I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
Post Reply
User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 24868
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Rusty » Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:05 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:I do, however, view it as a weak link. I view it as an opportunity for a shepherd to do his job (protect the flock) and the hierarchy of shepherds at one point in time had made a law (a good one!) that has unfortunately in this scenario tied his hands behind his back. I don't think it was the cause, I do think it was/is a hindrance that is antithetical (in this situation) to his job as a shepherd and I think the Scriptures adequately address situations like this; justice being overlooked on account of religious rules. I'll likely not back down on that stance so long as I'm not Roman Catholic, which shouldn't surprise anyone, but it probably means we are at a point that we can't go much farther beyond. For what it's worth, I can see from your pov why you'd think I might sound rather combustible :D
Why would anyone even go to a priest — indeed, what possible benefit could possibly be derived? — if the priest was nothing more than an arm of the worldly Powers, whether of the Church or the State
Yep, this is pretty much the way I think of priests. What can they do?

But when you put it like this...
wosbald wrote:The priest must be Christ (in persona Christi/alter Christus). The priest must be He who can't be coopted or controlled by any earthly Power.
Why would you go to ANYONE ELSE for ANYTHING? Need a tooth filled? Have the priest ask God to heal it. Need a solution to a tough maths problem. Relay the request through the priest. If God can't solve it then who can? Got cancer... no problem.

Of course it really doesn't seem to work that way in practice. Which is a bit disappointing.
Whaddya mean you haven't a clue?

I'm not in favour of priests breaking vows that apply to confession anymore than I think lawyers should rat us out.

But I do think the Catholic Church really went really wrong on the child abuse stuff. They did everything wrong. And they probably still have more country-scale crises (like Australia) to go. I don't understand their meager idea of progress on a problem that is such a threat.
Last edited by Rusty on Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I am not the orthodox light-quantizer for whom you take me." Einstein reassurance to Lorentz, Jan. 1911

Image

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14287
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:08 pm

Rusty wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:I do, however, view it as a weak link. I view it as an opportunity for a shepherd to do his job (protect the flock) and the hierarchy of shepherds at one point in time had made a law (a good one!) that has unfortunately in this scenario tied his hands behind his back. I don't think it was the cause, I do think it was/is a hindrance that is antithetical (in this situation) to his job as a shepherd and I think the Scriptures adequately address situations like this; justice being overlooked on account of religious rules. I'll likely not back down on that stance so long as I'm not Roman Catholic, which shouldn't surprise anyone, but it probably means we are at a point that we can't go much farther beyond. For what it's worth, I can see from your pov why you'd think I might sound rather combustible :D
Why would anyone even go to a priest — indeed, what possible benefit could possibly be derived? — if the priest was nothing more than an arm of the worldly Powers, whether of the Church or the State
Yep, this is pretty much the way I think of priests. What can they do?

But when you put it like this...
wosbald wrote:The priest must be Christ (in persona Christi/alter Christus). The priest must be He who can't be coopted or controlled by any earthly Power.
Why would you go to ANYONE ELSE for ANYTHING? Need a tooth filled? Have the priest ask God to heal it. Need a solution to a tough maths problem. Relay the request through the priest. If God can't solve it then who can? Got cancer... no problem.

Of course it really doesn't seem to work that way in practice. Which is a bit disappointing.
Whaddya mean you haven't a clue?

I'm not in favour of priests breaking vows that apply to confession anymore than I think lawyers should rat us out.

But I do think the Catholic Church really went really wrong on the child abuse stuff. They did everything wrong. And they probably still have more country-scale crises (like Australia) to go.
Yup. Nailed it in that last paragraph.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 11916
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:17 am

hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:I do, however, view it as a weak link. I view it as an opportunity for a shepherd to do his job (protect the flock) and the hierarchy of shepherds at one point in time had made a law (a good one!) that has unfortunately in this scenario tied his hands behind his back. I don't think it was the cause, I do think it was/is a hindrance that is antithetical (in this situation) to his job as a shepherd and I think the Scriptures adequately address situations like this; justice being overlooked on account of religious rules. I'll likely not back down on that stance so long as I'm not Roman Catholic, which shouldn't surprise anyone, but it probably means we are at a point that we can't go much farther beyond. For what it's worth, I can see from your pov why you'd think I might sound rather combustible :D
Why would anyone even go to a priest — indeed, what possible benefit could possibly be derived? — if the priest was nothing more than an arm of the worldly Powers, whether of the Church or the State? The priest must be Christ (in persona Christi/alter Christus). The priest must be He who can't be coopted or controlled by any earthly Power.

