Jump to content

Pope Wants the Anglicans


JadeWolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting to see a pope being proactive for once. Sigh, just imagine the possibilities if he chose to use his considerable sway over such a large number of people for... something good. "Hey African Catholics, using condoms no longer means you go directly to hell!" (Number of AIDS deaths drops dramatically.) One of these days, they're bound to accidentally elect a benevolent pope, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He certainly did what he could within the dogma. But, I mean, the pope could rewrite the dogma if he wanted, right? Why not welcome gays, allow female priests, and promote safe sex? If they really want converts, why not have a pope-approved reformation to adapt to the modern world? Heck, if a pope did any of those things I'd certainly be tempted to believe there was a divine presence at work!

 

You're right, though, John Paul II was pretty benevolent. I should have said "crazy radical" instead. Imagine how cool it would be!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Catholic I'm going to answer many questions with one simple fact.

 

Catholics believe in the faithful fallibility; meaning that the pope represents god and speaks on behalf of god. Thus when past popes have maintained a tone of anti-homosexuality and a firm stance on other topics; this is strongly believed to be the position god takes.

 

When our current pope or the next pope declares to change the rules, we will see how willing Catholics as a majority truly are to accept his word as on behalf of Yaweh.

 

I was born and raised a Catholic; but I believe a man whom speaks on behalf of god is a prophet- And prophets are not chosen or elected by humans; only by god himself.

 

Anglicans in the opinion of Catholics are not true Christians; people whom follow politics and personal agenda in favor of the bible or the church are heretics. No true Anglican would accept such an offer, and in all honesty no true catholic would make it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Anglican churches disagree that the Roman church is the only real church; they do not claim that role themselves. So from an Anglican point of view, it's no biggie if disgruntled conservative Anglican priests get welcomed by Rome. Anglicans may (or may not) be unhappy to lose these guys, but if they're going to go anyway, by all means let them be welcomed wherever they're going.

 

(Full disclosure: I'm a lifelong Anglican.)

 

The bigger story here is that the vast majority of Anglican priests, even the very conservative ones, are married. The precedent already established over many years is that upon acceptance into the Roman church, they become married Roman Catholic priests. There have always been a few loopholes in the Catholic rule of priestly celibacy. Benedict's new policy may potentially make this one into a rather bigger loophole.

 

The most famous Anglican-to-Roman convert was John Henry Newman, who went from historically influential Anglican priest to historically influential Roman Catholic cardinal (to the point where he is frequently described as 'the father of Vatican II' despite having died in 1890, and is likely to be beatified soon). He was actually celibate. But many more converts like him might still shake Catholicism up a bit.

 

EDIT: For what it's worth it is also my understanding that a Pope cannot simply re-write Catholic doctrine, because a Pope who flatly contradicted previous Popes or Councils would simply demolish the very authority he was claiming to exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is that, although it's a very uncatholic concept; popes come and go... It's simply the reality.

 

The Catholic majority may not take kindly to a pope declaring something as controversial or far out as priest being able to have sex and marry, or homosexuality being recognized as a legitimate lifestyle in the eyes of god.

 

People like to think it couldn't and would never happen in the modern day but... Fanatical Catholics are probably a more dangerous religious faction than any other; and if they call crusade... I honestly can't begin to predict who will answer.

 

Again I was brought up as a Catholic, but I do agree in many aspects with protestants. I think that clergy should be able to participate in intercourse with a woman to whom they are married with, and that they are allowed to marry. There are many opinions and beliefs I hold that aren't particularly sound within the Vatican, yet are definitely more open to debate amongst Anglicans or Lutherans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Kill Frenzy
Fanatical Catholics are probably a more dangerous religious faction than any other; and if they call crusade... I honestly can't begin to predict who will answer.


This is so fantastically unlikely that I don't think it will happen, at least in our lifetimes. Of course, if it did happen, I would enjoy watching the Catholic pundits in America squirm. It would certainly reveal who was only in it for the money/politics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming you didn't mean to use it offensively, but let's end it please. This topic is close enough to setting somebody off as it is, just with the comments about Catholicism. If ethnic slurs keep popping up here, expect the topic to get locked quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Roman Church is highly infatuated with not so contrite Priests dying for sex, they could hardly start a crusade before being buried alive under a wave of criticism and complaints.

...

Who else to organise the next "Crusades"?

