Codology not theology.

[Purple]

I don't really know what you're getting at here. Christianity today still has a concept of just war, so which fundamental issue are you talking about? The Crusades in general featured some regrettable excesses but the original motivation for the first crusade -- combatting violent Islamic expansionism -- is probably still sound.

The First Crusade had little to do with Muslim Expansionism as it wasn't expanding at the time, indeed it was in the middle of a multi faceted civil war. The argument that the Christians should reclaim Jerusalem was over 300 years late. It was about reasserting the influence of Rome over the Church in Europe. Pope Urban the Second did an excellent job on that front.
The issue that changes was that the Pope said that all who fought in that Holy War would gain a place in heaven and all their previous sins would be forgiven. Is that still the position of the RC Church?

 

[Purple]

I thought I'd split the answer to this one out here as it's a total diversion. With respect, you really are clutching at straws here. You didn't bother providing a link to support your quotes but it's easily findable. Your extract is from [broken link removed], an American fundamentalist pastor of the evangelical Baptist tradition. It's reproduced on several fundamentalist, mainly Baptist websites. I'm going to guess you don't know a whole lot about evangelical fundamentalism. It has more and less moderate strains, but this is very much the less moderate variety -- the same one from which Ian Paisley Snr took most of his inspiration. Whereas Catholics and some Evangelicals have arrived at joint declarations about the nature of salvation "by grace through faith", the truly diehard evangelicals still cling rigidly to the "solae" of the Reformation.

One can imagine the very title of the encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) being a bit of a red rag to a bull for a sola fide fundamentalist ("salvation through faith alone"). But the specific complaint in your article is that in that encyclical the Pope cites Tradition in talking about the Eucharist, instead of "sola scriptura" ... only scripture. Never mind that the encyclical is extensively footnoted, like all encyclicals, to demonstrate continuity of doctrine with previous sources. Costella's complaint is that the RCC hasn't changed its theology which is why evangelicals should stay away from it, exactly the opposite of what you claim. This is hardly even worth debating (although we can if you insist) -- but you should find some sources other than the crazed regressive fundamentalist Catholic-hating ones still occupying the battlefields of the Reformation. Or at least be a little bit more discerning when you google "has the church changed its doctrines".

Okay, so you haven't addressed the issue of the significant change on the substance of trans-substantiation. Rather you have attacked a source who quoted the two popes in question. I'm in full agreement on Evangelical Christians, along with most religion.

 

[dub_nerd]

The issue that changes was that the Pope said that all who fought in that Holy War would gain a place in heaven and all their previous sins would be forgiven. Is that still the position of the RC Church?

Yes. The pope is allowed to grant indulgences. Nothing changed there.

Okay, so you haven't addressed the issue of the significant change on the substance of trans-substantiation. Rather you have attacked a source who quoted the two popes in question.

Now you have me confused. I addressed your sources. At least I think I did, because you didn't provide any reference so I had to Google it. You also provided a long quote without saying which bit you think represents a "significant change on the substance of trans-substantiation". I'd be happy to address it but you'll have to be clear on who you're quoting and what you're alleging. There's certainly nothing in what you provided that suggests anything like a doctrinal change.

 

[Purple]

No, but now you've circled back to the point I made. Mary's "empire of misogyny" quip is aimed at certain people within the church, not "structures".

When did you make that point? How is it hard to see the link between people and structures?

I think you're coming from the same place as Mary on this (but correct me if I'm wrong). As far as I can see, her position is that the very existence of the exclusively male catholic clergy is in diametric opposition to any notion of equality. In other words, for equality to prevail, the exclusively male orders must cease to exist. No, I don't share that view. And I reiterate my point that Mary's immoderate "empire of misogyny" barb is intended to convey that anyone who disagrees with her does so out of a hatred of women. I still say that's a stupid line to take (though Mary is hardly a stupid person, so perhaps it's more malicious than that).

I think you are letting your own bias colour your interpretation of her position.

I don't think I've said anything less moderate than Mary did, but I'll admit to enjoying a good argument.

So do I.

 

[Purple]

Yes. The pope is allowed to grant indulgences. Nothing changed there.

