Why is the Vatican voluntarily suppressing the Nativity Scene in front of Saint Peter's Basilica?
2009 will be the third year that Benedict-Ratzinger's Newvatican has done away with the popularly-recognized Bethlehem manger scene known as the Praesepe, or creche, in front of St. Peter's Basilica. In many countries around the world, the Bethlehem creche is being prohibited forcibly by law. In Newvatican, which is a law unto itself, the Bethlehem creche is being voluntarily suppressed. In a wrenching rewriting of Christmas, Benedict-Ratzinger ordered in 2007 that the remembrance of Christ's birth at Bethlehem be suppressed and instead replaced by a kind of Socialist-worker-inspired "St. Joseph the Worker" (Newchurch doesn't like "Workman" -- it isn't feminist enough) scene. Gone are the sheep and the hay. The setting is Nazareth, with "the typical work tools of a carpenter." On one side, the carpenter's shop is flanked by a covered patio and, on the other, there is the "inside of a pub, with its hearth." A spokesman for Benedict-Ratzinger admitted that St. Matthew's Gospel indicated that the Nativity took place in "Bethlehem of Juda" (2:1/DRV). The spokesman said that Newvatican decided to rewrite the Gospel and place the scene in Nazareth, nevertheless. In the words that traditional Catholics have heard so often since the Modernist Council Vatican II (1962-1965), Newpope's spokesman proclaimed: "It was time for a change." No more explanation than that, just as all of the Vatican II "reforms" were imposed ostensibly by force of law, not reason. When the Novus Ordo authorities were asked by traditional Catholics, "Why the changes?," the answer was an answer more characteristic of dictators, not Catholic prelates: "Because I say so!" [U.K. Telegraph.]
Religion & Spirituality - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
PIV
2 :
Protestants will celebrate Christmas even if the Catholics don't.
3 :
"Benedict-Ratzinger"? It's Pope Benedict XVI to you, punk.
4 :
Pius XII is dead. Time for you to come to grips with the present.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Does this make any sense
Does this make any sense?
When Pythagoras said the earth was round, he was slandered by the greeks and the early christian church. They said that god made the earth flat. When Nicolaus Copernicus said the sun was the center of the universe, not the earth, he was called crazy by the Church. They said god made earth the divine center of the universe. When Galileo published and proved Copernicus' theory, the vatican burned his work, threatened him with death, and put him in prison. They said he was wrong and that he was condemned by god. When modern day scientist proved that the earth was much much older than the church had taught. They were told that they were wrong. The christians have constantly over time pushed away fact and science and then accepted them by changing their bible and the teachings of their god. Wouldn't if be safe to assume that political choices should never be made by religious belief since religious belief seems to be nothing more then a blind following? That they should be made with freedom of choice and morals considered. So, wouldn't it make sense to vote for someone (religious or not) who makes decisions on what's best for the people and not the religion? In that sense, it rules out all presidential candidates except for Ron Paul (who is very religious, he just doesn't base vote off of it) and some democrats. So, it seems that the most intellegent choice for president (when it comes to whats right for the people) is outlined. I guess the bottom line is, if you're religious, don't base your vote on your religion. Base it on what is best for the country in a whole (consider poor, rich, different creed, sex, color, origins). As a patriot, who would you vote for? Selfishly for yourself, or for the well being of all citizens? SteveA8...the bible is much different than what it was back then, it has been changed more times than you have wiped your own *butt*. lord kelvin... you know there's an old testament and a new testament. guess which is in the first!
Politics - 16 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
No, but it is really long and wordy.
2 :
i'm a fairly religious person and i never mix my religious beliefs with my political preferences. I really dont think religion has a place in politics, otherwise, like you said, people will follow blindly.
3 :
but you're being logical. I try to vote for what is the best for the country, but I am a blue collar, outdoor lovin', freedom loving, environmentalist...I am 51 yrs old and voted for Reagan once and Ross Perot once. I keep seeing Tricky Dick Nixon in every Republican and every Republican supported by Christian militants
4 :
It makes perfect sense. Religion is based on beliefs - not fact. When fact contradicts belief - the result is paranoia and - ultimately - violence.
