic Church.
The two popular meanings are explored here:
[emphasis added]
Quite obviously the subject of this thread is the conflict between these two forms of “ecumenism” - as it is the gathering in of one splinter group (thus fulfilling the narrower goal of Catholic “ecumenism”) which has caused the interfaith controversy (thus harming the wider goal of interfaith “ecumenism”).
not_alice Based on what yuo have written why is it so difficult for you just to admit you are intolerant of Catholicism?
The real religious conflict here is between traditional Christianity and Liberalism anyway. Your entire post is about how the religious should leave their religion at the door when acting as public servants. That’s not how Democracy works, but it is how secular liberalism has made it recently. The traditionalists disagree. Democracy is about representation, traditionally religious members deserve representation too. Not every issue can come down to a merely distilled secular humanism. You can’t say, “I support your right to be religious as long as secular humanism wins out in the political sphere.”, that’s not supporting one’s right to be religious.
Yours, DSeid’s, and FinnAgain’s posts have all been incredibly intolerant, but you crow about intolerance using it as a rhetorical weapon to bludgeon your opponents. What you care about is not religious tolerance, but religious tolerance of JUDAISM. I’m perfectly capable of accepting that there are intractable theological problems that can’t just simply be put aside.
At this point I think the ignorance is willful as it has been explained that:
When one becomes a bishop it can’t be revoked, they can only be removed from official duties.
Excommunication isn’t a punishment but a recognition of deviation from communion with the church.
The churches purpose is redemption, and to deny someone communion is to deny them a chance at redemption.
These three things have been explained, but summarily ignored, so it’s funny to hear preaching of tolerance.
The Bishops are still bishops but do not act in such a capacity.
As such the reason for their excommunication HAS been overcome.
They can now participate in the redemptive power of the Eucharist.
This is all about their personal redemption, and what you are saying is that the Pope should elevate Holocaust denial to be such a grave sin that he can withhold communion from someone who denies the Holocaust. You want these people punished for the sin of Holocaust denial, and expect the Pope to go beyond his sanctioned authority to do what you want him to do. You expect him to change church doctrine in order to placate you.
Where is the religious tolerance from your end? It’s been explained over and over again that excommunication doesn’t work like that, so now that your ignorance has been fought you can choose to tolerate Catholic doctrine or not.
Christians believe that all people INCLUDING JEWS need to be saved by Jesus Christ. That’s pretty central to all Christianity. Christians believe Jesus Christ is the TRUE Messiah. If you do not believe this, and cannot accept this then all this politically correct blather about tolerance is irrelevant. If you think them wanting you to convert is intolerant well then you aren’t tolerant of Christianity because you cannot accept the single most important CORE TENET.
As to what qualifies me to speak about communion, communion is a part of all Christian life, and serves the same function in every church. What is rejected by Protestants is Papal Authority over an individual’s relationship with God. The Pope is just another Christian to Protestants. But Communion serves the same function, Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican or Catholic. Also, my Mother’s Mother is a devout Catholic and I have been to church with her many times. I learned about it when my Jewish ex-wife was offended at a Christmas mass when they asked non-Catholics to refrain from taking communion. This was at St. Patrick’s with a full house, so it was both a religious request as well as a logistical one as giving communion to several thousand people would’ve taken a long time and they needed to get to the next service.
A Christian is not redeemed by taking communion or going to church. Redemption is a process in this life. One is not ‘saved’ while still alive in this fallen world. So Communion serves the function of bringing one into ‘communion’ with Christ. It as an act of seeking redemption, not an act of redemption itself.
This is rich. In the entire thread, think the only poster who mentioned their religion is you, and then only to say twice that you are not Catholic. Maybe Sarafeena, who hasn’t been heard from for a while.
I remind you of the aphorism about assuming if you are attributing anything about me other then not being Catholic.
So why are you so interested in standing up for Catholics and interpreting their internal doctrine if you are not among them, yet criticizing others who take an interest in the same?
Based on what I have seen of you here, I might tell you ridiculous stuff about a group I am a member of just to see the fun ways it comes back out later. Just sayin…
Me, when I drive around today, everytime I pass a Church, I am going to shout “You bunch of Polytheists!” I soooo can’t wait for the next time evangelists come knocking on my door! It never occurred to me that there are Polytheists in my midst until now! :rolleyes:
So, to clarify, enjoying warm relations with the Catholic Church while Jews and Catholics both accepted that the other had a valid faith and that they could get along in peace and brotherhood displays a lack of respect. Believing that Jews are benighted heathens who can only be made right by accepting Jesus, that’s real respect, and if Jews don’t like it then they don’t respect the vast respect that is being directed at them.