For those engaging in wars?

Now you have me confused. I addressed your sources. At least I think I did, because you didn't provide any reference so I had to Google it. You also provided a long quote without saying which bit you think represents a "significant change on the substance of trans-substantiation". I'd be happy to address it but you'll have to be clear on who you're quoting and what you're alleging. There's certainly nothing in what you provided that suggests anything like a doctrinal change.

A change in the stance on the nature of trans-substantiation isn't a change in doctrine?

 

[dub_nerd]

When did you make that point? How is it hard to see the link between people and structures?

We're going around in circles here. Let me recap for you. Mary said the church was an empire of misogyny. I said she was thereby accusing the members of the hierarchy of being woman haters. You said (although I've no idea what your point was supposed to be) that the structures could be misogynistic. I said that structures couldn't be misogynistic, only people. Now you're saying there's a link between the structures and the people. At this stage I've no idea what your point is. My point is that Mary is accusing all of the members of the hierarchy of misogyny, which seems a rather unlikely generalisation.

I think you are letting your own bias colour your interpretation of her position.

That's fine. Why don't you tell me what you think her position is. (I'm assuming you've listened to the full 30 minutes of her speech like I have, and are also familiar with her historical statements of her position).

(Papal indulgences) for those engaging in wars?

Yeah, why not? If it is for a good cause I don't see a problem with it. On the other hand, even if the pope got it wrong -- as popes certainly have with the exchange of indulgences for alms-giving, which was later condemned -- the doctrine concerning indulgences has not changed.

A change in the stance on the nature of trans-substantiation isn't a change in doctrine?

Again, we're going around in circles. You quoted some text and said it was about a change in doctrine. I didn't see anything about a change in doctrine in what you posted. If you want to pursue it, you'll have to be clearer about what you think the change was. Seeing as I've never heard anyone else suggesting a relatively recent change in doctrine on the Eucharist, which would certainly make waves in the RCC, I think you're probably mistaken.

 

[Purple]

This is like discussing evolution with a creationist.
I’ll leave it there. I’m surprised and disappointed that anyone in a modern society can hold the views you hold.

 

[dub_nerd]

This is like discussing evolution with a creationist.
I’ll leave it there. I’m surprised and disappointed that anyone in a modern society can hold the views you hold.

That's a bizarre statement. You didn't even say what view you disagree with, let alone debate it. We didn't discuss any science, so I don't know what your reference to evolution is about. (Plus I'm not a creationist and I hold several science degrees, including a master's degree, so I feel my scientific credentials are reasonably robust). Also, your argument seemed to consist of: "the RCC has changed in the past, therefore it can change again". But you singularly failed to establish how it had changed in the past on substantial issues of doctrine.

The one and only point I've made is that RCC doctrine prevents it from giving Mary women's ordination, as it says it has no authority to. Her other points about women having no role in discussing or developing doctrine are just part of her agenda to rope in the sympathy vote from people like you. In fact, there are plenty of women theologians involved in that, and there is no barrier to having more, nor is anyone disagreeing with it. Your position seems to be: "Mary's a woman so she couldn't possibly be mistaken or lying to further her agenda", which sounds pretty sexist to me.

 

[cremeegg]

Dubnerd and Purple, you guys have definitely taken this thread in the codology direction.

 

[dub_nerd]

Yeah, let's jump back on the rhetorical bandwagon before anyone is forced into a reasonable debate.

 

[Sophrosyne]

In a way I agree with you Dub_nerd that members or potential members of a religion must accept that for that religion to remain true to itself, certain doctrines are non-negotiable.

For the Roman Catholic Church, the restriction of ordination to baptized males appears to be one of those doctrines, as explained in the Declaration Inter Insigniores On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood by Pope Paul VI.

That said however, due to the paucity of documentation on early councils or synods, it is not absolutely clear how the early Christian Church developed its doctrines before the 4th century and whether it indeed remained true to apostolic tradition based in Jerusalem.

Certainly, concessions were made to Gentiles and over time This post will be deleted if not edited immediately became less and less Jewish.

The role of women in early Christianity is not that clear cut.

Canon Law can and does change over time for better or for worse.

