Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

>If I remember correctly, can't the Pope speak ex cathedra, or infallibly,
>if he so chooses or feels so moved?  By no small stretch, believing
>this about the Pope is close to diefication.

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility specifies that when the Pope, in unison
with the bishops of all the world, under the influence of the Holy Spirit,
makes a specific, solemn declaration that a matter of faith or morals is
a revealed doctrine, it must be given the assent of faith by all Catholics.

The doctrine was formally defined only in the last century and has been
used exactly twice.  In both cases it was to end disputes over traditions
almost 2000 years old that, although constantly believed in some form or
other by most Christians in both East and West, did not have sufficient
biblical evidence for a precise, undisputed formulation.

/john

Sorry to continue the rathole, John, but what were the two disputes that
were settled by ex cathreda declarations by the Pope?

				-- Bob

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 91.3389                  Christianity and Gays                 3389 of 3394
HURON::MYERS                                         30 lines  23-FEB-1994 20:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RE: Note 91.3387 by NITTY::DIERCKS

    > You're taking me too literally.

    I thought you meant what you said, yes.

    > ...the pope is, to some people, an all knowing, all seeing,

    In matters of Church dogma he is considered to be the final word, but
    he is not considered omniscient. This is simply not true, but is a
    popular vision of Roman Catholics held by non-RC's.

    > ..."better do what he says" kind-o guy.

    Well he *is* the head of the Roman Catholic Church. I guess he gets to
    make up the rules of what RC teachings will be. They don't keep him locked
    in the closet, though. He's allowed to consult with others in the RC
    hierarchy.

    > I just want to yell "can't you make up your own mind?"

    Well, many R. Catholics do. Many churches have female alter server,
    women Eucharistic Ministers. It's even been reported that at least one
    Catholic couple was seen purchasing condoms. 

    You're right though. Generally speaking Roman Catholics don't make it
    up as they go along; it's not a "feel good" theology. I hear that the
    UU church is more open to personal theology though.
    
    Eric "Pat Sweeney" Myers
================================================================================
Note 91.3391                  Christianity and Gays                 3391 of 3394
TOHOPE::HUTTO_G                                      12 lines  24-FEB-1994 08:29
                               -< Ex Cathedra? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .3388
 
>   Sticking up for Roman Catholicism, it is erroneous to say that the Pope
>   is deified.  Highly revered, yes.  The head of a global hierarchy, yes.
>   A deity, no.
 
Richard,
	If I remember correctly, can't the Pope speak ex cathedra, or
infallibly, if he so chooses or feels so moved?  By no small stretch, believing
this about the Pope is close to diefication.

George
================================================================================
Note 91.3392                  Christianity and Gays                 3392 of 3394
PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON "DCU fees?  NO!!!"           19 lines  24-FEB-1994 08:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George

  >If I remember correctly, can't the Pope speak ex cathedra, or
  >infallibly, if he so chooses or feels so moved?  By no small stretch, believing
  >this about the Pope is close to diefication.

Calling someone a deity in a Christian (or even a C-P) conference
is a very serious statement.  The First Commandment is that the
LORD is God - and we shall have no other gods before Him.  There
is one and only one God.

I expect that anytime you choose to call someone other than God a
deity, you will get a response (or multiple responses) correcting
you.  Being able to speak "truth" is not something that is confined
to God alone - God Himself chooses to speak truth through people
such as you and me at times.  This does not make and will never make
someone a deity.

Collis
================================================================================
Note 91.3393                  Christianity and Gays                 3393 of 3394
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      16 lines  24-FEB-1994 09:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>If I remember correctly, can't the Pope speak ex cathedra, or infallibly,
>if he so chooses or feels so moved?  By no small stretch, believing
>this about the Pope is close to diefication.

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility specifies that when the Pope, in unison
with the bishops of all the world, under the influence of the Holy Spirit,
makes a specific, solemn declaration that a matter of faith or morals is
a revealed doctrine, it must be given the assent of faith by all Catholics.

The doctrine was formally defined only in the last century and has been
used exactly twice.  In both cases it was to end disputes over traditions
almost 2000 years old that, although constantly believed in some form or
other by most Christians in both East and West, did not have sufficient
biblical evidence for a precise, undisputed formulation.

/john

>Sorry to continue the rathole, John, but what were the two disputes that
>were settled by ex cathreda declarations by the Pope?

Immaculate Conception of Mary (Mary was miraculously saved, through the
	salvation of Jesus Christ applied retroactively, from any stain
	of original sin from the very moment of her conception by her
	parents Joachim and Anna).

and

Assumption of Mary (At the end of her earthly life, Mary was taken bodily
	into heaven, as we all will be someday.)