And if Jews say they much preferred the time when Catholics had a deliberate program of reconciliation rather than the historical trend whereby Catholic teachings led to the murder of many, many Jews, it just shows how intolerant those Jews are.
Ah well. All I can say is that on Project Understanding, the Catholics and the priest I got to know were much more accepting and welcoming of religious differences between our faiths than, evidently, you are between the two faiths. Both of which you don’t belong to.
I’d like to present the views of some other guys who totally didn’t respect Catholicism, at all. Just like me. Those intolerant cunts.
I am tired of the faux tolerance of the politically correct that separates things into simplistic victim groups that deserve tolerance, and simplistic perpetrator groups who must bend over backwards to accomodate the victim groups over real or perceived transgressions that happened in the past.
My interest is in an honesty in debate, not this pretentious nonsense where Catholic doctrine must be bent or broken to make Jews feel better. If the problem is intractable, tough, that’s human history.
As for the rest of your post it just tells me what your first post said. That you aren’t actually interested in this debate, you want to whip on the Catholic hobby horse. So good day to you.
No, that’s a silly twisting of what I said. Do you want to actually discuss this or should I expect more puerile paraphrasing?
What I am saying is that there cannot be mutual respect from people who believe their religion to be true. If one is true the other isn’t. Either Christ is the true Messiah or he isn’t, there is no such thing as ‘equal validity’ there. It’s either true or it isn’t. You either BELIEVE it to be true or you don’t.
The Catholics still ahve a deliberate program of reconciliation. That hasn’t changed. It’s you that’s rejecting it because they allow a guy you don’t like to eat a cracker and drink some wine. You do realize that right? The only thing that has changed is that they are allowed to participate in a particular ritual? That’s what you think such a horrible affront?
Maybe not all Jews are this intolerant, in fact I posted an article by several Jews way upthread that showed that some Jews really do understand what they are talking about.
YOU however, are certainly intolerant. ‘Revoke that personal spiritual ritual from those guys otherwise I see it as a cessation of good ecumenical relations!’
Being nice to one another is still possible without pretending to have a tolerance for a belief that you think is wrong.
I’d like to present the views of some other guys who totally didn’t respect Catholicism, at all. Just like me. Those intolerant cunts.
As for posting a cite with random communications reporting on the minutes of meetings, you’ll have to show me which one is actually relevant to the topic. Please point out to me which letter you are referring to so that I may know where a Catholic says that Holocaust denial should result in excommunication.
I never said Jews and Christians can’t have cordial relations. Stop casting straw and please respond to what I have actually said and not what you wish I had said so you can be righteously indignant about it.
Maybe me what? That I mentioned my religion? Only in the context of trying to explain a little bit about the doctrine of the Eucharist. I don’t have much else to say. I don’t have any regard for these SPXX guys, I’m not a traditionalist Catholic, and I struggle myself with Vatican authority. So, I’m not really interested in trying to defend them. I do think I understand what the Pope is trying to do, and although it seems misguided to those of us on the outside, I think knowing a little bit about the theology of the Eucharist and understanding a little of how the hierarchy works, I think he means well. This particular Pope’s problem is that he’s an ivory-tower guy. He is not good at seeing how his actions will be perceived, and he expects that everyone understands the deep layers here. In reality, even most Catholics probably don’t get it…I know I don’t. Do I want Catholic/Jewish relations to be damaged? Of course not…I have a deep respect for the Jewish faith, and even considered converting to it at one time. But I have been frustrated in this thread because I think I made DSeid testy with me over explaining what excommunication is all about, and I don’t want to cause any more tension over this issue than there already is. Right now, I feel like there is a big gap of understanding there that has not been bridged, and that most likely can’t be bridged. I see what mswas is saying about tolerance, but I don’t like to see it that way myself. I think it’s more a matter of lack of understanding vs. lack of tolerance.
Heh I am not intolerant of Catholics. I wake up next to one every single morning, I have these kinds of conversations with her regularly, and I attend Church with her and her family in order to better understand what is important to her and them and Catholics as a whole.
The “When did you stop beating your wife?” sort of rhetoric is not going to play around here.
We don;'t live in a Democracy, we live in a Representative Republic,m and yes, that is indeed how it works in the US. I can’t speak for other countries, they vary. But the Constitutional Debates, which are easily available, are records that I have read many times first hand, most recently last year, end to end. I assure you that our Founding Fathers were well aware of the risks of allowing public civil service to be influenced by religion and, despite their own religious lives, took every explicit and implicit step they could think of to make sure it didn’t happen.
The Founding Fathers explicitly rejected Democracy as the form of government of the country they are creating. Maybe you are not referring to the US but somewhere else?