For instance, at one time child sexual abuse was considered so heinous that Canon Law prescribed that priests who sexually abused children were to be punished by the Church itself, often by torture or death, or were to be “degraded” and handed over to the civil authorities.

Later, it was considered as a moral failing and how the church dealt with it became shrouded in secrecy.

This paper, entitled Canon Law On Child Sexual Abuse Through The Ages, byKieran Tapsell discusses the changes.

 

[cremeegg]

Yeah, let's jump back on the rhetorical bandwagon before anyone is forced into a reasonable debate.

A reasonable debate on transubstantiation is a contradiction in terms.

 

[dub_nerd]

A reasonable debate requires only reason and respectful engagement.

 

[cremeegg]

A reasonable debate requires only reason and respectful engagement.

Nothing that can be said regarding transubstantiation is accessible to reason.

I have no respect for "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" either.

 

[dub_nerd]

You're wrong of course. There are entire debating societies devoted to the works of Tolkien where reasonable people debate issues to do with the Council of Elrond. Any topic -- from fiction to dream interpretation to infinite dimensional space -- can be debated reasonably by reasonable people. The subject doesn't have to be "real", "true" or mutually accepted. Anyone with an ounce of sense and integrity understands this, unless they're just out to pour scorn on their pet dislikes while pretending to have the intellectual high ground.

 

[Betsy Og]

You're wrong of course. There are entire debating societies devoted to the works of Tolkien where reasonable people debate issues to do with the Council of Elrond. Any topic -- from fiction to dream interpretation to infinite dimensional space -- can be debated reasonably by reasonable people. The subject doesn't have to be "real", "true" or mutually accepted. Anyone with an ounce of sense and integrity understands this, unless they're just out to pour scorn on their pet dislikes while pretending to have the intellectual high ground.

I guess though if everyone accepts before you start that this is not reality, then you have to agree on the 'deck of cards' you're going to play with in this jousting encounter, or someone will just keep pulling imaginary aces which cant be ruled in our out, and isn't life too short...

Or maybe the person you're playing with isn't playing with a full deck.....

Anyway, in LOTR, why did they walk for what seemed like an eternity when they could've called the birds and just jetted in. Read the books as an adult years ago (been an adult a long time now...) and while it was grand to pass the time it didn't 'alf go on with descriptions of nature, elvish tongues and other utter balderdash, I think he was charging by weight or something......

 

[dub_nerd]

I guess though if everyone accepts before you start that this is not reality, then you have to agree on the 'deck of cards' you're going to play with in this jousting encounter, or someone will just keep pulling imaginary aces which cant be ruled in our out, and isn't life too short...

Or maybe the person you're playing with isn't playing with a full deck.....

Good point, well put. Once you know the rules, though, you get to choose to participate or not ... not to arbitrarily whine that Frodo would be quicker if only he was an Ent.

 

[Purple]

You're wrong of course. There are entire debating societies devoted to the works of Tolkien where reasonable people debate issues to do with the Council of Elrond. Any topic -- from fiction to dream interpretation to infinite dimensional space -- can be debated reasonably by reasonable people. The subject doesn't have to be "real", "true" or mutually accepted. Anyone with an ounce of sense and integrity understands this, unless they're just out to pour scorn on their pet dislikes while pretending to have the intellectual high ground.

This isn't a college debating society, the preserve of the verbose where playing to the crowd is the objective rather than understanding the perspective of the other party. We are not children in a college debating society; this is a discussion forum. Willfully ignoring the points made by other contributors is not condusive to a constructive discussion.

 

[dub_nerd]

Willfully ignoring the points made by other contributors is not condusive to a constructive discussion.

... which is why I asked you for clarifications on your points that I didn't understand. Would still be interested to hear them.

 

[Purple]

... which is why I asked you for clarifications on your points that I didn't understand. Would still be interested to hear them.

And I can't believe that you don't understand the points I'm making and so conclude that you are being deliberately obtuse or are so biased against Mary and/or the feminist/equality agenda that you are unable to see the point she is making. Therefore the comparison to discussing evolution with a creationist, your academic qualifications notwithstanding.