tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post8440809023053377374..comments2023-08-21T03:51:17.425-06:00Comments on Enlightened Catholicism: What About The Future Of Catholicism?colkochhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-60927135016162801002010-07-24T09:32:52.915-06:002010-07-24T09:32:52.915-06:00That's a very good analogy Mouse.
The funny p...That's a very good analogy Mouse.<br /><br />The funny part about it though, at least to me, is that even today there are confederated tribes where the Chief spokesman is the front 'man' for a ruling council of women elders.<br /><br />Wouldn't that be a change for Rome.colkochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-41352447879959773932010-07-23T14:08:27.382-06:002010-07-23T14:08:27.382-06:00"Regarding the papacy etc from Anony Mouse- t..."Regarding the papacy etc from Anony Mouse- the present view of papacy began quite late . For a long time the opinion was that authority was exercised by the five major sees of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople. Rome had "primacy" as mediator in disputes, that's all."<br /><br />In general, this is historically correct. He would have been rather like the Chief of an Indian tribe. He would preside over a 'council of elders', which would normally rule by mutual consensus. The Chief would mediate disputes. Perhaps even his opinion would be the deciding vote in certain cases. But neither the Chief nor early Popes had any Fiat. <br /><br />Anon Y. MouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-3006549312780619432010-07-22T17:48:49.896-06:002010-07-22T17:48:49.896-06:00I'm very interested in Rose Mary's conclud...I'm very interested in Rose Mary's concluding remarks and have also found the previous installments worth reading and then some.colkochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-3292064440476098752010-07-22T17:06:20.996-06:002010-07-22T17:06:20.996-06:00For an interesting view of the need for paradigm s...For an interesting view of the need for paradigm shift;<br /><br />http://theprogressivecatholicvoice.blogspot.com/<br /><br />Rosemary Ruether hits the main topics quite well. I hope her concluding remarks are just as insightful.<br /><br />Regarding the papacy etc from Anony Mouse- the present view of papacy began quite late . For a long time the opinion was that authority was exercised by the five major sees of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople. Rome had "primacy" as mediator in disputes, that's all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-69398935245965370722010-07-22T16:44:03.268-06:002010-07-22T16:44:03.268-06:00Colleen -
There is no evidence that Peter was a ...Colleen - <br /><br />There is no evidence that Peter was a 'pope' in any sense in which that word has been understood for at least 1000 years. At best, he was 'first among equals'. But he most certainly was not considered the 'ruler' over all of the various local churches. <br /><br />Actually, the first use of'pope' is attrubutable to Alexandria....not Rome.And the Church in Antioch was for a long time a far greater stronghold of the faith then Rome was. There is even some very serious doubt among many scholars as to whether Peter was actually the 'bishop of Rome'. <br /><br />But let's pretend he was for the sake of discussion. Rome had NO primacy or power over any of the other churches, until after Nicea in 325. It would seem that your definition of 'Advisor' might correctly define his status. <br /><br />OK...now WHO was the 2nd 'pope'? Actually the answer is rather murky. If we examine things more, we find some rather huge gaps in the line of succession....by quite a few years, in some cases. We know very little about the first 35 popes. And there is confusion about some of their reigns (they even overlap....). <br /><br />One thing we do know is that most of them DID NOT attempt to assert central authority, or fiat. Decisions were made by collaborative consensus. Until Nicea.....<br /><br />...when the Vatican & 'Papacy' was created as we know it & infused with $$, land & near absolute power.Which they quickly used to persecute the Arians. <br /><br />God responded, via allowing the Sack of Rome about 100 years later. By the Goths, Visigoths. Who were......Arian Christians.<br /><br />Checkmate!<br /><br /><br />Anon Y. MouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-32256371281361397372010-07-22T14:10:47.117-06:002010-07-22T14:10:47.117-06:00Anon, there is something about this commenting pro...Anon, there is something about this commenting program that when a certain word count is reached it double posts. When I get done with this comment I will delete your duplicate.<br /><br />I agree that Catholicism is going to have to find a new paradigm in which to express it's core truths. Every religious system is under going that kind of rethinking and my experience has been the common paradigm is quantum physics and it's notions of inner dimensional reality, multiple universes, and notions of fundamental relationships and states in which a known element can be matter or wave depending on it's relationship with the environment it's in.colkochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-26600156009736918582010-07-22T13:00:55.261-06:002010-07-22T13:00:55.261-06:00Sorry- something peculiar about the posting mechan...Sorry- something peculiar about the posting mechanism led to doubling the comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-56956060452150576752010-07-22T12:59:02.061-06:002010-07-22T12:59:02.061-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-55638031211937075682010-07-22T12:58:43.361-06:002010-07-22T12:58:43.361-06:00I read some of the "blogs" concerning th...I read some of the "blogs" concerning the future of Catholicism and found them wanting, ( except for the short, too short, comments about "mysticism" ( a not very useful term for something that's extraordinarily ordinary)).