Pope opens critical week for reforms

the news story hosted.ap.org...


Will pope Francis finally start the so much promised and expected reform? Together with the new cardinals to be elevated this Saturday? Coinciding with the end of Olympic games on Sunday?

The reform is already postponed to extend of being non-present. Not only in the 1 year reign of Francis, but also inherited from Benedict and late years of JP2. The world cannot afford to wait it more. I cannot think of what will happen till October Synod that was promised recently... if the things are just left to the tidal waves as they were repeatedly postponed from the first days of papal election, to the Fall 2013, to February 2014. Many people expected bold actions in the weeks following that conclave with white smoke in the night. What happened for one year? Nothing, except for some wishes and speeches by pope and commissions by cardinals. Too little to be presented to the world as some real work done.

There is no more room and time for maneuvering. Is it just buying time? And if yes, for what event that we the common people are not told about?

Will it happen now, or never?

Its now or never, Elvis 1960

the reform should not be concentrated only to the family issues, and further restricted to the sole issue who can marry a second time and still receive communion in a catholic parish.

The reform cannot be restricted also to the money issue, who runs one of the richest organizations in the world and how. Although important, that should be connected to the issue of some of the poorest people in the world who are also members of that same church.

The reform should clearly define what it means catholic church in 21st century reality in all its aspects. Not a world view of 16th century repeated today. It was attempted so in recent past and failed. I mean some of the moral and other aspects of JP2 theology followed by Benedict. They showed nothing new, they were just repeated old theology clothed in modern words. Although there were some innovative moments, that is just too little. As for example Benedict cancelled the so called limbo believed to exist for centuries.

Not the least, there should be careful re-examination of Gospel books including those who are not canonical. There should be meticulous restoration to the authentic texts. Instead, what we witness happening as we speak, is a constant change of wordings of Jesus that are quite significant for everyday life. It still sounds in my ears the words from the last Sunday Gospel that should be read: "except for adultery" , deliberately changed in "modern" catholic verse into "except for unlawful marriage" to meet neo-canonical rules of RCC. This is not done by the Orthodox churches. As we see, they allow 2,3 or even more marriages not as desire but as necessity. This is not the only point, this is one of the many points to be carefully researched. And please, give more say to the so much speculated numbers of faithful 1 bln! They, their priests and bishops know quite a lot and deserve more than what they have today as freedom of expression and say in church works.

This is all from me for now. Answered or not in this forum, the questions stand before the catholic church. Not just before its hierarchy.

reply to post by 2012newstart

Not the least, there should be careful re-examination of Gospel books including those who are not canonical.

You're kidding, right?

That is never going to happen -- non-canonical books are non-canonical for a reason, because they are not reflective of orthodox Christianity, and/or failed to meets the standards set for inclusion 1700 years ago. The Catholic canon was closed at the Council of Trent in 1542, and most Protestant canons have also been closed for hundreds of years. That means that not only will they not be changed, they cannot be changed.

You're stuck with unofficial "re-imaginings" of the Bible, like Hal Taussig's The New New Testament, sorry.

reply to post by adjensen

to pretend catholic canon was closed at past council that belongs only to the catholic tradition, be it Trent or another one, is absurd. The popes say otherwise. Francis said the canon law is not found in the Holy Scripture and is done later in history. It served well in past centuries but it should respond to necessities of time. Pls refer to the exact wording of pope Francis.

There are new dogmas after that, one of which is the infallibility of the pope - the biggest hurdle for catholic-orthodox reunification because it is a new dogma after the last ecumenical council that is the 7th.

Too pity the catholics are not clear for their own teaching and history.

Thanks for your view, I know I will not change it.

reply to post by 2012newstart


I believe Pope Francis will step up and do as he believes and I for one expect great deeds and reforms from him, which hopefully in the future extend women's roles in the Catholic church. But, he has already made his plans known on this topic, but there is always hope.

adjensen
reply to post by 2012newstart

 

You're stuck with unofficial "re-imaginings" of the Bible, like Hal Taussig's The New New Testament, sorry.

It is clear Jesus talked and did much more for 3.5 years than the combined writings of Mark, Luke, Matthew and John. Add Paul and the rest, the result is the same. I also wonder what Jesus did for the rest of 30 years and why we are not told a line, except very brief narratives around Nativity etc. Perhaps there are still preserved sources never shown on broad daylight and therefore never banned as heretic by any church council. I think we discussed that in another thread.

The idea of Vatican 3 is not enough. There should be Ecumenical council 8.

reply to post by 2012newstart


Canon Law and the canonical status of Scripture are two completely different things.

Catholic Canon of Scripture is closed. No more books can be added to the Bible, none can be taken away. Same thing for the Anglican church, Reformed Theology, the Orthodox Catholic Churches and others.

reply to post by adjensen


if what you say is true, it is too pity then. 2 Esdras shows it could be otherwise even for the Catholic church itself. 2 Esdras is not accepted by the Jews and half accepted by Orthoox.

I still hope there is a loophole in the Catholic own teachings to allow some newly discovered ancient book.