And “secular humanism” was never mentioned by them, as it is a rhetorical canard of much more recent vintage. That canard won’t fly here either.
:rolleyes:
I only asked if I was correct in reading your position as you explain Catholic Doctrine as one that, in the US, all Catholics should answer to the Vatican rather then the Constitution?
I still dfon’t have a clear answer form you, but I think you mean “Yes they should”.
Which is alarming - there are other religions, (JW IIRC) where piety is placed above civil service, fine, I don’t care, but they choose to eliminate the conflict by not serving, which makes sense in the context we are discussing.
Or at least some of us are discussing, and others are throwing out name calling attacks.
No, I am really interested, as I mentioned to my gf when the news first broke, why does the Pope tolerate such hateful people in the upper level hierarchy of the organization?
I ask that because of my experience with organizations, and how the higher up you go, the more you represent the organization to others, and the more your representation is attributed to the organization as a whole.
I’d ask the same question if the (kind of-) Bishop expressed his hate not for Jews, but for green eyed mastodons for all I care. It is the level of hate, the power play, and the certainty that his opinions ought to be shared by everyone on earth that get my notice.
After all, if I am to become Catholic as he and the Pope ultimately appear to wish, don’t I deserve a chance to know what I am getting into?
As for 1 - Doctrine can be and is changed regularly. Isn’t that the point? Maybe current Doctrine says so, but it can be reinterpreted as needed, or changed as needed. In the case of the Bishop, it is moot because he was never really a Bishop to begin with, right? I can call myself a Bishop, but that doesn’t make it so. My Catholic girlfriend can call herself a Bishop, but that doesn’t make it so either.
As for 2, I understood it that way mostly before coming to the thread, your early explanitions helped, but your later writings are eliminating some of your authority on the topic meaning, for me at least, I will have to go find another source to confirm/deny the details. But for the most part, yeah, I get that.
That is all well and good, but that is a far cry from “It is more important then life itself” which is a phrase I think you used that pegged my radar. I am more interested right now in exploring that claim than anything else. Can you refer me to authoritative writings rather then explain it yourself please?
Ignored by you maybe. I understand them well. Your expository writing was clear and struck me as helpful. It was when you veered into interpretation that you began to lose me. Frankly, after the expository part, the interpretation was unexpected and I was apparently not the only one alarmed at the implications.
I understand it that the Pope’s current position is that they were never Bishops to begin with.
It does reassure me to read here that they have (for now) agreed not to serve as Bishops. It is less reassuring to know that negotiations are still ongoing on this matter, and I feel the Vatican is likely to capitulate on this point, and whether they do or not, SPXX as a whole has been able to effectively spin the recent negotiations to their favor at every turn.
I agree that they very well may have taken whatever verbal steps that are necessary to redeem themselves in the Church. I don’t begrudge them that. I am more interested in the message the Church sends to the rest of the world when it welcomes at least one professed Holocaust deniers in its hierarchy at the level of Bishop.
the Pope is clearly concerned too, otherwise he would not have made complete return dependent on a proper apology. It looks like his mistake may have been in allowing any return before the apology is in place. Not he is kind of stuck. the (maybe) Bishop has indicated hi is in no rush to apologize - I predict he goes to his grave to having done so, and will increasingly be seen as a radical martyr figure being oppressed by the Pope himself. Which is probably the entire strategy of SPXX to begin with.
Based on your own description, and only looking at it as an internal matter, I think it appears that the Pope has been out-negotiated here.
Check back with me when the (is he or is he not) Bishop apologizes and SPXX as a whole does not give wink and a nod approval to anti-Semitism everywhere.
That could be today or tomorrow, but like I said, I am not holding my breath.
I am happy for them for that, really I am.
I do wonder if there is just a little bit more to it then that though - by being un-excommunicated, these folks, who may or may not be Bishops, are at least Priests, and as such can now OFFER the Eucharist to others, which means they have a Church-sanctioned platform for the first time in 20 years or so to preach their message. I don’t know their ages, but I am guessing they are not getting any younger, so I think this was also as important to them as what you mention.
Not at all.
Personally, when it comes to stuff like that, I’d rather people be public about their hateful ideas. Easier to expose them that way.
I am sure that among deniers everywhere, some are Catholic and some are not.
It is the PR problem of having these guys act as representatives of the Church that it strikes me as surprising and disturbing that the Pope is OK with, as the ultimate representative. AS I said, I think he got out-negotiated, but I also can only accept based on his actions that he is willing to live with the resulting PR fracas. And that by definition is external to the world, not internal to the Church.