<br /><br />Most assumed that the Church will continue in its present form as a hierarchical religion, creedal ( religion as propositions to be accepted)in foundation and Western European,( Greco-Latin), in its explication of that creed.<br /><br />I think that this is erroneous.<br /><br />Hierarchy is an outmoded form of governance and an outmoded form of viewing how the universe is structured. It runs counter to what physics shows to be the case for the material universe and, while hiearchy does have a role in biology, it does not really explain human freedom or behavior.<br /><br />This does not mean that hierarchy is wrong but it's not as universal as our ancestors thought.<br /><br />A reevaluation of it will be necessary. Linked to this is, of course, the role of women, assigned by hierarchical thinking to a lesser role than men. <br /><br />Creedal or propositional thinking about religion is also something to be re-evaluated. Ask most Catholics what the Creed really means and very few, including myself, will be able to state what it means without just repeating it.<br /><br />In other words, we don't really know what "God" means, let alone "Father", "Son", Holy Spirit". We don't have a good understanding mainly because the Church itself has not clearly defined them.<br /><br />Basically, the confusion comes because we no longer hold to the same "metaphysical world-view" that was prevalent at the writing of the Creed. <br /><br />This world-view was an uneasy mix of Greek, Latin and Hebrew elements that have often come into conflict with each other. It had definite elents of dualisms whether these were of the material-spiritual type or the virtue-sin type. <br /><br />We no longer live in the ancient Greco-Roman-Hebrew world. That world did not have other "world" religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, ( or Islam, a type of the Abrahamic religion), nor philosophies such as Confucianism, Taoism, or Shinto and other "nature" religions/philosophies to deal with. Each of these has different views ranging from dualism to non-dualism.<br /><br />Catholicism, if it is to continue, ( and I think it will), will have to reconsider itself from the ground up.<br /><br />The foundation of the Church is Christ who does not really "fit" the conceptions of divinity of the ancient Greco-Roman-Hebrew world, nor that of the other religions and philosophies yet has echoes and correlations with each one.<br /><br />Somehow, the Church will have to find a way to express itself in a new language that can surmount these divisions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-46941568627832276962010-07-22T06:26:17.255-06:002010-07-22T06:26:17.255-06:00Great post Dennis. Love the analogy of the bridge...Great post Dennis. Love the analogy of the bridge.<br /><br />Mouse I made a similar observation on this blog two or so years ago. I've also wondered if maybe Jesus wasn't making a joke about Peter as 'the rock' in view of the Satan statement which comes slightly after the 'rock' comment.<br /><br />Then there are the facts that is was James who led the Jerusalem Church and Paul who led the Gentile Church which makes Peter what, an advisor? Not to mention the official scenario ignores some other Apostolic churches who more or less did their own thing like the gnostics and Thomas's church in India.colkochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-10537565216784394552010-07-22T04:19:25.600-06:002010-07-22T04:19:25.600-06:00Colleen-
I spent several hours reading some fasc...Colleen- <br /><br />I spent several hours reading some fascinating 'alternative history' of the Vatican & Papacy. By 'alternative', I mean that which is in marked contrast to the company song:p <br /><br />This was preparatory to writing something on the topic. But one item in particular stands out:<br /><br />The entire justification for the largest & oldest corporate entity, theocracy with incredible wealth & hegemony......hinges on one single passage in Matthew? <br /><br />A passage which - ignoring some VERY serious linguistic issues - does NOT appear in the other 3 Canonical Gospels? And whose words are carved in huge gilt letters around the base of the dome of St. Peter's? <br /><br />Yet these words - which follow shortly after in the same chapter - and are present in the other Gospels - are nowhere to be found in the Vatican. Christ to Peter:<br /><br />"Get behind me, Satan! For thou desirest the things of man, nor of God".<br /><br />Anon Y. MouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-82514468887097300242010-07-21T22:49:39.775-06:002010-07-21T22:49:39.775-06:00The structure of the Catholic Church reminds me of...The structure of the Catholic Church reminds me of an archaic bridge across a swift river. It is ricked and certain to fail in a matter some time, probably shorter than we know. A new bridge for man to build his own spirituality is desperately needed but the RCC is intent on making few repairs and claiming that we should return to this old structure. In fact the only repairs the RCC feels it needs, is to mold a few more supports that model the ones of 500 years ago. There is complete denial of the weight of the current vehicles that we need to pass over these dangerous waters. <br /><br />The Church could decide to make a new strong structure and try to base its myths on a more truthful approach, but to the leaders that seems to mean a collapse. Unless there is change in our structure, this archaic institution continues to implode on itself designating an ever fewer number of Catholics and leaving out critical thinkers.