This goes to the heart of just what Sacramentalism is and why it can't compute to those whose raison d'être rejects this Sacramental faith.

The Confessional Seal is not a law made "at one point in time". It's Tradition and not tradition. Which is why the Powers can legislate vis-à-vis the Sacrament. For example, canon law could conceivably remove the prescription of excommunication (whether this would be prudent move or not is a secondary consideration). Or civil law could, in an anti-Catholic gambit, legislate that priests rat-out the privileged info of suspicious penitents. But neither can remove the fundamental Sacramental obligation of the Seal.
Well, yes. Of course, even. But poor tuttle. You just made his head explode.
My head does not a splode*. I'm fully aware that sacramentalism is at play, which is one of the reasons I wasn't willing to say 'nu uh!' about because it would derail the thread. I do not believe the priest in Confession is in any way in persona Christi in a sacramental way (I did say I was aware of sounding combustible...). That undergirded my initial reaction, twas assumed to be the case, and was solidified after doing some research, so it didn't slip under my radar and cause a malfunction in the computation portion of my brain. I simply was wondering how one (the lack of justice) weighed against the other (the Seal) and my ignorance resided in why one outweighed the other. My research proved to be illuminating. Where I was blind, now I see.

No one would go to a priest if he was nothing more than an arm of the worldy Powers. That is not what I am suggesting in the least (tho I can see why it might seem as such to you and so, as I said, we might not be able to go much farther). However, give me a priest who, like David and Jesus, cares for his flock, feeds his flock, and also kills the lion and the bear looking to harm the flock, who in no qualified terms calls a wolf a wolf and kicks out anyone who would harm the least of these. My protestant self would confess to such a priest. There is a reason I believe Paul emphasized that elders be men of integrity recognized as such by those inside and outside of the church (therefore his integrity is credible in his relation to people, not a system), and able to discern rightly, and charged to protect the flock from those who seek to do harm.

The other question one might consider; why would the victim of a priestly predator confess to anyone who being so restricted by their sacramentalism allowed predators to continue preying upon the flock, perhaps even that particular lamb itself?

But as I said, this will ultimately come down between the protestant rejecting the catholic's sacramentalism, a position I personally do not expect you or any Catholics to drop, therefore leaving us all at the crossroads. We could call each other names, or we could for the moment recognize that we're not going to figure it out on a pipe smoker forum. Not to say that it hasn't been beneficial.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14287
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:40 am

tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:I do, however, view it as a weak link. I view it as an opportunity for a shepherd to do his job (protect the flock) and the hierarchy of shepherds at one point in time had made a law (a good one!) that has unfortunately in this scenario tied his hands behind his back. I don't think it was the cause, I do think it was/is a hindrance that is antithetical (in this situation) to his job as a shepherd and I think the Scriptures adequately address situations like this; justice being overlooked on account of religious rules. I'll likely not back down on that stance so long as I'm not Roman Catholic, which shouldn't surprise anyone, but it probably means we are at a point that we can't go much farther beyond. For what it's worth, I can see from your pov why you'd think I might sound rather combustible :D
Why would anyone even go to a priest — indeed, what possible benefit could possibly be derived? — if the priest was nothing more than an arm of the worldly Powers, whether of the Church or the State? The priest must be Christ (in persona Christi/alter Christus). The priest must be He who can't be coopted or controlled by any earthly Power.

This goes to the heart of just what Sacramentalism is and why it can't compute to those whose raison d'être rejects this Sacramental faith.

