Familiaris Consortio

Discuss the Christian Faith.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39023
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Familiaris Consortio

Post by spot »

I thought this might come in useful over the next few weeks, if anyone wants to discuss current events.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Familiaris Consortio

Post by AnneBoleyn »

You mean, of course, current events in the Catholic Church. Is there anything you want to say about the modern catholic family conference?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39023
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Familiaris Consortio

Post by spot »

Nothing at all, so far. It has yet to put its foot in its mouth.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Familiaris Consortio

Post by gmc »

spot;1465991 wrote: Nothing at all, so far. It has yet to put its foot in its mouth.


If only that were the only appendage they put in appropriate places.
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6447
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Familiaris Consortio

Post by FourPart »

gmc;1466028 wrote: If only that were the only appendage they put in appropriate places.
Yes, they really must stop sucking their thumbs.
User avatar
along-for-the-ride
Posts: 11732
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:28 pm

Familiaris Consortio

Post by along-for-the-ride »

I am interested in any changes in doctrine for divorced Catholics. I would like to resume participating in the sacrament of Communion at Mass, but I don't feel right having to annul my first marriage to do so. I have children from that marriage.
Life is a Highway. Let's share the Commute.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39023
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Familiaris Consortio

Post by spot »

The first potential bombshell dropped today.Monday's report, issued half-way through the two-week meeting, said: "Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? [...] Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions, it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners."

BBC News - Vatican family review signals Catholic shift on gays

Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39023
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Familiaris Consortio

Post by spot »

along-for-the-ride;1466048 wrote: I am interested in any changes in doctrine for divorced Catholics. I would like to resume participating in the sacrament of Communion at Mass, but I don't feel right having to annul my first marriage to do so. I have children from that marriage.


A hint emerged yesterday...Cardinal Walter Kasper has said he thinks a “growing majority” of the synod members are in favor of his proposal to allow some divorced-and-civilly-remarried Catholics to receive holy Communion.

Speaking to the Register’s Rome correspondent Edward Pentin as he came out of Tuesday evening’s small working-group discussions, the German cardinal said the “growing majority are in favor of an opening.”

“I saw it [an opening] — but it’s more of a feeling,” he said, adding that the synod has yet to vote on it. He added that the Holy Father has been “silent” about his opinion and “has listened very carefully” during the synod, “but it’s clearly what he wants, and that’s evident,” he added.

“He wants a major part of the episcopacy with him, and he needs it. He cannot do it against the majority of the episcopacy,” Cardinal Kasper said. He added that the Pope had told him problems exist “in his family” and that he has “looked at the laity and seen the great majority are for a reasonable, responsible opening.”

Cardinal Kasper Continues Campaign to Allow Communion for Divorced and Remarried | Daily News | NCRegister.com

Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
disciple
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:12 pm

Familiaris Consortio

Post by disciple »

spot;1466182 wrote: A hint emerged yesterday...Cardinal Walter Kasper has said he thinks a “growing majority” of the synod members are in favor of...[/url]




Shouldn't Jesus and not the "growing majority" be the one that establishes what we follow doctrinally?
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Familiaris Consortio

Post by AnneBoleyn »

disciple;1467383 wrote: Shouldn't Jesus and not the "growing majority" be the one that establishes what we follow doctrinally?


Jesus didn't mention gay marriage, etc. I'm supposing that means 'ignore it.'
disciple
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:12 pm

Familiaris Consortio

Post by disciple »

The only thing Jesus mentioned about marriage is that: in the beginning he made them male and female...

If you look at marriage it was always a family affair and not a religious one. Why do you feel it necessary to stick your nose into other peoples sexual lives?

If you are against gay marriage don't marry a person of the same sex, but what does their actions have to do with you?

If you look at Jesus' teachings they all have to do with dealing with one's inward response to the outward world. eg. don't lay up your treasures on earth... don't worry about your bread and water: don't care about material possessions but rather care about people. Don't judge (pursue judgment upon) others: Forgive and love them instead. Forgive those that offend you: don't hold their debts against them. So which part of Jesus' teachings gives you the right to control others sexual behaviors? None.

If you don't agree with homosexuality you are still obligated to love the homosexual, just don't do it yourself.
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6447
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Familiaris Consortio

Post by FourPart »

AnneBoleyn;1467401 wrote: Jesus didn't mention gay marriage, etc. I'm supposing that means 'ignore it.'
This is an attitude which seems to be typical to religion. "Jesus didn't say anything about such-and-such", therefore it defaults that because He didn't expressly approve, then it must be forbidden. How come, then, we get so many Religious fanatics online. Jesus didn't say anything about the Internet.
disciple
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:12 pm

Familiaris Consortio

Post by disciple »

FourPart;1467404 wrote: This is an attitude which seems to be typical to religion. "Jesus didn't say anything about such-and-such", therefore it defaults that because He didn't expressly approve, then it must be forbidden. How come, then, we get so many Religious fanatics online. Jesus didn't say anything about the Internet.


While homosexuality is a moral issue and it is true that religion tends to deal with what is moral, I think the problem with today's Christian religion is it fails to understand Christ. On one hand it sees Christ exposing the religious hypocrisy of those who came to stem his popularity (the pharisees etc.) and on the other hand it sees his teachings which tend to contradict his actions towards those religious people. If I may, I suggest that Jesus needed to express the faults of the religious, to ensure his teachings could be understood in contrast by those who were listening to him. If Jesus would not have drawn a line in the sand, sort-of-speak, then he might have been seen as being the same as them, just as I feel the same need to separate myself from those who claim to be Christians today; I stand in opposition to today's church-goers as I see they embrace an intellectual belief system instead of a practical one.

