Catholics and Climate Change
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    jaded bitter joy crusher
    Reputation: Fredke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    19,723

    Catholics and Climate Change

    A new report from the Pontifical Academy of Science says:
    We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home. By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility, we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet blessed with the gift of life.
    Although academy's chancellor, Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, was one of the signatories, the report is not "an act of the magisterium of the church," but according to Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi, it is "a significant scientific contribution to be valued in the context of the concerns about environmental problems often shown in recent magisterial documents and in the words of the Holy Father."
    Fredke commented in your thread. You won't believe what happens next!

  2. #2
    ab aeterno
    Reputation: TheDon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,383
    Curious if any other major denominations or religions say much about global warming

  3. #3
    jaded bitter joy crusher
    Reputation: Fredke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    19,723
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDon
    Curious if any other major denominations or religions say much about global warming
    There has been a lot of controversy in the Evangelical Christian community.

    A number of prominent evangelicals, including Richard Cizik, Rick Warren, and Jim Ball, have been very active at promoting a "creation care" ethic. Some projects coming out of this include the "What Would Jesus Drive" and "Interfaith Power and Light" initiatives. Here's a list of prominent Evangelical leaders who have signed onto the Evangelical Climate Initiative.

    On the other hand, there are other Evangelicals, such as Calvin Beisner, Chuck Colson, Richard Land, and James Dobson, think global warming is a liberal myth. Beisner has founded the Cornwall Alliance to teach Christians that environmentalism is actually a pagan cult intent on "seducing your children" to "put America and the world under its destructive control."

    I exchange email frequently with a member of the national Baptist Sunday School board who is utterly convinced that global warming is part of a conspiracy by Al Gore and the trilateral commission to impose a socialist world government and take everyone's money away. I kid you not.
    Fredke commented in your thread. You won't believe what happens next!

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    11,561
    When it comes to refuting science on the basis of religious dogmatism the Catholics have learned their lessons from past mistakes.

    At least nowadays the religous dogmatists, in the west anyway, can't burn folks at the stake for revealing the truth about how the Universe works.

  5. #5
    No Crybabies
    Reputation: Fixed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,684

    selective support?

    Do you agree with the Church on its other positions re "gift of life?". Not to derail into that discussion, but I think it's odd to pick and choose Church views to support isolated issues.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    When my fist clenches, crack it open
    Before I use it and lose my cool
    When I smile, tell me some bad news
    Before I laugh and act like a fool

  6. #6
    jaded bitter joy crusher
    Reputation: Fredke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    19,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixed
    Do you agree with the Church on its other positions re "gift of life?". Not to derail into that discussion, but I think it's odd to pick and choose Church views to support isolated issues.
    Since I'm not Catholic, what the church does and doesn't believe or support is not very relevant to me.

    I figure people who do care what the church says might want to be consistent. If you think the Catholic Church is important to listen to on abortion or the sanctity of marriage, then you probably want to take the church's opposition to capitalism and environmental degradation equally seriously, and similarly if you think the Catholic Church is important to listen to on environmental or economic issues, then yes, it's also important to listen to on abortion and marriage.

    The reason I'm posting some of these things is exactly to point out that the church doesn't take positions that line up neatly with either left or right politics in the US, so almost no one in American politics has positions that consistently agree with the church. Therefore, as moneyman points out in another thread, it is intellectually bankrupt to selectively use specific positions by the church (e.g., on abortion or gay marriage) to demonize politicians who profess the Catholic faith but disagree with the church on those issues, while giving a pass to other Catholic politicians who disagree with the church on other important issues.
    Fredke commented in your thread. You won't believe what happens next!

  7. #7
    No Crybabies
    Reputation: Fixed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,684
    Understood. I perceived you message to be more like "look, the Church agrees with me," rather than pointing out political hypocrisy.

    I'm not Catholic, either, and while I don't rely upon Catholic Church statements or policy, I'd take it into consideration, as I might many other sources.

    I think I'd descibe a Catholic political view as "authoritarian socialist." Doesn't fit very well in US politics.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fredke
    Since I'm not Catholic, what the church does and doesn't believe or support is not very relevant to me.

    I figure people who do care what the church says might want to be consistent. If you think the Catholic Church is important to listen to on abortion or the sanctity of marriage, then you probably want to take the church's opposition to capitalism and environmental degradation equally seriously, and similarly if you think the Catholic Church is important to listen to on environmental or economic issues, then yes, it's also important to listen to on abortion and marriage.

    The reason I'm posting some of these things is exactly to point out that the church doesn't take positions that line up neatly with either left or right politics in the US, so almost no one in American politics has positions that consistently agree with the church. Therefore, as moneyman points out in another thread, it is intellectually bankrupt to selectively use specific positions by the church (e.g., on abortion or gay marriage) to demonize politicians who profess the Catholic faith but disagree with the church on those issues, while giving a pass to other Catholic politicians who disagree with the church on other important issues.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    When my fist clenches, crack it open
    Before I use it and lose my cool
    When I smile, tell me some bad news
    Before I laugh and act like a fool

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    167
    I wonder how they are going to reconcile their position on climate change with their position on birth control. After all, the best (and engineering wise easiest) way to lower humanities carbon footprint is reduce the number of people on the planet by allowing folks to easily choose to have smaller families (and not ask them to give up sex to do it).