The Confessional Seal is not a law made "at one point in time". It's Tradition and not tradition. Which is why the Powers can legislate vis-à-vis the Sacrament. For example, canon law could conceivably remove the prescription of excommunication (whether this would be prudent move or not is a secondary consideration). Or civil law could, in an anti-Catholic gambit, legislate that priests rat-out the privileged info of suspicious penitents. But neither can remove the fundamental Sacramental obligation of the Seal.
Well, yes. Of course, even. But poor tuttle. You just made his head explode.
My head does not a splode*. I'm fully aware that sacramentalism is at play, which is one of the reasons I wasn't willing to say 'nu uh!' about because it would derail the thread. I do not believe the priest in Confession is in any way in persona Christi in a sacramental way (I did say I was aware of sounding combustible...). That undergirded my initial reaction, twas assumed to be the case, and was solidified after doing some research, so it didn't slip under my radar and cause a malfunction in the computation portion of my brain. I simply was wondering how one (the lack of justice) weighed against the other (the Seal) and my ignorance resided in why one outweighed the other. My research proved to be illuminating. Where I was blind, now I see.

No one would go to a priest if he was nothing more than an arm of the worldy Powers. That is not what I am suggesting in the least (tho I can see why it might seem as such to you and so, as I said, we might not be able to go much farther). However, give me a priest who, like David and Jesus, cares for his flock, feeds his flock, and also kills the lion and the bear looking to harm the flock, who in no qualified terms calls a wolf a wolf and kicks out anyone who would harm the least of these. My protestant self would confess to such a priest. There is a reason I believe Paul emphasized that elders be men of integrity recognized as such by those inside and outside of the church (therefore his integrity is credible in his relation to people, not a system), and able to discern rightly, and charged to protect the flock from those who seek to do harm.

The other question one might consider; why would the victim of a priestly predator confess to anyone who being so restricted by their sacramentalism allowed predators to continue preying upon the flock, perhaps even that particular lamb itself?

But as I said, this will ultimately come down between the protestant rejecting the catholic's sacramentalism, a position I personally do not expect you or any Catholics to drop, therefore leaving us all at the crossroads. We could call each other names, or we could for the moment recognize that we're not going to figure it out on a pipe smoker forum. Not to say that it hasn't been beneficial.
That's it. Get the green wood, Wos. Dude apologizes too much.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 17800
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:02 am

+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:
tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:
tuttle wrote:I do, however, view it as a weak link. I view it as an opportunity for a shepherd to do his job (protect the flock) and the hierarchy of shepherds at one point in time had made a law (a good one!) that has unfortunately in this scenario tied his hands behind his back. I don't think it was the cause, I do think it was/is a hindrance that is antithetical (in this situation) to his job as a shepherd and I think the Scriptures adequately address situations like this; justice being overlooked on account of religious rules. I'll likely not back down on that stance so long as I'm not Roman Catholic, which shouldn't surprise anyone, but it probably means we are at a point that we can't go much farther beyond. For what it's worth, I can see from your pov why you'd think I might sound rather combustible :D
Why would anyone even go to a priest — indeed, what possible benefit could possibly be derived? — if the priest was nothing more than an arm of the worldly Powers, whether of the Church or the State? The priest must be Christ (in persona Christi/alter Christus). The priest must be He who can't be coopted or controlled by any earthly Power.

This goes to the heart of just what Sacramentalism is and why it can't compute to those whose raison d'être rejects this Sacramental faith.

The Confessional Seal is not a law made "at one point in time". It's Tradition and not tradition. Which is why the Powers can legislate vis-à-vis the Sacrament. For example, canon law could conceivably remove the prescription of excommunication (whether this would be prudent move or not is a secondary consideration). Or civil law could, in an anti-Catholic gambit, legislate that priests rat-out the privileged info of suspicious penitents. But neither can remove the fundamental Sacramental obligation of the Seal.
Well, yes. Of course, even. But poor tuttle. You just made his head explode.
My head does not a splode*. I'm fully aware that sacramentalism is at play, which is one of the reasons I wasn't willing to say 'nu uh!' about because it would derail the thread. I do not believe the priest in Confession is in any way in persona Christi in a sacramental way (I did say I was aware of sounding combustible...). That undergirded my initial reaction, twas assumed to be the case, and was solidified after doing some research, so it didn't slip under my radar and cause a malfunction in the computation portion of my brain. I simply was wondering how one (the lack of justice) weighed against the other (the Seal) and my ignorance resided in why one outweighed the other. My research proved to be illuminating. Where I was blind, now I see.