And let;s not pretend the Pope is not a world leader, he most certainly is. Ecumenism of any type aside, the Vatican maintains diplomatic relationships with Nations, including mine, worldwide. That alone makes the internal politics of his realm my business and everyone’s.
It doesn’t mean I feel free to take Communion when I go to Mass - that would be rude beyond description. But often I do take those few minutes to ponder the page in the front of the prayer book that tries to parse who may and may not take Communion. I understand there are schisms of the Church. Why? Because I care and asked and sought out answers - not because I am an ignorant intolerant Jew.
Who said Holocaust denial is a sin? That would be attributing religious convictions to me that you have no reason to believe I hold. I will tell you my religious convictions if they are relevant to a discussion, but you are not my spokesman. You simply don’t know, so don’t speculate other then I am not Catholic. Which you said you are not either by the way.
I am interested in the secular aspects of the outside impact of this, that is all.
You may not believe there are outside impacts at all, or you may believe there is no right for others to notice the outside impact until the day they wake up and are forced to be Catholic because the Church has succeeded in redeeming every last one on earth. Or you may believe something else, I don’t know, it is all your right to do so I don’t care.
And I have said repeatedly, and I hope this is the last time, that I understand what communion and excommunication is by your explanation and accept it. It was not really news to me.
I don’t care what people believe as their religion. I do care when there religion requires them to inject themselves into my life.But, even though I am not Catholic, I do attend Catholic Masses regularly so that I may understand. I have an ex-business associate who in the last few years gave up that life and became a Friar. Ultimately this is all preparation for a discussion with him on these matters. I also intend to discuss this, when I get back to the Bay Area, with the Jesuit Priests who used to be my neighbors when I lived around the corner from the Santa Clara Mission.
I ask you again, how did YOU come by your understanding of Catholicism? Used to be Catholic, took a class, what? Doesn’t matter why really, it appears you have put at least some effort into it, and I am curious what that is.
yup, I’ve heard that
I’ve heard that too.
Let them believe that. I attribute it to be neither right nor wrong, but a matter of their faith. Good luck, I don’t care.
Of course those statements are true. Most 1st graders can parrot them.
Ah so I don’t accept the core tenet, in other words, I don’t share the same faith as they do, and that makes me intolerant of them, rather then them intolerant of me and my core tenets.
OK. Now I get it. :rolleyes:
I most certainly do have faith that Christians will seek to convert me. Catholics less so on a face to face basis and more on a political level then other Churches it seems to me, but please, that is another thread if you must comment, let’s not hijack this one.
So, if I don’t share their faith that I am conversion material, and they don’t share my core tenet in the right to be left alone to believe what I choose to believe, then do you see the way there is a conflict with the outside world now that is not doctrinal in nature?
I really don’t care what people believe - as a marketing guy, persuasive techniques fascinate me. In a way, observing how Churches interact with the non-believers while seeking to ultimately persuade them to become believers is a great laboratory in persuasive rhetoric and marketing, it really is. I know it is not going away any time soon, I only ask that believers wait for me to come to them.
When I listen, and I listen more then they are aware, it may not be for the reasons they think and hope for, but for my reasons. Which is why it is fun to see what poor listeners those seeking to convert actually are. They are presenting a solution without the target having acknowledged the need for one yet. Sales 101: FAIL.
This has nothing to do with lack tolerance, and even less to do with Christianity. There are other religions out there too, they have related issues of persuasiveness of their own. This thread happens to be about this particular issue in this particular Church, but if you are feeling picked on somehow, relax, there are wide related problems elsewhere too.
Hmm - from your moniker I assumed you were female. If I referred to you by the incorrect gender in some messages above, I apologize.
I too have been to Christmas Masses where there is an extra large crowd. Same for Easter, maybe more so.
I can assure you that if you think the reason that non-Catholics were asked to refrain was because of time restraints, you are very very mistaken. In the Churches where I have been to Mass, the reason is explained in the beginning of the prayer book - I suggest you read it. Your claim that it is about time constraints, as though it would be ok if time were not an issue at a regular Mass, is so spectacularly wrong, it calls into question everything else you have written in this thread.
I asked earlier for cites, none were forthcoming. Now I am going to insist on it from you.
Talk about “not interested in debate” - you are willing to let “human history” determine the fate of the future, rather then allow anyone in the present to participate in defining the future and building it, and you think I am intolerant?
:eek:
Anyone who knows me knows I live to tackle seemingly intractable problems. They rarely turn out to be so in my experience.
But that may be because I am open to learning about others, from others, far beyond the idea that Communion is not offered to non-Catholics if the Church is crowded and there is another Mass that needs to be seated. If that is the level of understanding you are comfortable with, well, that is good to know but sad to realize.