/john

Thanks, John.

As far as I know, the Methodist church doesn't recognize either of these
doctrines, and I would guess that this is also the case for other
Protestant denominations.  Are they recognized within the Anglican and
Episcopal churches?

				-- Bob

In the Book of Common Prayer we pray "O God, you have taken to yourself
the blessed Virgin Mary, mother of your incarnate Son: Grant that we,
who have been redeemed by his blood, may share with her the glory of
your eternal kingdom..."

This is not the full dogma of the Assumption, but it is close.
Whether she has already received her glorified body or not is
not considered revealed.  But, if her body was not taken into
heaven, where is it?  There are relics of just about every other
saint, including Peter.

As for the Immaculate Conception, we would agree with St. Augustine,
and not even wish to talk about any sin on the part of Our Lord's
Mother.  (Absolutely no "Yo Mamma" allowed.)  But again, we would
not formulate it as required dogma in the manner specified by the
Roman dogma.

/john

    I did not grow up in a hierarchical church.  I was brought up in a
    church which is fiercely egalitarian in its polity (Congregationalist).
    I've tended to stay with churches which lean toward a democratic
    process in decision and policy making (Quaker, United Methodist).
    
    As a result, I tend to take seriously what the Pope says, but I
    do not allow my life to be ruled by papal instructions and declarations.
    I hear there are Roman Catholics who feel pretty much the same.
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .7
    
    Indeed! That was just the problem that I had, and why I left the 
    Roman Catholic faith.
    
    The Pope said that you could not pick and chose what you wanted from
    the Catholic church. Either you agreed with it ALL, or you didn't and
    could not be true to your faith.
    
    I agreed with this comment from the Pope...that is why I left.
    
    Marc H.

In article <866.4-940224-154259@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] (John R. Covert) writes:
|>Title: Perceptions concerning the Pope
|>Reply Title: (none)
|>
|>>Sorry to continue the rathole, John, but what were the two disputes that
|>>were settled by ex cathreda declarations by the Pope?
|>
|>Immaculate Conception of Mary (Mary was miraculously saved, through the
|>	salvation of Jesus Christ applied retroactively, from any stain
|>	of original sin from the very moment of her conception by her
|>	parents Joachim and Anna).
|>
|>and
|>
|>Assumption of Mary (At the end of her earthly life, Mary was taken bodily
|>	into heaven, as we all will be someday.)
|>
|>/john
|>

  Hi,

  Perhaps I'm jumping in here a bit late, but could someone please point me to
the Book, Chapter and paragraph of the bible where this is stated (The 2nd 
declaration)? Also does
it matter which bible? I.E. NIV vs. NAS vs. New Jerusalem vs. etc...

  Thanks,

  Bob.

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

Re:  Immaculate Conception of Mary and
     Assumption of Mary

The Bible does not deal with either of these events.

Perhaps that is why many Bible-believing Protestants
do not accept either of these (Roman Catholic) doctrines
as true.

If you want the extra-Biblical evidence for these beliefs,
you'll need to ask someone more knowledgable than myself.

Collis

re Note 866.9 by QUABBI::"[email protected]":

>   Perhaps I'm jumping in here a bit late, but could someone please point me to
> the Book, Chapter and paragraph of the bible where this is stated (The 2nd 
> declaration)? Also does
> it matter which bible? I.E. NIV vs. NAS vs. New Jerusalem vs. etc...

        If one could merely point to a chapter and verse for a Papal
        pronouncement, then the Papal pronouncement would be
        redundant and unnecessary.

        If one accepts Papal infallibility (and I don't), its purpose
        would be to definitively settle doctrinal issues that are not
        otherwise definitively settled.  These could be differences
        in Scriptural interpretation, or understanding which of the
        many oral traditions is true revelation as opposed to
        "traditions of men."

        For those issues on which Scripture (appears to) speak
        clearly, it would hardly make sense for the Pope to make a
        formal declaration.

        I must admit that I believe the existence of infallible
        doctrinal authority in the Church is supported by the same
        arguments which support the need for inerrant Scripture: 
        inerrant Scripture doesn't settle all doctrinal disputes, and
        thus if doctrinal unity were one of God's objectives for
        Christians then some infallible interpretive authority would
        be needed as well.

        I don't believe doctrinal unity is one of God's objectives,
        but if I did I certainly wouldn't be a Protestant for that is
        one of the "don't gets" when there is no authority beyond a
        text.