  9. #9
    No Crybabies
    Reputation: Fixed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,684
    Quote Originally Posted by greggJ
    I wonder how they are going to reconcile their position on climate change with their position on birth control. After all, the best (and engineering wise easiest) way to lower humanities carbon footprint is reduce the number of people on the planet by allowing folks to easily choose to have smaller families (and not ask them to give up sex to do it).
    Isn't it possible to have more people and still less carbon emissions? Heck, if we wanted to, we could build nuke and solar, use electric cars, and cut carbon way down. We have chosen not to.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    When my fist clenches, crack it open
    Before I use it and lose my cool
    When I smile, tell me some bad news
    Before I laugh and act like a fool

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: moneyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixed
    Understood. I perceived you message to be more like "look, the Church agrees with me," rather than pointing out political hypocrisy.

    I'm not Catholic, either, and while I don't rely upon Catholic Church statements or policy, I'd take it into consideration, as I might many other sources.

    I think I'd descibe a Catholic political view as "authoritarian socialist." Doesn't fit very well in US politics.
    I don't know why you reached that conclusion. It doesn't work for me at all.
    A church that doesn't provoke any crisis,
    A Gospel that doesn't unsettle,
    A word of God that doesn't get under anyone's skin,
    A word of God that doesn't touch the real sin of society around it,
    What kind of Gospel is that?

    Oscar Romero

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: moneyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredke
    Since I'm not Catholic, what the church does and doesn't believe or support is not very relevant to me.

    I figure people who do care what the church says might want to be consistent. If you think the Catholic Church is important to listen to on abortion or the sanctity of marriage, then you probably want to take the church's opposition to capitalism and environmental degradation equally seriously, and similarly if you think the Catholic Church is important to listen to on environmental or economic issues, then yes, it's also important to listen to on abortion and marriage.

    The reason I'm posting some of these things is exactly to point out that the church doesn't take positions that line up neatly with either left or right politics in the US, so almost no one in American politics has positions that consistently agree with the church. Therefore, as moneyman points out in another thread, it is intellectually bankrupt to selectively use specific positions by the church (e.g., on abortion or gay marriage) to demonize politicians who profess the Catholic faith but disagree with the church on those issues, while giving a pass to other Catholic politicians who disagree with the church on other important issues.
    Some of this stuff is gut-wrenching and ends up being exceedingly difficult to come to terms with. I was asked to speak to legislators regarding a gay marriage bill right here in the Cowboy state and, because I have a family-like relationship with a gay couple and have for more than 25 years, I declined. On the one hand, I understand the logic behind the teaching of the Church, yet on the other, more personal hand, I see the hurt in the eyes of my friends. I go along with the Church's teaching on the sanctity of life, but I can't be sure I would feel that way if my wife or daughters were murdered and their killer faced the death penalty.

    One more thing: I think it is intellectually bankrupt to use selective quotations from Scripture to justify suspect beliefs as well. At the risk of causing some controversy, that seems to be much more the purview of my Evangelical friends than my fellow Catholics.
    A church that doesn't provoke any crisis,
    A Gospel that doesn't unsettle,
    A word of God that doesn't get under anyone's skin,
    A word of God that doesn't touch the real sin of society around it,
    What kind of Gospel is that?

    Oscar Romero

  12. #12
    jaded bitter joy crusher
    Reputation: Fredke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    19,723
    Quote Originally Posted by moneyman
    Some of this stuff is gut-wrenching and ends up being exceedingly difficult to come to terms with. I was asked to speak to legislators regarding a gay marriage bill right here in the Cowboy state and, because I have a family-like relationship with a gay couple and have for more than 25 years, I declined. On the one hand, I understand the logic behind the teaching of the Church, yet on the other, more personal hand, I see the hurt in the eyes of my friends. I go along with the Church's teaching on the sanctity of life, but I can't be sure I would feel that way if my wife or daughters were murdered and their killer faced the death penalty.

    One more thing: I think it is intellectually bankrupt to use selective quotations from Scripture to justify suspect beliefs as well. At the risk of causing some controversy, that seems to be much more the purview of my Evangelical friends than my fellow Catholics.
    I am very sympathetic with the difficulty you must feel when your personal feelings collide with church teachings. I commend you on struggling with this rather than jumping to judge others.

