TexasCHLforum.com

Andrew wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Andrew wrote: Just my opinion. Benedict has been a study in contrasts. While supporting the spiritual and moral goals of the prelature there have been some points of friction between Benedict and OD. Blurring in the roles of layity and clergy, Benedict is very traditional in his views on the roles of both within the Church. While not really an option, doing without secular clergy would be a goal I believe he would favor. The role of women in OD in leadership/teaching. Focus on works, sure to be a theological thorn in his ecumenical outreach with Reformation churches.
Then again I wonder what his position really is on ecumenical outreach. The "Subsistit in" (from the Lumen Gentium) decision seemed to turn back the clock to a pre Vatican II time.

Do you have a firm grasp about Opus Dei?

There have been no blurring in the roles of clergy and laity.

There is no such thing as secular clergy in the Catholic church. Pope Benedict nor any Pope has sought to eliminate the laity from active participation in the Church. They have wanted greater participation. There has always been absolute defined roles for both. The Church cannot exist without the ordained clergy nor the laity. They are both the Church.

Pope Benedict has reached out ecumenically during his tenure. He has pushed many groups (SSPX for example) to return.

Lumen Gentium did not turn back the clock to Pre-Vatican II. Pope Benedict has been trying to repair the misconceptions and errors that disobedient and misguided countries and bishops have taken when "interpreting" Vatican II. The return to the Pre-Vatican II liturgical translations is a prime example.

Anygunanywhere

Any,
I am not attacking the Church.
"There is no such thing as secular clergy in the Catholic church."

I was married by a Diocesan Priest and there are Deacons celebrating the Mass at the altar most every time I attend. Both are examples of secular clergy, that live in the world outside of the discipline of a monastic order. St Thomas of Canterbury(Thomas a' Becket) is their patron. Some Deacons are even excused from the obligation of following the Liturgy of the Hours.

"There have been no blurring in the roles of clergy and laity. Pope Benedict nor any Pope has sought to eliminate the laity from active participation in the Church. They have wanted greater participation. There has always been absolute defined roles for both. The Church cannot exist without the ordained clergy nor the laity. They are both the Church."

Never said any of this. I said I believed there was a blurring of the roles within Opus Dei, Period. That someone should accept instruction or correction from a young female member of the laity in regards their spiritual life isn't acceptable to me. Which leads to,

"Do you have a firm grasp about Opus Dei?" Yes, I do. I was approached about membership just shortly after my eldest son's passing. I listened, I questioned, I read, and ultimately chose not to participate.

"Pope Benedict has reached out ecumenically during his tenure. He has pushed many groups (SSPX for example) to return."

The dialogue between the Holy See and the SSPX is a matter of Church discipline, excommunication due to withdrawal from submission to the Supreme Pontiff, not ecumenical outreach. And while the Pope has remitted those excommunications the SSPX still remains outside full communion willfully.

"Lumen Gentium did not turn back the clock to Pre-Vatican II. Pope Benedict has been trying to repair the misconceptions and errors that disobedient and misguided countries and bishops have taken when "interpreting" Vatican II. The return to the Pre-Vatican II liturgical translations is a prime example"

Agreed. I believe his statements in 2000 while still Prefect CDF pretty much put paid to that. Ecumenical Outreach, IMO, was his dialogue with Eastern, Lutheran, and Anglican congregations as well as those outside the Christian faith. The 2007 statement by his successor to the Prefecture was bad timing at the very least. Which led to my question on his position vis-a-vis ecumenical outreach.

philip964 wrote:Normally it is thought that God himself retires the pope.
Now God could have told him to resign.
I certainly hope it does not come that people around him convinced him to resign.

I heard from someone on a radio station that the US Cardinals would not be allowed to vote, I can't imagine that is true.
Anyone know why or if its false?

rwg3 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

rwg3 wrote:

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:That particular organization has protected and facilitated countless individuals, over the years, who have been responsible for conducting one of THE most heinous crimes imaginable against CHILDREN.

Using a position of trust to exploit children is straight up EVIL IMHO. However, knowing about it as a leader, and not prosecuting the offender, is even worse in my eyes.

I have NO patience with individuals that harm children, and fully believe those that abuse kids in a sexual nature should be hung by the neck until dead, be they priest, doctor, bricklayer alike.

+1

IMO It appears to be a smart political move with in the church political system. The cardinals all swear an oath of loyalty to the Pope when he is elected . When there is no Pope they are free to act and vote as their conscience dictates. By resigning before dying the current Pope can exert a fair amount of influence on the selection of his successor. The church has faced unprecedented criticism on a variety of issues and there is a political battle over maintaining a conservative bent or allowing a more liberal movement to occur. This Pope is of the conservative school and this helps insure the continuation of the conservative tradition.

I am not sure where you received your education on all matters Catholic and Vatican but you are way off.

It is not a political move. The Catholic Church is not a political organization run in a democratic manner. The only voting going on indeed will be the Cardinals selecting a new Pope. Their task is to select a successor to Pope Benedict.

The Cardinals swear no oath to obey the new Pope. Obedience to authority is a mark of a true Catholic and ordained clergy.

When there is no Pope the Cardinals are not free to act as their conscience dicateatres. Yes they can vote for whom they want, but there are actually very few Cardinals who would be voted on for Pope. The list is quite narrow.

The current Pope has a limited amount of influence. The Person with the most influence is the Holy Spirit.

The Church is not undergoing a political battle to maintain a conservative bent and avoid a liberal movement. The Church is both conservative and liberal if you use secular society's definitions. If you say that the Cardinals are going to try and prevent a "liberal" track that includes accepting abortion, contraception, and socalled same sex marriage then you are way off.