5 :
You would think, but that's going to fall on deaf ears. Too many people have too much invested in their "dogma" to ever admit the earth is actually round, so to speak.
6 :
Yes it those ;)
7 :
Well I was with you until I saw that you were just trying a different way of saying Vote for Ron Paul. 1. He is not going to get the Republican Nomination let alone the presidency. 2. He needs to apologize to the US military, the victims of Sept 11th and the American people for blaming America for terrorism.
8 :
you've got it. And as we have so many different religions in our country anyway... why should Christianity be considered the "right" one that trumps the rest of them? A lot of Christians I know can't even follow the Ten Commandments, or the Golden Rule... why should they decide what the rest of the country does or does not do, based on their personal "religious" whims?
9 :
Id love to see who would get in if not one person voted' don't say well obviously nobody would please, we probably wouldn't ever find out nobody had voted.
10 :
They also claim to support religious freedom, but believe people should appoligize for their opinions, like a guy above.
11 :
Our country was founded on religion. Our currency has "In God we trust" printed on it. The problem of religion and politics defines another set of issues. Church and state deals with the relationship of institutions that are independent of each other. Religion and politics has to do with two spheres of activities in the life of the same persons. Citizens who belong to religious groups are also members of the secular society, and this dual association generates complications. Religious beliefs have moral and social implications, and it is appropriate for people of faith to express these through their activities as citizens in the political order. The fact that ethical convictions are rooted in religious faith does not disqualify them from the political realm. However, they do not have secular validity merely because they are thought by their exponents to be religiously authorized. They must be argued for in appropriate social and political terms in harmony with national values. In both cases, we should be prepared to deal with complexities, ambiguities, and overlapping realms in which practical discernment must find workable principles to guide us that are as compatible with fundamental Constitutional imperatives as human reason can devise.
12 :
Nope, not at all.
13 :
any institution, including churches, are creations of man and inherintly flawed. This does not negate all that they have to say or offer, or even understand. For example, suspend your disbelieve for a moment and suppose there is a God. Now suppose you are a very early Holy person communing as best you can with God inquiring about the creation. suppose he answers and divulges it to you, in time lapse of course. The very first thing noted in the creation is light. An observer might just assume the earth was already there, but, IN the Beginning what the Bible says is exactly what scientists say is the first thing we would recognize at our current state. I also believe no matter how much we advance, there will be questions we can't answer, only God can
14 :
I disagree! Simply for the fact that there is only One Absolute Moral authority, and that is God's Word!! Without God's Word and a diligent effort to put Him first, we cannot expect to blessed!! If we say, "Go ahead, and just do whatever you please, if it feels good it, we don't care what you do." There's no guidance for a society to remain peaceful and Civil!! Jesus Christ taught the best of any Morality that I know of, and He is able to help those who ask Him to help them be a better person, and ya see, this is what is lacking in America today, and as long as the people continue to reject God, things will just continue to get worse and worse!! Jesus said -- 'Go unto all the world and preach the Good news.' God bless!!
15 :
I think Religion and politics should be two separate things. I don't see why Christians support war, especially when we are supposed to forgive those who trespass against us and when Jesus tells us to love our enemies. If you are truly for your religion, I don't think you should be too concerned with politics. You should just do what your religion says and not try to fuse the two together.
16 :
.... Uh... dude Pythagoras died 500 years before Christ was even borne...
When Pythagoras said the earth was round, he was slandered by the greeks and the early christian church. They said that god made the earth flat. When Nicolaus Copernicus said the sun was the center of the universe, not the earth, he was called crazy by the Church. They said god made earth the divine center of the universe. When Galileo published and proved Copernicus' theory, the vatican burned his work, threatened him with death, and put him in prison. They said he was wrong and that he was condemned by god. When modern day scientist proved that the earth was much much older than the church had taught. They were told that they were wrong. The christians have constantly over time pushed away fact and science and then accepted them by changing their bible and the teachings of their god. Wouldn't if be safe to assume that political choices should never be made by religious belief since religious belief seems to be nothing more then a blind following? That they should be made with freedom of choice and morals considered. So, wouldn't it make sense to vote for someone (religious or not) who makes decisions on what's best for the people and not the religion? In that sense, it rules out all presidential candidates except for Ron Paul (who is very religious, he just doesn't base vote off of it) and some democrats. So, it seems that the most intellegent choice for president (when it comes to whats right for the people) is outlined. I guess the bottom line is, if you're religious, don't base your vote on your religion. Base it on what is best for the country in a whole (consider poor, rich, different creed, sex, color, origins). As a patriot, who would you vote for? Selfishly for yourself, or for the well being of all citizens? SteveA8...the bible is much different than what it was back then, it has been changed more times than you have wiped your own *butt*. lord kelvin... you know there's an old testament and a new testament. guess which is in the first!