Trent is one of the worst examples of catholic practice in history. Not that there weren't other bad examples. I hope Vatican 1 overrules Trent, and Vatican 2 is above Vatican 1. Hopefully a new council will be above those councils, necessary for their time that occurred after Trent. Perhaps you are not very happy with the reality of Vatican 2 either. Some people prefer the 16th century reality. Perhaps the list of banned books too. Thanks God most of the people don't think in that way, and don't want to have burned books again. What if among those burned books in Alexandria library there were NON HERETICAL books of the early life of Jesus? Priceless documents of the life of our Lord and God? Trent said No? Pardon me! My allegiance is to Jesus Christ the Lord, not to the elders of Trent. However clever they might have been at their time with limited views of church, world, men, and ultimately, God.

You are hoping for a pipe dream buddy. Frankly, I'd be surprised if anything significant changes. How's that priest pedophilia thing going? Didn't the pope say that practice was going to end? I haven't seen the Catholic church turn anyone over to the police; heck I haven't even seen them ex-communicate anyone. But hey keep up the faith. That's what they say right?

Similarly, anathemas have been lifted at the end of Vatican 2, by both Vatican and Constantinople. Notice those anathemas were pretty serious stuff in 1054 and the centuries to follow. They sent each other to hell, in other words. Practically no catholic ruling had any significance in the orthoox world and vice versus. Also Trent. Only after Vatican 2 it was possible to go on the road Jesus prayed for in His last arch-priest prayer to the Father, in John's gospel "to be all one".
We have to humbly admit we are still far away from the teaching of Jesus that encompasses not only one century and its narrow minded views. Churches have power to unlock everything. Not only Peter but all of them. Benedict showed how that is possible to do with the Limbo. I hope there are more competent people than me in catholic theology and develop it further.

reply to post by 2012newstart

What if among those burned books in Alexandria library there were NON HERETICAL books of the early life of Jesus?

That is highly unlikely, and even if there were, they're gone now, so it's pointless to speculate about it.

The fact that none of the canonical Gospels says much about Jesus before he began his ministry would tend to indicate that his life, prior to that, was not notable. The sources for Matthew, Mark and John probably had no contact with Jesus before he signed them on to be Apostles, but it appears that Luke actually did some digging, including interviewing Mary, the mother of Jesus, so his lack of inclusion also speaks to mundanity.

But if you're really charged up for that stuff, look into The Infancy Gospel of James or The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, though bear in mind that both are fictional accounts from the Second Century, written in response to people who, like you, wanted to know what Jesus had been up to prior to beginning his documented ministry.

The reason that canon is closed, and "ancient books on Jesus" cannot be added to it is that they are all like the Infancy Gospels -- non-reliable texts, written long after the fact by people who had no contact with Jesus, the Apostles or the Early Church Fathers, so to put any faith in them as being accurate would be very foolish. About the only thing that might be worthy would be if a legitimate copy of "Q" turned up, but I have my doubts that text ever existed, and that belief is growing among New Testament scholars.

"Thy kingdom come"
we should proceed from that unfulfilled command of Jesus Christ repeated daily millions of times, of a yet to come God's kingdom. Not a kingdom of a church that is said to happen in history by theologians at that time. But the one to come. We have to work for it. Our knowledge is incomplete. It would be strange otherwise. Our practice is far from Jesus' teachings, including His final solemn prayer on the Last Supper, in John. Even only what is written in the "canonical books". We are very far from being true Christian, both in theory and in practice. We have no other way than to humbly admit that before God. And to seek His ways, not ours.
The practice in Middle centuries showed otherwise. They showed the worst of humankind experience, not only of church's. May be only Hitler surpassed it, don't know. I do not demonize anyone. Read history. We have to learn from our past experience and decisively to turn that page. Vatican 2 showed it was possible. There are people who deny Vatican 2. There are sedevacantist either who do not accept any pope after Pius XII as legitimate. They are wrong. That is not the true voice of the catholic church.

I think Catholicism might be taken more seriously if they hadn't of brought down public condemnation with the pedophile scandals and the subsequent cover up.

www.globalresearch.ca...

reply to post by olaru12

I agree with you!

olaru12


I think Catholicism might be taken more seriously if they hadn't of brought down public condemnation with the pedophile scandals and the subsequent cover up.

www.globalresearch.ca...

That's what caused me to leave the church. Never looked back. Glad I didn't. Old and useless institution.

Let me add about the sedevacantists. They are very well presented on the internet with several powerful websites. Some pretend of seeing Jesus and/or Mary as recent "apparition" in Ireland. They believe John 23 was not elected pope. They deny Vatican 2 as illegitimate. (how could deny all the bishops, I don't know but they do that). Some of them believe that satan entered Vatican 2. Therefore they apriori deny everything done by following popes as wrong, or at least partially wrong. They want the status quo of pre-Vatican councils (some of pre-Vatican 1). Practically it is the status quo of Trent 16th century that allowed Inquisition to exist and still burned people in Spain and some cases in Italy too. Not to mention books. They just close their eyes for That and insist on the theory they say was right. On top of that, they believe it is They who represent the so called Remnant church on Earth. Having all that, it is virtually impossible to convince those small but fervent groups of believers in the necessity of whatever change in the catholic church done by any pope.