Evangelists?

Hardly, even though i've seen one trying to teach the wisdom of god with banks notes i his hands to an Arab, and also see some of them being supportive about Bush i can't say that they are evil to that extent.

Am i correct or simply too naive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the Axis created the term "axis" for themselves. It wasn't used as heavily by them as it has been after the war, but it was real. It's also rather value-neutral, or at least it was before becoming associated with the villains of WWII.

 

—Alorael, who thinks that Crusade has enough of a literal meaning that it would take a fairly clear level of Vatican involvement to make the title fit. He also doesn't think the Vatican is very much into holy wars anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As do all religions

Originally Posted By: ☭
Christianity's lost it's real fire. They've just got the heretical cults and wingnuts now.
One could say that of all religions.

 

Personally, I don't give a (censored) how anyone prays; just don't try to convince me that any way is better or worse than any other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Eponymous Heroics
Actually, the Axis created the term "axis" for themselves. It wasn't used as heavily by them as it has been after the war, but it was real. It's also rather value-neutral, or at least it was before becoming associated with the villains of WWII.

—Alorael, who thinks that Crusade has enough of a literal meaning that it would take a fairly clear level of Vatican involvement to make the title fit. He also doesn't think the Vatican is very much into holy wars anymore.
uh, yeah, that was my point and is exactly what i said. everybody knows that the axis called themselves the axis, just like everybody knows that the crusaders called themselves the crusaders. what i was saying is that nobody will ever call themselves either in the same setting again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus you have to remember, the Axis did not write our history books, thus, they are the bad guys (thank goodness). The crusaders, however, did write our history books, though that thousand years has indeed given a us at least a little perspective on them since (thank goodness). If they're not fully the bad guys yet, this is why. A thousand years simply isn't long enough, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the crusades took place, it had been a good deal less than a thousand years since the Middle East had been conquered by Muslim Arabs, having previously been ruled for several centuries by Christian Greco-Romans, who conquered it from previous conquerors, and so on through many iterations.

 

That doesn't mean that the crusade-ees deserved it, any more than the people their ancestors had conquered deserved it. Aggressive wars are enormous crimes. But that's just it: upholding that principle requires setting some sort of statute of limitations even on huge crimes like invasion and conquest, or pretty much every victim would be as guilty as every perpetrator.

 

And if that sort of statute of limitations applies to anyone, by now it ought to apply to the Christian Europeans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course we do not hold modern day counterparts accountable for the crimes of the ancestors. If that's what you thought I was implying, I wasn't. But an important aspect of history, if not the most important, is being able to look back and know when mistakes were made. Sometimes noticing the mistake can take a thousands years itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we do. Or some people do, sometimes, in some ways. That's what makes the Middle East so knotty, slavery reparations such a tumultuous issue when it comes up, and everyone's relationship with the previous occupants of their land uneasy.

 

—Alorael, who just thinks Europe has it easy. The Picts are complaining anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Sleeping Dragon
Of course we do not hold modern day counterparts accountable for the crimes of the ancestors. If that's what you thought I was implying, I wasn't. But an important aspect of history, if not the most important, is being able to look back and know when mistakes were made. Sometimes noticing the mistake can take a thousands years itself.
depends on who you ask.



edit: sorry for the double post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it depends on what measures you're willing to take. China's censorship isn't perfect and it isn't all-concealing, but it is much more effective than letting the internet run wild.

 

—Alorael, who thinks an equally effective means of stifling internet truth is to flood the web with sock puppets and patsies. The internet is already full of banalities, insanities, and misunderstandings. Add a few (more) lies to the mix and nobody will be able to sort out what's actually going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Sss-Chah
i've actually been thinking about this lately. it's obviously a true and well known quote, but it might not be true for very much longer. it's a lot easier to find (and harder to hide) other people's ideas now that we have the internet.


but who cares about the ideas of a bunch of saps who got themselves killed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: ☭
And who really looks on the internet for serious, sane, and unheard-of viewpoints?


for anyone who thinks that the internet has not been entirely co-opted by partisan politics as usual, look at this picture:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Vk2KZcJaE04/Rp4xL7sy3bI/AAAAAAAAARc/7c9o-9qjg4o/s400/political_blogs.png

it is a picture of the political blogosphere

please note the yawning chasm in the middle

if that is not enough for you, read the article it came from
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...