Politics - 16 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
No, but it is really long and wordy.
2 :
i'm a fairly religious person and i never mix my religious beliefs with my political preferences. I really dont think religion has a place in politics, otherwise, like you said, people will follow blindly.
3 :
but you're being logical. I try to vote for what is the best for the country, but I am a blue collar, outdoor lovin', freedom loving, environmentalist...I am 51 yrs old and voted for Reagan once and Ross Perot once. I keep seeing Tricky Dick Nixon in every Republican and every Republican supported by Christian militants
4 :
It makes perfect sense. Religion is based on beliefs - not fact. When fact contradicts belief - the result is paranoia and - ultimately - violence.
5 :
You would think, but that's going to fall on deaf ears. Too many people have too much invested in their "dogma" to ever admit the earth is actually round, so to speak.
6 :
Yes it those ;)
7 :
Well I was with you until I saw that you were just trying a different way of saying Vote for Ron Paul. 1. He is not going to get the Republican Nomination let alone the presidency. 2. He needs to apologize to the US military, the victims of Sept 11th and the American people for blaming America for terrorism.
8 :
you've got it. And as we have so many different religions in our country anyway... why should Christianity be considered the "right" one that trumps the rest of them? A lot of Christians I know can't even follow the Ten Commandments, or the Golden Rule... why should they decide what the rest of the country does or does not do, based on their personal "religious" whims?
9 :
Id love to see who would get in if not one person voted' don't say well obviously nobody would please, we probably wouldn't ever find out nobody had voted.
10 :
They also claim to support religious freedom, but believe people should appoligize for their opinions, like a guy above.
11 :
Our country was founded on religion. Our currency has "In God we trust" printed on it. The problem of religion and politics defines another set of issues. Church and state deals with the relationship of institutions that are independent of each other. Religion and politics has to do with two spheres of activities in the life of the same persons. Citizens who belong to religious groups are also members of the secular society, and this dual association generates complications. Religious beliefs have moral and social implications, and it is appropriate for people of faith to express these through their activities as citizens in the political order. The fact that ethical convictions are rooted in religious faith does not disqualify them from the political realm. However, they do not have secular validity merely because they are thought by their exponents to be religiously authorized. They must be argued for in appropriate social and political terms in harmony with national values. In both cases, we should be prepared to deal with complexities, ambiguities, and overlapping realms in which practical discernment must find workable principles to guide us that are as compatible with fundamental Constitutional imperatives as human reason can devise.
12 :
Nope, not at all.
13 :
any institution, including churches, are creations of man and inherintly flawed. This does not negate all that they have to say or offer, or even understand. For example, suspend your disbelieve for a moment and suppose there is a God. Now suppose you are a very early Holy person communing as best you can with God inquiring about the creation. suppose he answers and divulges it to you, in time lapse of course. The very first thing noted in the creation is light. An observer might just assume the earth was already there, but, IN the Beginning what the Bible says is exactly what scientists say is the first thing we would recognize at our current state. I also believe no matter how much we advance, there will be questions we can't answer, only God can
14 :
I disagree! Simply for the fact that there is only One Absolute Moral authority, and that is God's Word!! Without God's Word and a diligent effort to put Him first, we cannot expect to blessed!! If we say, "Go ahead, and just do whatever you please, if it feels good it, we don't care what you do." There's no guidance for a society to remain peaceful and Civil!! Jesus Christ taught the best of any Morality that I know of, and He is able to help those who ask Him to help them be a better person, and ya see, this is what is lacking in America today, and as long as the people continue to reject God, things will just continue to get worse and worse!! Jesus said -- 'Go unto all the world and preach the Good news.' God bless!!