No one would go to a priest if he was nothing more than an arm of the worldy Powers. That is not what I am suggesting in the least (tho I can see why it might seem as such to you and so, as I said, we might not be able to go much farther). However, give me a priest who, like David and Jesus, cares for his flock, feeds his flock, and also kills the lion and the bear looking to harm the flock, who in no qualified terms calls a wolf a wolf and kicks out anyone who would harm the least of these. My protestant self would confess to such a priest. There is a reason I believe Paul emphasized that elders be men of integrity recognized as such by those inside and outside of the church (therefore his integrity is credible in his relation to people, not a system), and able to discern rightly, and charged to protect the flock from those who seek to do harm.

The other question one might consider; why would the victim of a priestly predator confess to anyone who being so restricted by their sacramentalism allowed predators to continue preying upon the flock, perhaps even that particular lamb itself?

But as I said, this will ultimately come down between the protestant rejecting the catholic's sacramentalism, a position I personally do not expect you or any Catholics to drop, therefore leaving us all at the crossroads. We could call each other names, or we could for the moment recognize that we're not going to figure it out on a pipe smoker forum. Not to say that it hasn't been beneficial.
That's it. Get the green wood, Wos. Dude apologizes too much.
Image




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35481
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Del » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:13 am

hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:
tuttle wrote:I do, however, view it as a weak link. I view it as an opportunity for a shepherd to do his job (protect the flock) and the hierarchy of shepherds at one point in time had made a law (a good one!) that has unfortunately in this scenario tied his hands behind his back. I don't think it was the cause, I do think it was/is a hindrance that is antithetical (in this situation) to his job as a shepherd and I think the Scriptures adequately address situations like this; justice being overlooked on account of religious rules. I'll likely not back down on that stance so long as I'm not Roman Catholic, which shouldn't surprise anyone, but it probably means we are at a point that we can't go much farther beyond. For what it's worth, I can see from your pov why you'd think I might sound rather combustible :D
Why would anyone even go to a priest — indeed, what possible benefit could possibly be derived? — if the priest was nothing more than an arm of the worldly Powers, whether of the Church or the State? The priest must be Christ (in persona Christi/alter Christus). The priest must be He who can't be coopted or controlled by any earthly Power.

This goes to the heart of just what Sacramentalism is and why it can't compute to those whose raison d'être rejects this Sacramental faith.

The Confessional Seal is not a law made "at one point in time". It's Tradition and not tradition. Which is why the Powers can legislate vis-à-vis the Sacrament. For example, canon law could conceivably remove the prescription of excommunication (whether this would be prudent move or not is a secondary consideration). Or civil law could, in an anti-Catholic gambit, legislate that priests rat-out the privileged info of suspicious penitents. But neither can remove the fundamental Sacramental obligation of the Seal.
Well, yes. Of course, even. But poor tuttle. You just made his head explode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRWddZlEXzs
Ok. I definitely laughed.

I must, simply must meet you. Life is stern and life is earnest, but we live 90 miles apart. Find us a mutually acceptable pilgrimage. We'll tease some Lutherans on the way back, I promise.
You two will have to drunk-dial me in and let me know how it's going!
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14287
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:35 am

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:
tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:
tuttle wrote:I do, however, view it as a weak link. I view it as an opportunity for a shepherd to do his job (protect the flock) and the hierarchy of shepherds at one point in time had made a law (a good one!) that has unfortunately in this scenario tied his hands behind his back. I don't think it was the cause, I do think it was/is a hindrance that is antithetical (in this situation) to his job as a shepherd and I think the Scriptures adequately address situations like this; justice being overlooked on account of religious rules. I'll likely not back down on that stance so long as I'm not Roman Catholic, which shouldn't surprise anyone, but it probably means we are at a point that we can't go much farther beyond. For what it's worth, I can see from your pov why you'd think I might sound rather combustible :D
Why would anyone even go to a priest — indeed, what possible benefit could possibly be derived? — if the priest was nothing more than an arm of the worldly Powers, whether of the Church or the State? The priest must be Christ (in persona Christi/alter Christus). The priest must be He who can't be coopted or controlled by any earthly Power.

