no more Pope.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

So I'm sorry if I have a hard time believing that this one person just had NO WAY to confess, receive the eucharist, or whatever. And again, I'd like to know what your solution would be.

Admit that the priest is not and never was necessary for the absolvence of sin OR make it easier to become a priest.

I'm sorry you see this as me hating on Catholics. It's not the sheep, it's the so-called shepards that I don't appreciate. I also think hate is a very strong word for you to use there, but I guess you still think I hate religion, so you just keep enjoying your moral superioirity there, champ.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Okay, you should probably calm down. I didn't say you hated religion, I was simply using a clever little saying from the modern lexicon. If I called you a player hater would you have accused me of calling you a racist???

I'm trying to understand what your point here is. It's topical, I'll grant you that. But I guess I'm just curious to know what dog you have in this fight, that's all.

Originally Posted by Ziggy

Admit that the priest is not and never was necessary for the absolvence of sin

Okay, so a comment like this here is why Roman Catholics like me are going to call out non-Roman Catholics such as yourself on this argument. Please go re-read my previous questions, and maybe answer them.

The suggestions that seem to be coming from the secularists and the non-Catholics are "well, you should just stop doing things the way you do them, and then more people will join." First off, I don't see that as a solution to the actual problem (which I've already discussed), and secondly, what the heck then is the point of being a religion based on scripture, faith, principles, and tradition, if those things can just be made malleable for the sake of winning a popularity contest? This Church could be the biggest one in the universe for all I care, but if it were to basically become like the unitarian universalist church in order to reach that popularity, then I'd go elsewhere! I'm guessing I'm not alone in that boat.

OR make it easier to become a priest.

Okay, so your solution then is make women priests. I disagree, but you're not alone in feeling that way.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Okay, you should probably calm down. I didn't say you hated religion, I was simply using a clever little saying from the modern lexicon.

You've said it before. *shrug*

I'm trying to understand what your point here is. It's topical, I'll grant you that. But I guess I'm just curious to know what dog you have in this fight, that's all.

My point is simply this: I don't like moral absolutism. It's the reason my my grandmother is afraid my uncle is going to hell, because he goes to the wrong Church every Sunday.

Actually, that's the big chip on my shoulder about religion in general. I wish to God I could resolve that - I'd walk around with a beatific smile on my face every day.

and secondly, what the heck then is the point of being a religion based on scripture, faith, principles, and tradition

I believe you listed those in the wrong order. It seems to me, and this is just an opinion, that the Catholic Church has historically had a problem with valuing tradition and papal edicts over scripture, and THAT is what makes parishoners vulnerable to Protestant conversion and apostatism.

if it were to basically become like the unitarian universalist church in order to reach that popularity, then I'd go elsewhere! I'm guessing I'm not alone in that boat.

Yep, you get to go to Heaven and they're all screwed, cuz they picked the WRONG CHURCH! Stupid Unitarians!

Okay, so your solution then is make women priests. I disagree, but you're not alone in feeling that way.

Why not women priests? Because of tradition?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

My point is simply this: I don't like moral absolutism. It's the reason my my grandmother is afraid my uncle is going to hell, because he goes to the wrong Church every Sunday.

Actually, that's the big chip on my shoulder about religion in general. I wish to God I could resolve that - I'd walk around with a beatific smile on my face every day.

Well that sounds like your problem, but if you think Roman Catholics are the only ones who believe that they are on the right path, you're mistaken. And the situation isn't as dire as you seem to make it out to be. Pope John Paul II, for example, was particularly concerned about the divide amongst Christians. American churches have formed all sorts of alliances and conferences where they pray together and try to bond on their common Christian interests.

If anything, it's the Southern Baptist Church that rarely wants to interact with the other denominations. Heck, they won't even work with their international body anymore. They are what you might call "Bible Christians," and they seem about as "absolutist" as you can get to me. :/

I believe you listed those in the wrong order. It seems to me, and this is just an opinion, that the Catholic Church has historically had a problem with valuing tradition and papal edicts over scripture, and THAT is what makes parishoners vulnerable to Protestant conversion and apostatism.

I think there are a whole lot of reasons why someone might leave the seemingly rigid structure of the Church for something a little more decentralized and scripture oriented (or obsessive). I'll once again refer you to the excellent point Seth made.

I'd also like you to provide me with a few examples of papal "edicts" or whatever that conflict entirely with the scriptures, and would thus drive people to a protestant church (where the scriptural conflict presumably doesn't exist).

Yep, you get to go to Heaven and they're all screwed, cuz they picked the WRONG CHURCH! Stupid Unitarians!

It's not because they are wrong, it's because they aren't the Roman Catholic Church. But it's also because they are wrong. Have you ever been to a universalist church....?

Why not women priests? Because of tradition?

Partly, yes. And I won't allow you to make me ashamed of that tradition. It's a rich tradition with roots back to Christ, and for a Catholic like myself, that's very important. Almost as important as the translated words in whatever Bible you're citing.