15 :
I think Religion and politics should be two separate things. I don't see why Christians support war, especially when we are supposed to forgive those who trespass against us and when Jesus tells us to love our enemies. If you are truly for your religion, I don't think you should be too concerned with politics. You should just do what your religion says and not try to fuse the two together.
16 :
.... Uh... dude Pythagoras died 500 years before Christ was even borne...
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Was the Vatican correct to defend these stances
Was the Vatican correct to defend these stances?
1) A nine year old girl in Brazil is repeatedly raped by her stepfather and made pregnant with twins. She gets an abortion. The girl's mother and doctors are excommunicated; the rapist is unpunished by the church. The Vatican's initial response is defending the church. They back peddled only after it became a PR nightmare. 2) The pope says that condoms are not the answer to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Not only that, he says condoms will make the situation worse. Reality suggests that people are gonna screw no matter what, especially in poor, third world countries. Contraceptives and education actually work. Uganda promotes this and infection rates have gone down. Harvard researchers estimated that over 300,000 needless deaths occurred in South Africa by using the pope's approach. It seems to me that the pope and the Vatican are completely wrong in both cases. They represent the exact opposite of moral judgment. Thoughts?
Religion & Spirituality - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Solution: http://www.cpusa.org/
2 :
The church has been right on only about 3 of every 10000000 decisions.
3 :
In fact one of the world's leading AIDS researchers - at Harvard! - just stated that the Pope was right. Ready availability of condoms with their high failure rate creates a false sense of security which results in increased sexual activity [big surprise], which invariably results in an increase in rates of pregnancy, abortion and venereal disease, including AIDS! The Pope checks his facts before he speaks, rather than just parroting popular opinion.
4 :
>>Contraceptives and education actually work.<< So go distribute condoms and pamphlets. The pope can't stop you.
5 :
In both cases the Church is correct. Abortion is always wrong, no matter what -- even in the extremely rare case of a pregnancy resulting from rape. It may seem harsh, but it's really not -- the Church's regard for the sanctity of human life goes "all the way." The Church is so willing to extend its love for the sanctity of life, in fact, that it is even willing to take the unpopular view that the unborn should not even be killed if the pregnancy came out of a rape. That's how serious the Church is about the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. As for condoms, the truth is that the Church offers the ONLY foolproof way to avoid AIDS and other sexually spread diseases -- which is abstinence prior to marriage, and fidelity within marriage. Imagine you're about to have sex with someone -- but just before you start, he/she says to you, "Here, you should wear this condom because I have AIDS." Are you going to proceed to have sex with that person? I hope the answer to that question is obvious. "300,000 needless deaths occured by using the pope's approach" is ridiculously wrong. That's because abstinence before marriage/fidelity within marriage has never killed even one person -- let alone 300,000. .
6 :
in my opinion the vatican is wrong on almost everything!!! the dear pope was in on the sexual cover up involving the pervert priests. what more do i have to say???!!!
7 :
Well asked. I asked a similar question after hearing a BBC report on the speech the pope made in Cameroon. It's is appalling that the church will choose to sacrifice lives in the blind pursuit of its dogmatic ends. To insist that "condoms will make aids worse" is brutally wrong, a lie, and scientifically baseless. Of course, everyone knows that condoms are not 100% effective. But abstinence is almost totally unreliable. Especially when dealing with the poor, the oppressed, the uneducated and the fearful, superstitious people that these comments are addressed to. I'm not surprised though. This pope like most others is an appalling, loathsome, human being.
8 :
The Vatican doesn't make judgments based on morals. They do what is strategically advantageous for their own agenda. Keeping the population high means more followers, more contributions, more control. Keeping the population riddled with disease means more dependence on religious beliefs and more emphasis on faith, especially in third world countries.