This goes to the heart of just what Sacramentalism is and why it can't compute to those whose raison d'être rejects this Sacramental faith.

The Confessional Seal is not a law made "at one point in time". It's Tradition and not tradition. Which is why the Powers can legislate vis-à-vis the Sacrament. For example, canon law could conceivably remove the prescription of excommunication (whether this would be prudent move or not is a secondary consideration). Or civil law could, in an anti-Catholic gambit, legislate that priests rat-out the privileged info of suspicious penitents. But neither can remove the fundamental Sacramental obligation of the Seal.
Well, yes. Of course, even. But poor tuttle. You just made his head explode.
My head does not a splode*. I'm fully aware that sacramentalism is at play, which is one of the reasons I wasn't willing to say 'nu uh!' about because it would derail the thread. I do not believe the priest in Confession is in any way in persona Christi in a sacramental way (I did say I was aware of sounding combustible...). That undergirded my initial reaction, twas assumed to be the case, and was solidified after doing some research, so it didn't slip under my radar and cause a malfunction in the computation portion of my brain. I simply was wondering how one (the lack of justice) weighed against the other (the Seal) and my ignorance resided in why one outweighed the other. My research proved to be illuminating. Where I was blind, now I see.

No one would go to a priest if he was nothing more than an arm of the worldy Powers. That is not what I am suggesting in the least (tho I can see why it might seem as such to you and so, as I said, we might not be able to go much farther). However, give me a priest who, like David and Jesus, cares for his flock, feeds his flock, and also kills the lion and the bear looking to harm the flock, who in no qualified terms calls a wolf a wolf and kicks out anyone who would harm the least of these. My protestant self would confess to such a priest. There is a reason I believe Paul emphasized that elders be men of integrity recognized as such by those inside and outside of the church (therefore his integrity is credible in his relation to people, not a system), and able to discern rightly, and charged to protect the flock from those who seek to do harm.

The other question one might consider; why would the victim of a priestly predator confess to anyone who being so restricted by their sacramentalism allowed predators to continue preying upon the flock, perhaps even that particular lamb itself?

But as I said, this will ultimately come down between the protestant rejecting the catholic's sacramentalism, a position I personally do not expect you or any Catholics to drop, therefore leaving us all at the crossroads. We could call each other names, or we could for the moment recognize that we're not going to figure it out on a pipe smoker forum. Not to say that it hasn't been beneficial.
That's it. Get the green wood, Wos. Dude apologizes too much.
Image
I want a burning at the stake smiley. Why has this not been done?
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35481
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Del » Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:23 pm

hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:
tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:
tuttle wrote:I do, however, view it as a weak link. I view it as an opportunity for a shepherd to do his job (protect the flock) and the hierarchy of shepherds at one point in time had made a law (a good one!) that has unfortunately in this scenario tied his hands behind his back. I don't think it was the cause, I do think it was/is a hindrance that is antithetical (in this situation) to his job as a shepherd and I think the Scriptures adequately address situations like this; justice being overlooked on account of religious rules. I'll likely not back down on that stance so long as I'm not Roman Catholic, which shouldn't surprise anyone, but it probably means we are at a point that we can't go much farther beyond. For what it's worth, I can see from your pov why you'd think I might sound rather combustible :D
Why would anyone even go to a priest — indeed, what possible benefit could possibly be derived? — if the priest was nothing more than an arm of the worldly Powers, whether of the Church or the State? The priest must be Christ (in persona Christi/alter Christus). The priest must be He who can't be coopted or controlled by any earthly Power.

This goes to the heart of just what Sacramentalism is and why it can't compute to those whose raison d'être rejects this Sacramental faith.

