Ratzinger does not tolerate "freedom of ideas" in the "Catholic" church.

John Stefanyszyn said:

ref.: BBC News - Pope Benedict XVI rebukes Austrian dissident priests

A group of dissident Austrian priests and laymen , known as the Pfarrer Initiative, have challenged the church on topics such as priestly celibacy and its ban on female priests.
About 15% of Austria's 2,000 priests signed the initiative's call for disobedience in June last year.

Speaking during a Maundy Thursday mass in the Vatican, the Pope said he would not tolerate disobedience.


Correspondents say the pontiff's criticism was unusually outspoken.

• He accused the group of making "a desperate push to do something to change the Church in accordance with one's own preferences and ideas".

Mr. Ratzinger has confessed publicly that the Roman General Church is on the side of freedom of thought and freedom of religion.
....It seems that an organized group of his priests in Austria have taken this belief to heart in appealing their desire to have the freedom to marry and for the freedom for women to become priests in the "Catholic" church.

Since Mr. Ratzinger said that he would not tolerate disobedience, will there be a "Catholic" spring for the "freedoms" that the Austrian minority is standing up for and that probably many other priests are silently waiting for.

The leaven of freedom of self-rights and freedom of religion has been preached by Mr. Ratzinger to others....he has defined a "Christ" to be the way of reconciliation, universal values, of freedom...he has said that "freedom" is the power...and now it seems that this same leaven will leaven those that serve his leadership.

Will Mr. Ratzinger react with a strong hand as did the rulers that resisted the cry for and protests for freedom of rights and equality or will he open the door to "freedoms of thought" in the "Catholic" church?

Click to expand...

You mean Pope Benedict XVI. Not sure where you're getting this bizarre idea that Pope Benedict doesn't allow diversity of thought,.

Trogool said:

You mean Pope Benedict XVI. Not sure where you're getting this bizarre idea that Pope Benedict doesn't allow diversity of thought,.

Click to expand...

I would say it was from the BBC article he quoted. Just guessin', but ...

Kinda obvious, don'tcha think?

WinBySurrender said:

I would say it was from the BBC article he quoted. Just guessin', but ...

Kinda obvious, don'tcha think?

Click to expand...

No, I don't.

WinBySurrender said:

I would say it was from the BBC article he quoted. Just guessin', but ...

Kinda obvious, don'tcha think?

Click to expand...

In fairness, the fact that the Pope will not budge on one particular issue (the ordination of women) does not mean he is completely opposed to all freedom of thought and diversity.

For one thing, no one is obligated to be Catholic if they don't agree with what the Catholic Church teaches. If you don't like the fact that they don't ordain women to the priesthood, go hop on the Episcopalian train. Because the fact is, it's not even remotely likely that Rome will ever change its opinion on that.

Trogool said:

No, I don't.

Click to expand...

Oh, well ...

KyrieEleison87 said:

In fairness, the fact that the Pope will not budge on one particular issue (the ordination of women) does not mean he is completely opposed to all freedom of thought and diversity.

Click to expand...

If he won't tolerate opposition on a subject he has refused to discuss, why would he be anymore willing to tolerate it in any other area in which he is dogmatic? That's making a massive assumption against solid evidence.

KyrieEleison87 said:

For one thing, no one is obligated to be Catholic if they don't agree with what the Catholic Church teaches. If you don't like the fact that they don't ordain women to the priesthood, go hop on the Episcopalian train. Because the fact is, it's not even remotely likely that Rome will ever change its opinion on that.

Click to expand...

See, that's another thing I don't care for regarding the Catholic church. The nature and character of the early church proves that it is not the Catholic church as they like to claim. They cooperated, they studied together, they were spiritually communal and supportive. That doesn't describe the Catholic church and certainly explains why they are hemorrhaging members at the rate of 400,000 a year. When Baptist fight, there always winds up being more Baptists in the end.

The Church is not a democracy.

Mikey123 said:

The Church is not a democracy.

Click to expand...

Maybe yours isn't. Mine is. Perhaps that's why 400,000 people a year are leaving yours.

BTW, if yours isn't a democracy, why elect a parish board?

WinBySurrender said:

If he won't tolerate opposition on a subject he has refused to discuss, why would he be anymore willing to tolerate it in any other area in which he is dogmatic?