9 :
They are following their own logic, which is grounded in different premises. Your logic (one infers) is grounded in the premise: it is moral to minimize harm and suffering. The logic of Catholic theology is grounded in the premise: it is moral to maximize obedience to God. When you say: "people are going to screw no matter what, so we may as well make screwing safe," the Vatican theologians hear: "people are going to disobey God no matter what, so we may as well mitigate the consequences of their disobedience." Or, to put it more simply: "Why not make it easier to disobey God?". Now, I don't know where the Pope got the suggestion that condoms would make the situation worse, but he probably meant that condoms would increase the general happy feeling: "screw all you want, nothing bad can happen to you" whereas it might be better for individuals to learn control of their passions. There are other consequences of fornication and adultery -- consequences that cause real psychic harm to people -- apart from the medical risks. I don't myself agree with the Vatican positions, but since you raise the question of morality -- they are entirely consistent with the Catholic view of morality. To Catholicism, morality has never been about minimizing bodily suffering. Morality is about seeking and carrying out God's will.
1) A nine year old girl in Brazil is repeatedly raped by her stepfather and made pregnant with twins. She gets an abortion. The girl's mother and doctors are excommunicated; the rapist is unpunished by the church. The Vatican's initial response is defending the church. They back peddled only after it became a PR nightmare. 2) The pope says that condoms are not the answer to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Not only that, he says condoms will make the situation worse. Reality suggests that people are gonna screw no matter what, especially in poor, third world countries. Contraceptives and education actually work. Uganda promotes this and infection rates have gone down. Harvard researchers estimated that over 300,000 needless deaths occurred in South Africa by using the pope's approach. It seems to me that the pope and the Vatican are completely wrong in both cases. They represent the exact opposite of moral judgment. Thoughts?
Religion & Spirituality - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Solution: http://www.cpusa.org/
2 :
The church has been right on only about 3 of every 10000000 decisions.
3 :
In fact one of the world's leading AIDS researchers - at Harvard! - just stated that the Pope was right. Ready availability of condoms with their high failure rate creates a false sense of security which results in increased sexual activity [big surprise], which invariably results in an increase in rates of pregnancy, abortion and venereal disease, including AIDS! The Pope checks his facts before he speaks, rather than just parroting popular opinion.
4 :
>>Contraceptives and education actually work.<< So go distribute condoms and pamphlets. The pope can't stop you.
5 :
In both cases the Church is correct. Abortion is always wrong, no matter what -- even in the extremely rare case of a pregnancy resulting from rape. It may seem harsh, but it's really not -- the Church's regard for the sanctity of human life goes "all the way." The Church is so willing to extend its love for the sanctity of life, in fact, that it is even willing to take the unpopular view that the unborn should not even be killed if the pregnancy came out of a rape. That's how serious the Church is about the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. As for condoms, the truth is that the Church offers the ONLY foolproof way to avoid AIDS and other sexually spread diseases -- which is abstinence prior to marriage, and fidelity within marriage. Imagine you're about to have sex with someone -- but just before you start, he/she says to you, "Here, you should wear this condom because I have AIDS." Are you going to proceed to have sex with that person? I hope the answer to that question is obvious. "300,000 needless deaths occured by using the pope's approach" is ridiculously wrong. That's because abstinence before marriage/fidelity within marriage has never killed even one person -- let alone 300,000. .
6 :
in my opinion the vatican is wrong on almost everything!!! the dear pope was in on the sexual cover up involving the pervert priests. what more do i have to say???!!!
7 :
Well asked. I asked a similar question after hearing a BBC report on the speech the pope made in Cameroon. It's is appalling that the church will choose to sacrifice lives in the blind pursuit of its dogmatic ends. To insist that "condoms will make aids worse" is brutally wrong, a lie, and scientifically baseless. Of course, everyone knows that condoms are not 100% effective. But abstinence is almost totally unreliable. Especially when dealing with the poor, the oppressed, the uneducated and the fearful, superstitious people that these comments are addressed to. I'm not surprised though. This pope like most others is an appalling, loathsome, human being.
8 :
The Vatican doesn't make judgments based on morals. They do what is strategically advantageous for their own agenda. Keeping the population high means more followers, more contributions, more control. Keeping the population riddled with disease means more dependence on religious beliefs and more emphasis on faith, especially in third world countries.