There's also a contradiction in your argument. You believe that the problem with the Church is that they mess around too much with the scriptures, that they create their own edicts and blah blah, whatever.

Where in the scriptures is there any support for ordaining women? Did Christ ever ordain a woman....? If the Church allowed women to become priests, wouldn't they thus be breaking from scripture?

[ziggytrix]

I'd also like you to provide me with a few examples of papal "edicts" or whatever that conflict entirely with the scriptures, and would thus drive people to a protestant church (where the scriptural conflict presumably doesn't exist).

I'm talking about cases where the scripture doesn't spell it out, like for birth control.

It's not because they are wrong, it's because they aren't the Roman Catholic Church. But it's also because they are wrong. Have you ever been to a universalist church....?

Nope, been thinking about it though. It can't be any weirder than the Catholic Church I went to with my grandparents in some backwoods town in Arkansas. I'm supposing that was supposed to be a joke, though?

Where in the scriptures is there any support for ordaining women? Did Christ ever ordain a woman....? If the Church allowed women to become priests, wouldn't they thus be breaking from scripture?

Where in the scriptures is there any support for mortal men ordaining anything?

But sure, whatever:

Originally Posted by Galatians 3

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Of course, in 1Timothy Paul straight up says he doesn't want any women taking leadership positions over men...

But then fuck what Paul said, let's go back to what Jesus said:

Originally Posted by Matthew 29

1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,
2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.
4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.
5 All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
6 They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues,
7 greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.'
8 As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
9 Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.

So I think the protestants have a pretty good case for saying the pope is invalid. But whatever, even if every single Christian in the world agreed, they'd still have Muslims and Jews to argue with. I think the whole lot of you are ridiculously self assured in your own holiness.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

I'm talking about cases where the scripture doesn't spell it out, like for birth control.

Okay, and where do other Christian denominations, who are seemingly doing things the right way, stand on issues such as birth control....? Do the Christian factions that rely more strictly on the literal Bible have a more liberal stance on birth control? This once again doesn't seem very consistent with your argument.

Nope, been thinking about it though. It can't be any weirder than the Catholic Church I went to with my grandparents in some backwoods town in Arkansas. I'm supposing that was supposed to be a joke, though?

No, it wasn't. It's not that it was necessarily weird per se, it's just sort of wishy washy. One week there'd be some reading from the Bible, the next week there'd be a lecture on the wrongs of capitalism or something.

I'm not saying that's necessarily even a bad thing, but I don't find it to be very consistent with the notions of faith, worship, and religion. Book clubs and community centers could basically fill the same need.

Where in the scriptures is there any support for mortal men ordaining anything?

Well, for starters, the conversation in Matthew between Jesus and Peter. I'm certain it's all over the place, but I hope you forgive me for not wishing to flip through both testaments in order to win a flame war on the internet.

But sure, whatever:

Do you know what his reputation was towards women? He's in fact one of my favorite saints, but when I bring him up, his opinion of women is one of the first things I get thrown at me. Just sort of funny that you used that line (one that often gets incorrectly used, btw) to argue that women should be ordained. Go check out 1 Corinthians 11:5.

Of course, in 1Timothy Paul straight up says he doesn't want any women taking leadership positions over men...

Bingo!

But then fuck what Paul said, let's go back to what Jesus said:

Sure.

"Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

and,

"You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."(Matthew 16: 18)

Now, two things. One, Jesus is clearly granting Peter the power to build Christ's church as he wishes, do you agree? Now if Peter's succession was agreed upon, then wouldn't that validate the succession of popes? Secondly, Christ says that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, thus, the Church would probably be built so that it could always be sustainable and defend against the powers of hell, right?

Now let's look at what Peter himself had to say:

" 12
7 Therefore, I will always remind you of these things, even though you already know them and are established in the truth you have.
13
I think it right, as long as I am in this "tent," 8 to stir you up by a reminder,
14
since I know that I will soon have to put it aside, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has shown me.
15
I shall also make every effort to enable you always to remember these things after my departure." (2 Peter 1:12)

The point I'm trying to make is this. Peter wasn't going to leave the Church, which at this time was still trying to legitimize itself, without direction, organization, and yes, succession.

So I'll say it again-- The Roman Catholic Church has its roots starting with St. Peter, who started the Churvh on its path of development. If you want to quote Jesus, then it's very important to note that he granted Peter power over this job, and the job he started is the one we continue.

So I think the protestants have a pretty good case for saying the pope is invalid. But whatever, even if every single Christian in the world agreed, they'd still have Muslims and Jews to argue with. I think the whole lot of you are ridiculously self assured in your own holiness.

And who said you hated religion...!?

It seems to me Ziggy that you only like a religion that doesn't actually ask you to believe in anything, or doesn't ask anything of you. It's all "academic" to you, which is fine, but wouldn't a book club fill the same need....?

[ziggytrix]

i don't hate religion. i do hate fanatacism. there's an important difference. i'm terminally bored with this argument tho, so i won't go on.