The Confessional Seal is not a law made "at one point in time". It's Tradition and not tradition. Which is why the Powers can legislate vis-à-vis the Sacrament. For example, canon law could conceivably remove the prescription of excommunication (whether this would be prudent move or not is a secondary consideration). Or civil law could, in an anti-Catholic gambit, legislate that priests rat-out the privileged info of suspicious penitents. But neither can remove the fundamental Sacramental obligation of the Seal.
Well, yes. Of course, even. But poor tuttle. You just made his head explode.
My head does not a splode*. I'm fully aware that sacramentalism is at play, which is one of the reasons I wasn't willing to say 'nu uh!' about because it would derail the thread. I do not believe the priest in Confession is in any way in persona Christi in a sacramental way (I did say I was aware of sounding combustible...). That undergirded my initial reaction, twas assumed to be the case, and was solidified after doing some research, so it didn't slip under my radar and cause a malfunction in the computation portion of my brain. I simply was wondering how one (the lack of justice) weighed against the other (the Seal) and my ignorance resided in why one outweighed the other. My research proved to be illuminating. Where I was blind, now I see.

No one would go to a priest if he was nothing more than an arm of the worldy Powers. That is not what I am suggesting in the least (tho I can see why it might seem as such to you and so, as I said, we might not be able to go much farther). However, give me a priest who, like David and Jesus, cares for his flock, feeds his flock, and also kills the lion and the bear looking to harm the flock, who in no qualified terms calls a wolf a wolf and kicks out anyone who would harm the least of these. My protestant self would confess to such a priest. There is a reason I believe Paul emphasized that elders be men of integrity recognized as such by those inside and outside of the church (therefore his integrity is credible in his relation to people, not a system), and able to discern rightly, and charged to protect the flock from those who seek to do harm.

The other question one might consider; why would the victim of a priestly predator confess to anyone who being so restricted by their sacramentalism allowed predators to continue preying upon the flock, perhaps even that particular lamb itself?

But as I said, this will ultimately come down between the protestant rejecting the catholic's sacramentalism, a position I personally do not expect you or any Catholics to drop, therefore leaving us all at the crossroads. We could call each other names, or we could for the moment recognize that we're not going to figure it out on a pipe smoker forum. Not to say that it hasn't been beneficial.
That's it. Get the green wood, Wos. Dude apologizes too much.
Image
I want a burning at the stake smiley. Why has this not been done?
We needed this emoji to chop us up plenty of wood, first.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4



User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32040
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by UncleBob » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:20 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:13 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:01 pm
Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian
"So many Christians are like this, and these people scandalize others," Francis said during morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta, according to Vatican Radio. "How many times have we heard -- all of us, around the neighborhood and elsewhere -- 'But to be a Catholic like that, it's better to be an atheist.' It is that, scandal."

"But what is scandal? Scandal is saying one thing and doing another
So what do you think he meant? Do you think he meant one should be an atheist or a Jew?
I'm still looking for the transcript of the homily but I suspect he means, "Don't be a bad Christian".
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14287
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:41 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:20 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:13 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:01 pm
Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian
"So many Christians are like this, and these people scandalize others," Francis said during morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta, according to Vatican Radio. "How many times have we heard -- all of us, around the neighborhood and elsewhere -- 'But to be a Catholic like that, it's better to be an atheist.' It is that, scandal."

"But what is scandal? Scandal is saying one thing and doing another
So what do you think he meant? Do you think he meant one should be an atheist or a Jew?
I'm still looking for the transcript of the homily but I suspect he means, "Don't be a bad Christian".
What's a bad Christian?
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32040
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by UncleBob » Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:27 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:41 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:20 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:13 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:01 pm
Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian
"So many Christians are like this, and these people scandalize others," Francis said during morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta, according to Vatican Radio. "How many times have we heard -- all of us, around the neighborhood and elsewhere -- 'But to be a Catholic like that, it's better to be an atheist.' It is that, scandal."

"But what is scandal? Scandal is saying one thing and doing another
So what do you think he meant? Do you think he meant one should be an atheist or a Jew?
I'm still looking for the transcript of the homily but I suspect he means, "Don't be a bad Christian".
What's a bad Christian?
In the quote he defined it: "scandalous" where Christians say one thing and do another.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14287
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:29 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:27 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:41 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:20 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:13 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:01 pm
Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian
"So many Christians are like this, and these people scandalize others," Francis said during morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta, according to Vatican Radio. "How many times have we heard -- all of us, around the neighborhood and elsewhere -- 'But to be a Catholic like that, it's better to be an atheist.' It is that, scandal."