Your last sentence is nearly correct but remove the word conservative. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is tasked with preserving Sacred Tradition and Church Dogma which cannoty change.

Anygunanywhere

Suffice it to say we have different views on how the Catholic Church operates as an organized body. I believe your devotion is admirable and I would not want to offend inadvertently, so I will simply say I disagree with some of your views. The oath can be found in the OSV section on Cardinals. Like anything else done by humans the implementation of it may vary.

I [name and surname], Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, promise and swear to be faithful henceforth and forever, while I live, to Christ and his Gospel, being constantly obedient to the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, to Blessed Peter in the person of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, and of his canonically elected Successors; to maintain communion with the Catholic Church always, in word and deed; not to reveal to any one what is confided to me in secret, nor to divulge what may bring harm or dishonor to Holy Church; to carry out with great diligence and faithfulness those tasks to which I am called by my service to the Church, in accord with the norms of the law.
So help me Almighty God.

Jasonw560 wrote:Just throwing this out there.....There are the prophecies of St. Malachy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My people haven't had a dog in this hunt since October 31, 1519.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: Are you speaking specifically about the WHOLE Catholic Church?
Anygunanywhere

No, I'm not.

Bottom line: It's the leadership I have a problem with, not the practitioner....unless THEY too are turning a blind eye to abuse, and if so, I'd gladly make room on the gallows.

mamabearCali wrote:This will be a turbulent time for the Catholic Church. Prayers for the pope and those selecting the new pope.

JP171 wrote:now come on AGAW, you knowd you catholicks is jest a buncha pagans worshipin idols an stuff, gettin drunk an chasin skirts even if they was on boys (sarcasm off)

really though AGAW, many here have no real idea what those who are catholic denominational believers really believe and they really don't want to, many of them do the same thing that muslims do, believe what they are told by the minister of their church, never having been exposed to or trying to learn about what catholisism is. no I am not defending ignorance, just trying to give some insight to why.

Andrew wrote: Just my opinion. Benedict has been a study in contrasts. While supporting the spiritual and moral goals of the prelature there have been some points of friction between Benedict and OD. Blurring in the roles of layity and clergy, Benedict is very traditional in his views on the roles of both within the Church. While not really an option, doing without secular clergy would be a goal I believe he would favor. The role of women in OD in leadership/teaching. Focus on works, sure to be a theological thorn in his ecumenical outreach with Reformation churches.
Then again I wonder what his position really is on ecumenical outreach. The "Subsistit in" (from the Lumen Gentium) decision seemed to turn back the clock to a pre Vatican II time.

rwg3 wrote:

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:That particular organization has protected and facilitated countless individuals, over the years, who have been responsible for conducting one of THE most heinous crimes imaginable against CHILDREN.

Using a position of trust to exploit children is straight up EVIL IMHO. However, knowing about it as a leader, and not prosecuting the offender, is even worse in my eyes.

I have NO patience with individuals that harm children, and fully believe those that abuse kids in a sexual nature should be hung by the neck until dead, be they priest, doctor, bricklayer alike.

+1

IMO It appears to be a smart political move with in the church political system. The cardinals all swear an oath of loyalty to the Pope when he is elected . When there is no Pope they are free to act and vote as their conscience dictates. By resigning before dying the current Pope can exert a fair amount of influence on the selection of his successor. The church has faced unprecedented criticism on a variety of issues and there is a political battle over maintaining a conservative bent or allowing a more liberal movement to occur. This Pope is of the conservative school and this helps insure the continuation of the conservative tradition.

rwg3 wrote:

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:That particular organization has protected and facilitated countless individuals, over the years, who have been responsible for conducting one of THE most heinous crimes imaginable against CHILDREN.

Using a position of trust to exploit children is straight up EVIL IMHO. However, knowing about it as a leader, and not prosecuting the offender, is even worse in my eyes.

I have NO patience with individuals that harm children, and fully believe those that abuse kids in a sexual nature should be hung by the neck until dead, be they priest, doctor, bricklayer alike.

+1

IMO It appears to be a smart political move with in the church political system. The cardinals all swear an oath of loyalty to the Pope when he is elected . When there is no Pope they are free to act and vote as their conscience dictates. By resigning before dying the current Pope can exert a fair amount of influence on the selection of his successor. The church has faced unprecedented criticism on a variety of issues and there is a political battle over maintaining a conservative bent or allowing a more liberal movement to occur. This Pope is of the conservative school and this helps insure the continuation of the conservative tradition.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:That particular organization has protected and facilitated countless individuals, over the years, who have been responsible for conducting one of THE most heinous crimes imaginable against CHILDREN.

Using a position of trust to exploit children is straight up EVIL IMHO. However, knowing about it as a leader, and not prosecuting the offender, is even worse in my eyes.

I have NO patience with individuals that harm children, and fully believe those that abuse kids in a sexual nature should be hung by the neck until dead, be they priest, doctor, bricklayer alike.

Redneck_Buddha wrote:The search for a new Pope should have commenced on April 19, 2005, the day Benedict took office. If they are scrambling now, well, they've had nearly eight years and knew that he was going to be "transitional".

Andrew wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:What's a Pople?

Does the Pope's resignation have any bible prophecy or conspiracy theory implications? (not that I equate one with the other, just they are both open to interpretation and require much speculation).

I don't think so. Although liberation theologians and Opus Dei might be happy that he's resigning. Assuring that the marxist driven elements within the Church will see no relief from his successor through his influence in the Episcopacy in general and the College of Cardinals in particular is probably at the top of his to-do list.