A person's religion should teach them to treat others as equals... if it tries to control others then it is bound to create hostility in others, as others mirroring the same religion would seek to control them and in order to embrace the same religion war must follow. On the other hand, if it treats others with respect and teaches its follower to deal with struggles by embracing inward peace as the goal, then that religion can be mirrored and embraced by all.

One thing I have come to learn is any time a person acts out of emotional agitation it is the equivalent of two wrongs... they feel wronged and thus they are agitated and by acting out of that agitation they exacerbate the situation. Having stated that, I see all of Jesus' teachings as attempting to teach his followers to respond to others by defusing bad energy in his followers hearts. But if Jesus' teachings are not followed they have no value and this is the problem I have with today's churches: they have created an intellectual ideological system (system of accepted ideas) instead of a practical (practiced) one.
FG
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:35 pm

Familiaris Consortio

Post by FG »

disciple;1467403 wrote: The only thing Jesus mentioned about marriage is that: in the beginning he made them male and female...


Go on, I'll bite - where is Jesus recorded as mentioning that?


☎|||||||||||

Who has a spare two minutes a day to play in this month's FG Trivia game!



Your satisfactory is our goals
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6447
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Familiaris Consortio

Post by FourPart »

I am totally Anti-Religious and can, therefore, never accept that He was ever the Son of a non-existent Deity. However, I do accept that he existed, only as a man with some totally revolutionary views on the perception of morals & how to live in peace with each other - much like a Modern Day Hippy. As, I think it was Rigsby, in "Rising Damp" once put it, "Of course he was a hippy... Long hair, beard, wore sandals, didn't have a job, always talking about 'peace, man'"... The problem was that his ideas were so revolutionary that it scared those who it opposed & made those that followed Him raise him to the status of a God.
FG
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:35 pm

Familiaris Consortio

Post by FG »

FourPart;1467412 wrote: I am totally Anti-Religious and can, therefore, never accept that He was ever the Son of a non-existent Deity. However, I do accept that he existed, only as a man with some totally revolutionary views on the perception of morals & how to live in peace with each other - much like a Modern Day Hippy. As, I think it was Rigsby, in "Rising Damp" once put it, "Of course he was a hippy... Long hair, beard, wore sandals, didn't have a job, always talking about 'peace, man'"... The problem was that his ideas were so revolutionary that it scared those who it opposed & made those that followed Him raise him to the status of a God.All you're doing is making up a story for yourself. It's a perfectly reasonable story, it just has no basis in reality. Neither has any other story based on dogmatic assertions. You have no reason whatsoever to "accept that he existed", any more than you have reason to think Plato's possibly fictional antihero Socrates ever existed or that, to stretch into the blatantly fictional, Brer Rabbit ever existed. Why not stick to what's demonstrably true instead, that people after the destruction of Jerusalem in 72AD collated tales about an assortment of antiheroes into a small number of roughly-coherent stories about Jesus and his mother and his three wise men and some disciples and several people called Herod.


☎|||||||||||

Who has a spare two minutes a day to play in this month's FG Trivia game!



Your satisfactory is our goals
disciple
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:12 pm

Familiaris Consortio

Post by disciple »

FG;1467411 wrote: Go on, I'll bite - where is Jesus recorded as mentioning that?


Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

and it is also mentioned in Mar 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

Mar 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

Mar 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

Mar 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Mar 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Mar 10:10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

Mar 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Mar 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
FG
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:35 pm

Familiaris Consortio

Post by FG »

disciple;1467419 wrote: Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

and it is also mentioned in Mar 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

Mar 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

Mar 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

Mar 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Mar 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Mar 10:10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

Mar 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Mar 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.


Ah. He was evidently subject to the local cultural bigotry of his time and place then. That's scarcely a good reason to have it transposed from that time and place to here and now though, is it.


☎|||||||||||

Who has a spare two minutes a day to play in this month's FG Trivia game!



Your satisfactory is our goals
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6447
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Familiaris Consortio

Post by FourPart »

Actually, by that quote he was only reporting that it had been written in a book. It wasn't anything he had said.
FG
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:35 pm

Familiaris Consortio

Post by FG »

FourPart;1467432 wrote: Actually, by that quote he was only reporting that it had been written in a book. It wasn't anything he had said.


"And said, For this cause [...]" - he gave his own conclusion on the question at issue, that question being divorce. Same-sex marriage was at that time not a concern when divorce was under discussion. Had it been, who can guess how Jesus would have responded in that changed circumstance.


☎|||||||||||

Who has a spare two minutes a day to play in this month's FG Trivia game!



Your satisfactory is our goals
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6447
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Familiaris Consortio

Post by FourPart »

That is all it is, though - guesswork. After which it's only another step before it's interpreted as being a commandment laid down in doctrine, etc., which leads to more guesses about other things, and so on.
disciple
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:12 pm

Familiaris Consortio

Post by disciple »

Jesus kept quiet on the issue of homosexuality and I personally see no need to have to address it, as I have absolutely no personal slant towards being homosexual. I don't know why you seem to have a problem with people personally being against it, any more than I see why others have a problem with other being for it. PEOPLE'S SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS THEIR OWN BUSINESS and I don't see why people feel compelled to tell others how they should act: save and except for how they treat others.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Familiaris Consortio

Post by AnneBoleyn »

FourPart;1467404 wrote: This is an attitude which seems to be typical to religion. "Jesus didn't say anything about such-and-such", therefore it defaults that because He didn't expressly approve, then it must be forbidden. How come, then, we get so many Religious fanatics online. Jesus didn't say anything about the Internet.


I actually meant the opposite of how you & disciple took my comment. In fact, I don't understand how you arrived at your conclusions at all. Oh well. I should have learned my lessons from dealing with whats his name, oh, yes, mikkel, & just, like Jesus, ignore this discussion as I'm betting he would have.

Return to “Christianity”