9 :
They are following their own logic, which is grounded in different premises. Your logic (one infers) is grounded in the premise: it is moral to minimize harm and suffering. The logic of Catholic theology is grounded in the premise: it is moral to maximize obedience to God. When you say: "people are going to screw no matter what, so we may as well make screwing safe," the Vatican theologians hear: "people are going to disobey God no matter what, so we may as well mitigate the consequences of their disobedience." Or, to put it more simply: "Why not make it easier to disobey God?". Now, I don't know where the Pope got the suggestion that condoms would make the situation worse, but he probably meant that condoms would increase the general happy feeling: "screw all you want, nothing bad can happen to you" whereas it might be better for individuals to learn control of their passions. There are other consequences of fornication and adultery -- consequences that cause real psychic harm to people -- apart from the medical risks. I don't myself agree with the Vatican positions, but since you raise the question of morality -- they are entirely consistent with the Catholic view of morality. To Catholicism, morality has never been about minimizing bodily suffering. Morality is about seeking and carrying out God's will.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Do you think today as Catholic can live on Vatican I as well as Vatican II? Can they be joined together
Do you think today as Catholic can live on Vatican I as well as Vatican II? Can they be joined together?
I don't see any thing wrong with Vatican I as well as Vatican II to be uses in these days.There are Ladies of Vatican I and II as they with good intentions to follow in the footstep of the Blessed Virgin Mary as not to be on the altar for any reason during mass. Holy Mother Church has no records as Our Blessed Mother as done any work or deed of any kind or even as for a priests or a deacon on the altar during Mass in her days. She is the most perfect role model of women of all ages and of all times. Vatican I and Vatican II says as they don't have to have a woman on the altars. Popes as well as today they wants men on the altar during mass only for to created more priests and deacon. TODAY IN OUR WORLD>We have group of people who lived on Vatican I as doing quite well. We have people who are on Vatican II as doing quite well also. Can they be join today as one under one Pope as Catholic can choose either Vatican I or II to lived on.
Religion & Spirituality - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I would LOVE to see this question translated into English. Wouldn't you all?
2 :
Forgive me for saying this but I am not sure what you are asking, can Vatican I and Vatican II amalgamate?. Or is this in Reference to women priests?. IN TODAY'S WORLD>, Yes I hope so and do not see why not. As someone who knows both Vatican I and Vatican II fellow Catholics, we are as one but there are some minor theological issues that hopefully can be resolved in the near future.
3 :
I haven't a clue what you're trying to say. I think I picked up on a pro-women priests vibe. However, that is a theological impossibility, and here's why: Gen. 3:15; Luke 1:26-55; John 19:26; Rev. 12:1- Mary is God's greatest creation, was the closest person to Jesus, and yet Jesus did not choose her to become a priest. God chose only men to be priests to reflect the complimentarity of the sexes. Just as the man (the royal priest) gives natural life to the woman in the marital covenant, the ministerial priest gives supernatural life in the New Covenant sacraments. Judges 17:10; 18:19 – fatherhood and priesthood are synonymous terms. Micah says, “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest.†Fathers/priests give life, and mothers receive and nurture life. This reflects God our Father who gives the life of grace through the Priesthood of His Divine Son, and Mother Church who receives the life of grace and nourishes her children. In summary, women cannot be priests because women cannot be fathers. Mark 16:9; Luke 7: 37-50; John 8:3-11 - Jesus allowed women to uniquely join in His mission, exalting them above cultural norms. His decision not to ordain women had nothing to do with culture. The Gospel writers are also clear that women participated in Jesus' ministry and, unlike men, never betrayed Jesus. Women have always been held with the highest regard in the Church (e.g., the Church's greatest saint and model of faith is a woman; the Church's constant teaching on the dignity of motherhood; the Church's understanding of humanity as being the Bride united to Christ, etc.). Mark 14:17,20; Luke 22:14 - the language "the twelve" and "apostles" shows Jesus commissioned the Eucharistic priesthood by giving holy orders only to men. Gen. 14:10; Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 - Jesus, the Son of God, is both priest and King after the priest-king Melchizedek. Jesus' priesthood embodies both Kingship and Sonship. Gen. 22:9-13 - as foreshadowed, God chose our redemption to be secured by the sacrificial love that the Son gives to the Father. Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19 - because the priest acts in persona Christi in the offering to the Father, the priest cannot be a woman. Mark 3:13 - Jesus selected the apostles "as He desired," according to His will, and not according to the demands of His culture. Because Jesus acted according to His will which was perfectly united to that of the Father, one cannot criticize Jesus' selection of men to be His priests without criticizing God. John 20:22 - Jesus only breathed on the male apostles, the first bishops, giving them the authority to forgive and retain sins. In fact, the male priesthood of Christianity was a distinction from the priestesses of paganism that existed during these times. A female priesthood would be a reversion to non-Christian practices. The sacred tradition of a male priesthood has existed uncompromised in the Church for 2,000 years. 1 Cor. 14:34-35 - Paul says a woman is not permitted to preach the word of God in the Church. It has always been the tradition of the Church for the priest or deacon alone (an ordained male) to read and preach the Gospel. 1 Tim. 2:12 - Paul also says that a woman is not permitted to hold teaching authority in the Church. Can you imagine how much Mary, the Mother of God, would have been able to teach Christians about Jesus her Son in the Church? Yet, she was not permitted to hold such teaching authority in the Church. Rom. 16:1-2 - while many Protestants point to this verse denounce the Church's tradition of a male priesthood, deaconesses, like Phoebe, were helpers to the priests (for example, preparing women for naked baptism so as to prevent scandal). But these helpers were never ordained. Luke 2:36-37 - prophetesses, like Anna, were women who consecrated themselves to religious life, but were not ordained. Isaiah 3:12 – Isaiah complains that the priests of ancient Israel were having their authority usurped by women, and this was at the height of Israel’s covenant apostasy.
4 :
There are Catholics in full communion with the Pope and the Catholic Church and there are "cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose what they want to believe and practice. A couple of examples are "Catholics" who are pro-abortion or "Catholics" who refuse to accept the teachings of Vatican II. The term "Cafeteria Christians" refers to people who view Christianity like a cafeteria where one picks and chooses only those beliefs that appeal to them and reject a genuine interpretation of Christian doctrine and the teachings of Jesus. The term "Cafeteria Catholics" is similar. It is used to describe people who dissent from certain teachings of the Catholic Church while maintaining an outward identity as Catholics. In Los Angeles in 1987, Pope John Paul II said: "It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere." Heresy is the obstinate denial after Baptism of a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. "Cafeteria Catholics" in denial of certain truths are in danger of committing heresy. With love in Christ.
I don't see any thing wrong with Vatican I as well as Vatican II to be uses in these days.There are Ladies of Vatican I and II as they with good intentions to follow in the footstep of the Blessed Virgin Mary as not to be on the altar for any reason during mass. Holy Mother Church has no records as Our Blessed Mother as done any work or deed of any kind or even as for a priests or a deacon on the altar during Mass in her days. She is the most perfect role model of women of all ages and of all times. Vatican I and Vatican II says as they don't have to have a woman on the altars. Popes as well as today they wants men on the altar during mass only for to created more priests and deacon. TODAY IN OUR WORLD>We have group of people who lived on Vatican I as doing quite well. We have people who are on Vatican II as doing quite well also. Can they be join today as one under one Pope as Catholic can choose either Vatican I or II to lived on.
Religion & Spirituality - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I would LOVE to see this question translated into English. Wouldn't you all?
2 :
Forgive me for saying this but I am not sure what you are asking, can Vatican I and Vatican II amalgamate?. Or is this in Reference to women priests?. IN TODAY'S WORLD>, Yes I hope so and do not see why not. As someone who knows both Vatican I and Vatican II fellow Catholics, we are as one but there are some minor theological issues that hopefully can be resolved in the near future.