"But what is scandal? Scandal is saying one thing and doing another
So what do you think he meant? Do you think he meant one should be an atheist or a Jew?
I'm still looking for the transcript of the homily but I suspect he means, "Don't be a bad Christian".
What's a bad Christian?
In the quote he defined it: "scandalous" where Christians say one thing and do another.
So you think he's saying to Catholics to not only outwardly express their religion, but inwardly live it as well?
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32040
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by UncleBob » Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:32 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:29 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:27 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:41 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:20 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:13 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:01 pm
Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian
"So many Christians are like this, and these people scandalize others," Francis said during morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta, according to Vatican Radio. "How many times have we heard -- all of us, around the neighborhood and elsewhere -- 'But to be a Catholic like that, it's better to be an atheist.' It is that, scandal."

"But what is scandal? Scandal is saying one thing and doing another
So what do you think he meant? Do you think he meant one should be an atheist or a Jew?
I'm still looking for the transcript of the homily but I suspect he means, "Don't be a bad Christian".
What's a bad Christian?
In the quote he defined it: "scandalous" where Christians say one thing and do another.
So you think he's saying to Catholics to not only outwardly express their religion, but inwardly live it as well?
If you're a Christian who exploits people, leads a double life or manages a "dirty" business, perhaps it's better not to call yourself a believer, Pope Francis suggested in a homily on Thursday in Rome.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14287
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:55 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:32 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:29 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:27 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:41 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:20 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:13 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:01 pm
Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian
"So many Christians are like this, and these people scandalize others," Francis said during morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta, according to Vatican Radio. "How many times have we heard -- all of us, around the neighborhood and elsewhere -- 'But to be a Catholic like that, it's better to be an atheist.' It is that, scandal."

"But what is scandal? Scandal is saying one thing and doing another
So what do you think he meant? Do you think he meant one should be an atheist or a Jew?
I'm still looking for the transcript of the homily but I suspect he means, "Don't be a bad Christian".
What's a bad Christian?
In the quote he defined it: "scandalous" where Christians say one thing and do another.
So you think he's saying to Catholics to not only outwardly express their religion, but inwardly live it as well?
If you're a Christian who exploits people, leads a double life or manages a "dirty" business, perhaps it's better not to call yourself a believer, Pope Francis suggested in a homily on Thursday in Rome.
So you're source for what the pope intends his words to mean is what the author says they mean? How do you know the author is accurately capturing the popes intent?

Do you think he's telling you its better to be an atheist? How could it be?
@
Sorry. I could tell you what I think it means, but all that ever does is piss off protestants.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6096
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by infidel » Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:21 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:55 pm
Sorry. I could tell you what I think it means, but all that ever does is piss off protestants.
I'm going to guess it has something to do with unrepented sin and the Eucharist. Am I close?
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 24868
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Rusty » Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:29 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:55 pm
Do you think he's telling you its better to be an atheist? How could it be?
Yes. And he's right. Those of us that are atheists or hard agnostics are living proof of that.
We're taking applications. You too could become a genuine atheist.
"I am not the orthodox light-quantizer for whom you take me." Einstein reassurance to Lorentz, Jan. 1911

Image

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14287
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:32 pm

infidel wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:21 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:55 pm
Sorry. I could tell you what I think it means, but all that ever does is piss off protestants.
I'm going to guess it has something to do with unrepented sin and the Eucharist. Am I close?
Not to me, although that might be a part of it. To me, this is the single most harsh statement out of the popes mouth--and it's very Strange doctrinally. Bob doesn't publicly endorse hate, so I'm trying to figure out if he likes it because he does or does not understand it like I do.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32040
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by UncleBob » Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:33 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:55 pm
So you're source for what the pope intends his words to mean is what the author says they mean? How do you know the author is accurately capturing the popes intent?
Direct quote. I have no idea what the Pope's intent is other than his words. Do you?
hugodrax wrote:Do you think he's telling you its better to be an atheist? How could it be?
Asked and answered.
hugodrax wrote:@
Sorry. I could tell you what I think it means, but all that ever does is piss off protestants.
When has that ever stopped you before?
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

Post Reply