Click to expand...

What makes you think he, or the Catholic Church in general, has refused to discuss it? It's wrong-headed to say that because he's dogmatic about something it means he isn't willing to discuss it. If someone came to the pastor(s) or elder board of your church and said they want to change the statement of faith to say that Jesus isn't God, what would your elder board say? If they shot the idea down (which they would), how would you respond if the person said, "What?? You're just too dogmatic! You're not even willing to discuss it!"

That's making a massive assumption against solid evidence.See, that's another thing I don't care for regarding the Catholic church. The nature and character of the early church proves that it is not the Catholic church as they like to claim. They cooperated, they studied together, they were spiritually communal and supportive.

Click to expand...

To suggest that those are uniquely Baptist traits would be the massive assumption against solid evidence, not anything else you've brought up.

That doesn't describe the Catholic church

Click to expand...

In what sense? How would you like to see them be more, "cooperative," study together more, or be more "spiritually communal and supportive?" While I'm definitely coming to be more and more of the opinion, from an Orthodox perspective, that the Pope is too far-reaching in his claims to authority, I have a feeling your complaints are coming from a different place altogether.

and certainly explains why they are hemorrhaging members at the rate of 400,000 a year.

Click to expand...

Where is that figure from?

When Baptist fight, there always winds up being more Baptists in the end.

Click to expand...

Really? Because I was Baptist and arguing with Baptists is what convinced me to leave.

WinBySurrender said:

Maybe yours isn't. Mine is. Perhaps that's why 400,000 people a year are leaving yours.

Click to expand...

Source?

The RCCs own figures suggest modest growth globally:


In 2010 there were just under 1,196 million Catholics, compared to about 1.181 million in 2009, for a total increase of 15 million faithful at 1.3%. (2012 Pontifical Yearbook)

John:

If Benedict said hello you'd complain. If he didn't say hello you'd complain. If he didn't say it one day and did the next you'd complain about inconsistency.

If you ever had a point you've stated it several times over.

Your insistence on calling him Mr Ratzinger shows clearly this is nothing but ad-hominem attack.

Give it a rest and find something productive to talk about for pity's sake.

John Stefanyszyn said:

Will Mr. Ratzinger react with a strong hand as did the rulers that resisted the cry for and protests for freedom of rights and equality or will he open the door to "freedoms of thought" in the "Catholic" church?

Click to expand...

And if the tree falls in the forest, the Pope is still wrong. I agree with Ebia; I'm sure you have a problem with the 500 lbs Easter Egg that the Pope donated to a juvenile detention center.

As usual, I will provide for the studio audience the full text of the Pope's homily. Now, let's take a look at some of the problems with your latest shallow musings.

Mr. Ratzinger has confessed publicly that the Roman General Church is on the side of freedom of thought and freedom of religion.

....It seems that an organized group of his priests in Austria have taken this belief to heart in appealing their desire to have the freedom to marry and for the freedom for women to become priests in the "Catholic" church.

Click to expand...

The Pope does support the freedom of religion; freedom of religion means that the state should not coerse people into a particular religious confession. But the Pope's homily is not about freedom of religion because it is not about the state; he is giving this homily during the Chrism Mass, where the oil used to anoint priests and the newly baptized is blessed.

The Catholic conception of priesthood involves an understanding of being united to Christ and the Church in a special way, and so the priest is not truely his own, and his teachings are not his own either: "All our preaching must measure itself against the saying of Jesus Christ: 'My teaching is not mine' (Jn 7:16). We preach not private theories and opinions, but the faith of the Church, whose servants we are." The teachings of the Church are binding on Catholics, not out of a misplaced sense of importance, but out of trust in God. St. Paul did not write Galatians because he had an opinion to share, but because his teaching was not his own.

The theme of the homily is not the dissent of the Austrian priests, as anyone who reads the homily will see; it is about true and false renewal. The Pope says that rebellion with not bring about renewal, but only configuation to Christ: "Dear friends, it is clear that configuration to Christ is the precondition and the basis for all renewal."

The Church is open to all ideas that do not conflict with her doctrine, but she cannot violate that which she believes to be revealed by God. On a side-bar, you find it easy to sympathize with this group because it is something that you don't have an aversion to, but would you be pretending to be up-in-arms for them if they were racists - or something equally undesirable?