<br /><br />The Church, as it is structured, is a detriment to salvaging spirituality or giving continuity and guidance for an ever heavy and complicated bridge for humanity. I fear that there will be much violence before enough people will again see Christ's true message of love. The Church's moral teachings have not been the vanguard for ethical evolutionary thought. It has rather been a defense of the old. Secular society not clerical society has been leading ethics more that the RCC. There have been some good spiritual leaders, including the current Dali Lama, Martin Luther King and Ghandi. Perhaps, society will produce another successor of this group to lead, but these progressive leaders, like Christ tend to be murdered before they produce a kingdom in this world that will follow them. For this reason, I fear bloodshed in a world led by predatory capitalism. A political structure that the church tends to support. <br /><br />I believe that spirituality will be found in smaller groups of thoughtful prayerful people no matter the denomination, Christian or not. The idea that the Catholic Church will come to the rescue seems absurd to me. They never have and simply will not change quickly enough to deal with this ever more complicated world. dennisrdp46https://www.blogger.com/profile/04427786268228285222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-40715403343871899392010-07-21T16:53:19.650-06:002010-07-21T16:53:19.650-06:00I may be your most secular, least religious regula...I may be your most secular, least religious regular reader. I'll leave the more spiritual side of the discussion to others.<br /><br />When it comes to organization, leadership and decision making the Catholic Church needs a complete change. <br /><br />In 1943 the Chairman of IBM, Thomas Watson Sr. said "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." He was the world's foremost expert in the world's foremost company. <br /><br />I prefer to think of the Vatican and the Curia as shortsighted (rather than outright stupid or evil) people. They are making the classical mistake that Generals do when they "fight the last war" by using strategies and tactics that worked in the past. They might not be appropriate for the present or future. <br /><br />The Church, as an organization, needs to challenge, inspire and transform the people of the world. <br /><br />Otherwise it will die. <br /><br />p2p<br /><br />Word Verification: vises<br /><br />As in get your head out of the vises, Cardinals!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-43696179713823291972010-07-21T11:28:28.676-06:002010-07-21T11:28:28.676-06:00I have come to see the "church" - or I t...I have come to see the "church" - or I try to do so - from a God's eye view. There is an underlying unity, but persons have fractured what God has united and keeps uniting, in spite of all our human dissensions. I also see, from my "God's eye view" that God welcomes all comers to the Kingdom - whether they call it Kingdom or by another name. It is so clear that Jesus had to come within one tradition. And, becoming man, he was limited by time and space and culture and the tradition into which he came - which sadly rejected him, for the most part. <br /><br />God persists, in spite of rejections. Christ is with his "church" - but the Kingdom cannot be equated with the Roman-labeled institution as it claims - though I'm sure that statement could be viewed by some as heretical. <br /><br />God is guiding all seekers who humbly knock and light their lamps (and keep them lit) as best they can. <br /><br />Many people recite the creed. And believe it. It's almost amusing that so many, from different directions, can recite "one, holy, catholic" - while feuding!<br /><br />I'm giving a link (again) that discusses, within Eastern Orthodoxy - but you could extend it - <b>how mysticism and Liturgy complement one another and are born from the same well</b>, co-mingling you could say, from within the Old Testament tradition, emerging in the New with the Person of Jesus. Follow the link. Look for "Liturgy and Mysticism" (parts one and two)<br /><br />http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/<br /><br />You will see, from the first page, that Fr. Golitzin understands that mysticism is part of stream, from which all spiritual traditions may drink. I think this paper (which is in two pdf's) goes a long way toward understanding the necessity of mysticism in "carrying" the tradition, because these are the people who drink most deeply from the Divine stream - whose experiences validate and verify the Eternal Truths - and who themselves recognize that the Liturgy (or however a tradition makes use of ritual and symbol and ceremony to provide the believer with a touchstone for the experience of God and the path for seeking Truth) feeds that search, that experience, that deepest heart where one connects with the Deep Heart of Holy Mystery.TheraPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-11302996300378362202010-07-21T08:20:08.717-06:002010-07-21T08:20:08.717-06:00A good question, Colleen, which we should all thin...A good question, Colleen, which we should all think about, hard.<br /><br />Certainly, we must get much closer to the figure of Christ, and downgrade the obsession with the Holy Roman Empire around the papacy; <br />we need to recall the "teaching authority" of the church is just that, teaching authority, not legislative power, and teachers can be wrong;<br />We must recognise that in the modern world, lay people are often better educated than the clergy - even in theology, and certainly in secular fields; <br />We need to grow in spiritual maturity, learning to discern when the designated "leaders" are plain wrong, and what we really are called to do;<br />AND<br />to be willing to follow those calls <br />into our lives - coupling spiritual practice with (discerned) action in the world.Terence Weldonhttp://Queering-the-church.com/blognoreply@blogger.com