        Bob

    
    A feminist's view (hopefully not *the* feminist view) of the pope:
    
         "We will live to see the day that St. Patrick's
         Cathedral is a child care center and the pope is no
         longer a disgrace to the skirt the he has on."

    Gloria Steinem's perception of the Pope, from an AP story. Whatever
    respect I might have had for Ms. Steinem as a feminist has evaporated.


    Eric

    ..she didn't mention Pope Joan did she?
    
    Never mind,
    
    D.

    
    RE .13

    Nah. I'm pretty sure she was mainly pissed at JP2 and his message
    regarding sexual responsibility. You know that whole abstinence
    before marriage and pro-life thing. :^) 

    Eric

    Eric,
    
    given the contexts of Gloria Steinem's message, what is it that
    infuriates you about the message.
    
    Can you catch a glimpse of why she might make a statement like that!

    If I may...I read what Eric wrote and the first thing that came to mind
    was, "Gee, this woman sure as heck does not value diversity at all. 
    Furthermore, she apparently has very little tolerance or regard for
    other faiths and the precepts of those particular faiths."
    
    In other words, the utopians of the diversity movement need to clean
    their own closets before pointing fingers at others!
    
    -Jack

    Perhaps she does not think that a church needs elegant expensive
    buildings as many people of the world starve to death.
    
    The anger at the Pope's attempted interference in the reproductive
    rights of women is a feeling that many women share.  The fact that the
    Catholic church comes to its decisions about women's bodies and women's
    reproductive rights while excluding women from all decision making in
    the Church is a further insult to the world's women Catholic and non
    Catholic.
    
    I would bet that Gloria Steinam, like myself identifies the Catholic
    church with the Body of the world's Catholics and not with the
    Male Only leadership of the church. 
    
    Fortunately, American's have a habit of not idolizing leaders, political
    or religious.  The Pope is only one man.  He is not God.

 ZZZ    The Pope is only one man.  He is not God.
    
    Well, I for one agree with you on this.  I believe that God's
    representative to the world is the body of believers.   
    
    However, I still believe this is a sign she doesn't value diversity. 
    Under the rules of Christian-Perspective, we are supposed to be
    tolerant of all religions.  Therefore, I am hard pressed accepting any
    excuse for Gloria's remarks.
    
    -Jack

    
    First of all, I'm Catholic and I admit I can't help but react somewhat
    viscerally to anti-catholic rhetoric. The comment struck me as having
    the same intellectual content of Rush Limbaugh's diatribes -- just
    coming from the opposite pole.

    She wasn't taking about setting up a child care centers, she was
    advocating the closing of a church (one might say the collapse of the
    Church) to make a child care center. She wasn't disagreeing with the
    Pope's ideas on contraception and abortion, She was ranting about the
    symbolism she saw in the Papal vestments as female garments.

    For my money, she crossed the credibility line in rhetoric. This sort
    of attack on the Catholic church and the Pope does not advance the
    cause of care for children and women's health.  It merely gives
    ammunition to those who already oppose such worthy causes, and those
    who refer to feminists as "feminazis." This is too bad.

    Eric

    Eric:
    
    In regards to Gloria Steinham...not to worry.  Gloria lost her
    credibility years ago.  
    
    I heard a speech once on Satan.  In the life of a believer Satan is
    like a rooster with it's head cut off.  The thing will still move and
    walk around, with it's head cut off.  It will kind of give you the
    creeps but in actuality, it is only as harmless noise maker.
    
    That is how I've perceived Steinham for years!
    
    -Jack

    It is interesting how a fairly mind criticism of the Pope is equated
    with "FemiNazism" and "Satanism"
    
    
    A bit of an overreaction.. Don't you think!

    See, this is why I make it a point not to get "offended" when I hear
    remarks like this.  Be it Limbaughs stupid remarks about Chelsea's
    looks, Steinhams stupid remarks about the church, Clinton's stupid
    remarks about right wing extremists...  
    
    Just shrug shoulders, consider the source, then move on!
    
    -Jack

re Note 866.16 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     In other words, the utopians of the diversity movement need to clean
>     their own closets before pointing fingers at others!
  
        That's like saying that Christians must be perfect before
        they start preaching the gospel to others.

        Bob

    You're right.  I'll just limit my remarks toward people like Steinham
    who simply can't keep their foot out of their mouth!

    
    Re.23
    
    Thanks, Bob - my sentiments exactly!
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.18
    
    Jack,
    
    >Under the rules of Christian-Perspective, we are supposed to be
    >tolerant of all religions.
    