The Pope would not support a state-intervention to force the dissonant priests to silence. Itaque, this is not an issue of religious freedom; it is an issue of the nature of the priesthood. The priest's teachings are not his own, and he knew that from the beginning; if you want to play in the symphony, you follow the Conductor's lead.

Trivially, "their desire to have the freedom to marry" is not on their agenda. They are advocating that married men may be allowed to the priesthood, but not that a priest - once he is one - should be allowed to marry.

Since Mr. Ratzinger said that he would not tolerate disobedience, will there be a "Catholic" spring for the "freedoms" that the Austrian minority is standing up for and that probably many other priests are silently waiting for.

Click to expand...

Please. You don't write very good drama; don't try. There is nothing remotely similar between the Austrian priests, and the regimes in Africa; you may as well compare fighting grade-schoolers to the French Revolution. In the first place, no one is being oppressed in the Austrian Church, and secondly it's only 15% of Austrian priests - not an army.

The leaven of freedom of self-rights and freedom of religion has been preached by Mr. Ratzinger to others....he has defined a "Christ" to be the way of reconciliation, universal values, of freedom...he has said that "freedom" is the power...and now it seems that this same leaven will leaven those that serve his leadership.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, I remember all those discussions; the ones you always bowed quietly out of.

Such as the thread for "he has said that 'freedom' is the power." I really thought that was a fun thread; too bad you never responded to the challenges. By the way, you'll want to read the homily from Holy Thursday Mass, where the Pope says: "The one who is Goodness is at the same time Power; he is all-powerful. Power is goodness and goodness is power."


And the thread where you claim he defined a "Christ" to be the way of reconciliation, universal values, of freedom; another thread where you fail to substanciate anything.

Will Mr. Ratzinger react with a strong hand as did the rulers that resisted the cry for and protests for freedom of rights and equality or will he open the door to "freedoms of thought" in the "Catholic" church

Click to expand...

It's too bad that you weren't alive in the 1st century; somebody needed to tell Paul to open the door to freedom of thought, instead of asserting his apostolic authority in Galatians 1 and 3 to say that the Church teaches that Christians need not become Jews. Your comparisons of Pope Benedict to autocrats is disingenuous and puerile.

A final thought from Pope Benedict, from the Holy Thursday Mass:

"We need to be free of him [God] – so we think – and only then will we be free. This is the fundamental rebellion present throughout history and the fundamental lie which perverts life. When human beings set themselves against God, they set themselves against the truth of their own being and consequently do not become free, but alienated from themselves. We are free only if we stand in the truth of our being, if we are united to God."

WinBySurrender said:

If he won't tolerate opposition on a subject he has refused to discuss, why would he be anymore willing to tolerate it in any other area in which he is dogmatic?

Click to expand...

The issue on the ordinatin of women is closed because of the Catholic understanding of the priesthood. Something that a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the teachings of the Church are only the tip of the iceburg; the underlying theology prevents a radical change. The Church cannot reverse her teaching on women's ordination because it is bound up in the Catholic understanding of the nature of the priesthood (specifically, of the certain characters of the priesthood as a sign of Christ's office). Whether it is possible to ordain women was closely examined during the reign of Pope John Paul II, and he concluded - after considering the opposition - that the Church "has no authority" to ordain women.

The issue is the same as the canon of scripture now; would you say that a person who insists that there are twenty-seven books in the New Testament, and says that this is binding on all believers, is being intellectually intolerant? Or is he right in speaking for the Church in that regard?

They cooperated, they studied together, they were spiritually communal and supportive. That doesn't describe the Catholic church and certainly explains why they are hemorrhaging members at the rate of 400,000 a year. When Baptist fight, there always winds up being more Baptists in the end.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church is un-cooperative, spiritually un-communal and un-supportive? Tell that to my orphan-friend who was raised by a priest. As for un-communal - most protestants complain that she is far too communal; we don't even exclude those who have past on, and we pray the same liturgy in hundreds of languages.

Whether the members are leaving or not is irrelevant, even if it is true (which I doubt); that is ad populum, which is never a legitamit way of finding out the truth of a claim.