If pope Francis tries to do anything to open the still closed catholic church to the world, or even to its own faithful, he will rceive the worst names, including that of the antichrist. Actually those groups already call him so.

I care not of what someone would think of the pope, but what the pope and the cardinals will do in reality for all of us. Including for the Orthodox christians that are the second biggest group of churches. Including the Messianic Jews who have unique place in history of salvation determined by Jesus himself. The precondition for the second coming.

It may happen pope Francis to fail in his attempts to reform the catholic church. This will be not success of their prayers, as the old catholics would say, this will be a disaster. Perhaps the end of the catholic structure the way we know it as the biggest christian group on earth. Perhaps each diocese and country or groups of such will go their way.

Let it make clear the RCC doesn't have even half of the Christians on earth according to the latest numbers. It might happen ANOTHER Christian church with valid apostolic succession (i.e. bishops and sacraments) to continue the uninterrupted spiritually One Church of Jesus Christ as well as the promise of Jesus given to Peter. Peter ordained quite many people, didn't he? I say that as a theoretical possibility, rather than a personal desire. Please make that difference, I examine possibilities for near (and far ) future. Actually, today's catholic structure and practice doesn't have a chance to stand in timespan of let say 5-10 centuries. May be as little as only 50 years. The choice is up to its leaders today, but also up to its bishops, priests, and common members. Who, frankly, should be more loud to speak what is right in their view. They are not that many online. They should make their voice be heard loud.

Jesus is the head of the church (one spiritually undivided). Not Peter. The Orthodox churches proclaim Jesus as their head, not their patriarchs. I don't know what exactly the catholic church proclaims in that regard, or was it changed in the recent years in favor of Jesus instead of the pope. The sovereign is Jesus the Lord. Jesus is not a static object, as the Holy Communion is treated by most catholics. Jesus is and can be active when He desires so. Jesus is the bridegroom. The church the bride should follow the bridegroom. Not inquisition style presumptions of what Jesus "would do" and they to do it in "His name", even to the extend of burning books and especially people who hold those books!

The point is the image of Jesus taken out of the Gospels cannot play some theology thanks to some very smart theologians at their times. Let not quote anyone. It is possible even very likely we know no more than 1% or less of the true Jesus who walked the earth. I want to know what did Jesus do in those 30 years and there is no satisfying answer to that question. Perhaps some have it. I will not exchange the real Jesus for the council of Trent or for any other council. Thanks so much but it was proven wrong in historical perspective. Will the catholic church have a future, with Jesus? Or will it inevitably fail, not because of the sex scandals but because it is too heavy to carry its own weight of sins both in historical time and in our days? Perhaps we will see the answer pretty soon.

reply to post by 2012newstart

Let it make clear the RCC doesn't have even half of the Christians on earth according to the latest numbers.

Well, unless it's changed significantly since 2011, that's incorrect.


(Source)

You're also incorrect in your use of the term "Roman Catholic Church" -- there is no such thing. The name of the church, headquartered in Rome and officiated over by the Bishop of Rome (there's also no such official title as "Pope",) is, and has always been, the Catholic Church.

The existing "canonical" narratives about the birth of Jesus are full of controversies. Thius the Bethlehem star cannot be anything else than what we would call UFO today to follow the road...because the stars don't do that from their distance, neither the comets do it...When did Joseph and Mary go to the Temple on the 40th day? They fled from Herod, before or after or during their way to Egypt? ANd passed thru Jerusalem? How did they reach Egypt on a donkey? Or perhaps another angel not recorded entered the scene? The people didn't have the British colonial railways at that time! Are we fooled by those narratives, to cover the real truth instead? I don't have it, I search for it.

Similarly, great controversies surround the Holy Week. Examine the Gospels and the hours of the day to see Jesus physically could not be crucified at the same day he entered the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod...Not enough time! The schedule is different. There are in depth studies of people who can think with their heads.

If the Gospels are not agreeable on the most important moments of the life and death of Lord Jesus, how can we credit them with 100% accuracy of anything else? Including some of the words of Jesus that sound as put in his mouth in early Christian communities with symbols such as the cross, slave-master relationship, and many others. I can talk more and I did talk more in the other threads (click my profile). If we don't have THAT clear as basic for our faith, how then we can still pretend we have the true picture? How will say other pictures are not possible because of old ruling of some council? WHo burnt heretics?

Perhaps Jesus wouldn't be very delighted by His church when He comes back. Or EVEN BEFORE THAT MOMENT. Because He is active always, as we speak. Don't assume a new Caliphate cannot rise out of nowhere, exactly as it rose the first time, out of a "heresy" - the new Muslim religion. Actually they believe in Jesus more than the Christians do. Perhaps they still could be converted, unlike many Christians on name only. Don't underestimate God's providence. Chastisement is talked quite a lot in the small communities of remnant christians. Seems they are not concerned of the bigger church to survive, as long as they do. Jesus can and will direct the future of the church (one spiritually) regardless of the hurdles by his hierarchy. It is now their turn to show how much they love Him and His creatures, their flocks.