    Gloria doesn't actively note here.  (;^) 
    
    Cindy

    Cindy,
    
    Let's localize this a little and you can tell me if this is a fallacy
    or not and why.  If somebody here agrees with Steinham, then they don't
    have the right to say we should all respect other religions...since
    Steinham is obviously disrespecting the Catholic church.  Right?
    
    -Jack

    
    Jack,
    
    It has more to do with interpretation.  One person's definition of
    'disrespecting the Catholic Church' is different from another.  
    
    For example, when I referred to Mary as a Goddess, there was a certain
    person here who said he was offended, but I responded saying that a lot
    of what he said I found offensive too.
    
    Therefore, I, personally, did not find Steinham's remark offensive per
    se...and also I make allowances for the fact that she could very well 
    have been quoted out of context, so it's important to allow for that as
    well before passing judgment.  She may have also meant something
    totally different than how it was intended.  I'm not making excuses for
    her...rather I have read a lot of her material in the past, and so I'm
    taking that into consideration as well when I read this statement.
    
    Do I *agree* with it?  Not necesarily.  I think she has a valid point,
    yes.  But I don't see the disrespect that you do, at least not to the 
    level of intensity that you do.
    
    Cindy

    Besides, some radicals (like myself) think that the greatest respect
    one could have for a church is to have faith that the church will
    eventually reform itself from the evils in which it is wrapped up.
    
    The Catholic church has an excellent record of reforming itself from
    past sinfulness.  It has demostrated the ability to look inward at
    itself and move toward a "more perfect" organization.
    
    The elimination of women from all positions of power and decisionmaking
    in the church is one of those sins that I have faith the church will
    eventually repent and atone for.  That is just not enough though for
    women right now!

    
    First of all, I just want to distance myself from the Satanism thing. I
    never meant to imply anything satanic about Gloria Steinem's remarks.
    Secondly, I don't consider myself an anti-feminist, but I'll let those
    who consider themselves feminist advocates (I don't mean that
    pejoratively) judge me there.

    I typed the comment in it's totality as it appeared in the Sunday
    newspaper. As I said it was from an AP story. I have double checked and
    I transcribed it correctly. 

    Maybe Ms. Steinem didn't mean what she said. Maybe she meant "One day
    the Catholic Church will spend as much money on child care centers as
    they do on their church buildings." Maybe she meant "The papal view on
    contraception and abortion will only further the problems of unwanted
    children and back alley abortions in this country." Maybe... but that's
    not what she said. 

    I guess it has to do with who's ox is being gored. I'm upset partly
    because the Pope, warts and all, is the representative of my faith
    (such as it is). Perhaps my criticism of the statements attributed to
    Ms. Steinmen, hit a nerve in others because she is seen as a
    representative of a movement others hold dear (and a movement which, by
    and large, I support). If the comments were directed toward Pat
    Robertson would I have blinked... nah, probably not. If the comments
    were made by some unknown, would the good feminists here have
    questioned my surprise?
                                             
                  

    My guess, (And I use the word guess strongly) is that in order for a
    change like this to happen there would have to be a paradigm shift in
    the church hierarchy.  Also since Catholicism is a universal church
    throughout the world, it would seem there would have to be wide support
    throughout different cultures for this change.  I don't see it
    happening in countries like Portugal for example.
    
    -Jack

    
    > The elimination of women from all positions of power and decisionmaking
    > in the church is one of those sins that I have faith the church will
    > eventually repent and atone for.  That is just not enough though for
    > women right now!

    Just a nit or two. Women haven't been "eliminated." That would imply
    that they once were in those positions :^)

    On a more serious note, women do play a role in Catholic theology and
    decision making, albeit an subordinate one. Women are not treated as
    baby making, food cooking, slipper fetching, chattel in the Catholic
    church. Compared to some Christian sects, the Catholic church is down
    right left wing. At the local level, it has been my experience that
    women play a *very* active role in the Catholic church. However, I
    agree with you; I look forward to the day when gender is not an issue
    in matters of faith.

    Eric

    
    RE .31

    Yes there would be opposition if the church were to ordain women
    priests. But then again, I still hear some of the old folk wax
    nostalgic for the Latin mass! The Vatican doesn't base its
    pronouncements on wide international support. 

    Eric                                        

    Eric,
    I understand your note of concern about Gloria Steinem's remark even as
    I understand Feminist anger at institutional sexism.

I appreciate Pope John Paul II.  I don't agree with everything he maintains.
I don't think I'm alone on this.

Gloria Steinem is not among the feminists who have impressed me very much.
I'm much more impressed by the feminists I've known, some of them Roman
Catholic, some of them members of religious orders.

I can understand the frustration.  I suspect the pope can as well.

Pax vobiscum,
Richard