That being said, I doubt that you would consider everyone who claims to be Baptist to be Baptist in fact. An example may be Westborrow Baptist Church - which I know many individual baptist churches abhore. Well, the Catholic Church is simply better organized in this regard; we can say when a person is Catholic or not, or when the person is acting outside of the Church, because we have organized authority stretching back to the Apostles.

judechild said:

The issue on the ordinatin of women is closed because of the Catholic understanding of the priesthood. Something that a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the teachings of the Church are only the tip of the iceburg; the underlying theology prevents a radical change.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I am not in favor of the ordination of women either, because of Paul's excellent point on the matter of Eve's deception and her natural state in relation to the order of creation. That is not all that the Pfarrer Initiative is demanding. There are other matters: They will practice “disobedience” such as not denying Communion to divorced and remarried, will allow laity to preach as Sunday Mass, and unofficially transfer leadership of communities to laity. These are areas that many Catholics share concerns about. The Church is still living in the 16th Century in many aspects of its hierarchy and administration, not to mention the social issues that are causing your church to bleed 400,000 Catholics a year in the US alone.

This is Doctrine which will not change, ever.

Talking about ordaining women is not going to be productive in any case because the Church will not budge on this.

We are not some Protestant church who bends for human desires, changes their Doctrine to suit the times and attract numbers.

WinBySurrender said:

You misunderstand. I am not in favor of the ordination of women either, because of Paul's excellent point on the matter of Eve's deception and her natural state in relation to the order of creation. That is not all that the Pfarrer Initiative is demanding.

Click to expand...

I was not commenting on whether you believe that women's ordination is compatible with the priesthood because that is not relevant to the question (that is, you could be for or against, but it doesn't change the underlying Catholic theology). I was pointing out that the teaching is only the flower of an underlying tangle of flora.

There are other matters: They will practice “disobedience” such as not denying Communion to divorced and remarried, will allow laity to preach as Sunday Mass, and unofficially transfer leadership of communities to laity. These are areas that many Catholics share concerns about. The Church is still living in the 16th Century in many aspects of its hierarchy and administration, not to mention the social issues that are causing your church to bleed 400,000 Catholics a year in the US alone.

Click to expand...

Again, whether 400,000 Catholics leave the Church a year (which I doubt) is irrelevant to the question because ad populum is never a valid method to examine the truth of a claim. Even if every Christian in the world suddenly died or left Christianity, it would not affect the truth or non-truth of Christianity itself.

As to administration, the Catholic Church is united throughout the world, led by Bishops who are the principle signs of unity within their own dioceses, and this is in turn tied up in the theology of the priesthood. We are not a democracy because God is not "Christ the President" but "Christ the King." The truth is not up for a vote; if the Catholic Church is what she claims to be then she cannot change her stance on things such as divorced-and-remarried individuals. She will gladly work with these individuals to rectify their relationship to the Church, but she cannot deny the revealed truths about the nature of marriage.

Say, for example, that she did in fact say that divorce-and-remarriage is not a sin. The would mean that the Rite of Marriage is incorrect in causing the couple to vow "until death do us part." This would separate marriage from the concept of a vocation (a permenant, stable state), leading to knocking down Paul's imagery of Christ and the Church as Bride and Bridegroom (because marriage need not be a stable institution). That, in turn, weakens the concept of the Sacrament of Baptism's theme of re-birth (for example, John 3; because the comparison of Christ and the Church as the "parents" of the newly baptized has been weakened, so to is the birth of us the children).

It simply doesn't work for the Church to change her doctrine; she is what she is. The truth of a proposition is not lessened by whether she stands alone.

WinBySurrender said:

Maybe yours isn't. Mine is. Perhaps that's why 400,000 people a year are leaving yours.

BTW, if yours isn't a democracy, why elect a parish board?

Click to expand...

I thought the head of the Church was Christ the King. At least, mine has that. What church are you in?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Trogool said:

I thought the head of the Church was Christ the King. At least, mine has that. What church are you in?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Click to expand...

Maybe they elected him. They are headed by Chairman Jesus.

Trogool said:

I thought the head of the Church was Christ the King. At least, mine has that. What church are you in?

Click to expand...

He's head of mine too, but He leads through the gift of administration given through the Holy Spirit to many believers. You've heard of that, I assume? We in the Southern Baptist churches certainly have.