3 :
I haven't a clue what you're trying to say. I think I picked up on a pro-women priests vibe. However, that is a theological impossibility, and here's why: Gen. 3:15; Luke 1:26-55; John 19:26; Rev. 12:1- Mary is God's greatest creation, was the closest person to Jesus, and yet Jesus did not choose her to become a priest. God chose only men to be priests to reflect the complimentarity of the sexes. Just as the man (the royal priest) gives natural life to the woman in the marital covenant, the ministerial priest gives supernatural life in the New Covenant sacraments. Judges 17:10; 18:19 – fatherhood and priesthood are synonymous terms. Micah says, “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest.†Fathers/priests give life, and mothers receive and nurture life. This reflects God our Father who gives the life of grace through the Priesthood of His Divine Son, and Mother Church who receives the life of grace and nourishes her children. In summary, women cannot be priests because women cannot be fathers. Mark 16:9; Luke 7: 37-50; John 8:3-11 - Jesus allowed women to uniquely join in His mission, exalting them above cultural norms. His decision not to ordain women had nothing to do with culture. The Gospel writers are also clear that women participated in Jesus' ministry and, unlike men, never betrayed Jesus. Women have always been held with the highest regard in the Church (e.g., the Church's greatest saint and model of faith is a woman; the Church's constant teaching on the dignity of motherhood; the Church's understanding of humanity as being the Bride united to Christ, etc.). Mark 14:17,20; Luke 22:14 - the language "the twelve" and "apostles" shows Jesus commissioned the Eucharistic priesthood by giving holy orders only to men. Gen. 14:10; Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 - Jesus, the Son of God, is both priest and King after the priest-king Melchizedek. Jesus' priesthood embodies both Kingship and Sonship. Gen. 22:9-13 - as foreshadowed, God chose our redemption to be secured by the sacrificial love that the Son gives to the Father. Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19 - because the priest acts in persona Christi in the offering to the Father, the priest cannot be a woman. Mark 3:13 - Jesus selected the apostles "as He desired," according to His will, and not according to the demands of His culture. Because Jesus acted according to His will which was perfectly united to that of the Father, one cannot criticize Jesus' selection of men to be His priests without criticizing God. John 20:22 - Jesus only breathed on the male apostles, the first bishops, giving them the authority to forgive and retain sins. In fact, the male priesthood of Christianity was a distinction from the priestesses of paganism that existed during these times. A female priesthood would be a reversion to non-Christian practices. The sacred tradition of a male priesthood has existed uncompromised in the Church for 2,000 years. 1 Cor. 14:34-35 - Paul says a woman is not permitted to preach the word of God in the Church. It has always been the tradition of the Church for the priest or deacon alone (an ordained male) to read and preach the Gospel. 1 Tim. 2:12 - Paul also says that a woman is not permitted to hold teaching authority in the Church. Can you imagine how much Mary, the Mother of God, would have been able to teach Christians about Jesus her Son in the Church? Yet, she was not permitted to hold such teaching authority in the Church. Rom. 16:1-2 - while many Protestants point to this verse denounce the Church's tradition of a male priesthood, deaconesses, like Phoebe, were helpers to the priests (for example, preparing women for naked baptism so as to prevent scandal). But these helpers were never ordained. Luke 2:36-37 - prophetesses, like Anna, were women who consecrated themselves to religious life, but were not ordained. Isaiah 3:12 – Isaiah complains that the priests of ancient Israel were having their authority usurped by women, and this was at the height of Israel’s covenant apostasy.
4 :
There are Catholics in full communion with the Pope and the Catholic Church and there are "cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose what they want to believe and practice. A couple of examples are "Catholics" who are pro-abortion or "Catholics" who refuse to accept the teachings of Vatican II. The term "Cafeteria Christians" refers to people who view Christianity like a cafeteria where one picks and chooses only those beliefs that appeal to them and reject a genuine interpretation of Christian doctrine and the teachings of Jesus. The term "Cafeteria Catholics" is similar. It is used to describe people who dissent from certain teachings of the Catholic Church while maintaining an outward identity as Catholics. In Los Angeles in 1987, Pope John Paul II said: "It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere." Heresy is the obstinate denial after Baptism of a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. "Cafeteria Catholics" in denial of certain truths are in danger of committing heresy. With love in Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)