    Regarding selective quotation from Scripture: Catholics put less emphasis on scripture than Evangelicals, so what you observe is no surprise; but not all Evangelicals are alike---the big deal with Luther was his declaration that it's everyone's duty to arrive at his own interpretation of what Christ and God want from us, not to defer to any authority however learned. So some will engage in foolish hermeneutical games, but others focus more on looking within and using scripture to guide them. Evangelicals span a wide range, just as the Catholic church can encompass people as divergent as Oscar Romero and Josemaria Escriva.
    Fredke commented in your thread. You won't believe what happens next!

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixed
    Isn't it possible to have more people and still less carbon emissions? Heck, if we wanted to, we could build nuke and solar, use electric cars, and cut carbon way down. We have chosen not to.
    I agree, it is possible, but difficult. The assumption I am making is that people want to live a 1st world lifestyle (which is really not that big an assumption). Even without that assumption, it is pretty hard to lower the human carbon footprint if the population continues to grow at exponential rates. The problem of climate change is that it is not all about reducing (or going to carbon free/neutral) energy use (though that is a big part). It is also about stopping the massive deforestation that is happening worldwide. This becomes increasingly difficult as the population explodes. People need someplace to live and food to eat, and all that takes land and energy.

  14. #14
    No Crybabies
    Reputation: Fixed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,684
    Quote Originally Posted by moneyman
    One more thing: I think it is intellectually bankrupt to use selective quotations from Scripture to justify suspect beliefs as well. At the risk of causing some controversy, that seems to be much more the purview of my Evangelical friends than my fellow Catholics.
    As Fredke mentioned, Protestants and Catholics look at the Bible differently. I grew up Lutheran. From the first day of Sunday School, we pulled out the Bible and read from it. We carried our own Bible. In the church pews, there will Bibles and Hymnals.

    I'm married to a Catholic. My sons have gone through catechism. They never once read from the Bible. In Mass, the congregation does not read from the Bible. The priest does, and interprets. From what I understand, the Vatican tells everyone below what to teach and what to believe. There is a central authority with a chain of command.

    Historically, the Catholic Church did not want people to read from the Bible. Mass was in Latin until the 1960's, from what I can recall.

    There's much more to it, but essentially, yes, Protestants will be much more likely to run into inconsistencies, as they read and interepret the Bible directly, with no central authority telling them what it means. It's not that they "pick and choose" what to rely upon, but that's the nature of the Bible. It's not like it was a comprehensive text written by one person from beginning to end, avoiding inconsistencies and with clear plan of thought.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    When my fist clenches, crack it open
    Before I use it and lose my cool
    When I smile, tell me some bad news
    Before I laugh and act like a fool

  15. #15
    No Crybabies
    Reputation: Fixed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,684
    Quote Originally Posted by moneyman
    I don't know why you reached that conclusion. It doesn't work for me at all.
    *Central authority with chain of command
    *People are told what to believe and how to act
    *Obligated to assist the poor
    *Tithing to the church to support the church and programs to assist the poor

    Looks generally authoritarian and socialist to me (irrespective of actual forms of socialism past or present).
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    When my fist clenches, crack it open
    Before I use it and lose my cool
    When I smile, tell me some bad news
    Before I laugh and act like a fool

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: moneyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredke
    I am very sympathetic with the difficulty you must feel when your personal feelings collide with church teachings. I commend you on struggling with this rather than jumping to judge others.

    Regarding selective quotation from Scripture: Catholics put less emphasis on scripture than Evangelicals, so what you observe is no surprise; but not all Evangelicals are alike---the big deal with Luther was his declaration that it's everyone's duty to arrive at his own interpretation of what Christ and God want from us, not to defer to any authority however learned. So some will engage in foolish hermeneutical games, but others focus more on looking within and using scripture to guide them. Evangelicals span a wide range, just as the Catholic church can encompass people as divergent as Oscar Romero and Josemaria Escriva.
    That's simply not true. Its a DIFFERENT emphasis than Evangelicals. The Mass, the central part of the faith, is made up of two parts: The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. In part one on Sundays, there are is a reading from the OT, a psalm, a reading fromt the NT (typically a letter from Paul or a reading from the Acts of the Apostles), then a proclamation of the Gospel. At daily Mass, we skip the middle reading. The readings are preceded by prayers that come from the Bible.

    In part two, there is a proclamation of the Nicene Creed, more prayers that come from the Bible, preparation of the gifts using prayers from the Bible, the consecration of the host and the wine, where the priest repeats the words that Jesus used at the Last Supper to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus, which comes form the Bible. We say the Lord's Prayer, which comes from the Bible. Then we say more prayers that come from the Bible.

    Over the course of a year, according to a good friend who is a priest and an excellent theologian, Catholics hear 17% of the OT and 73% of the NT just by attending Sunday Mass. If one goes during the week that number increases dramatically. Add to that the common practice of praying the Liturgy of the Hours on a daily basis (morning prayer is made up of three psalms, a canticle from one of the prophets or the Gospel writers, readings from the OT and the NT, and suddenly it makes Catholics look like the Biblical authorities. And this is true for Catholics around the world, because these items are universal, which is what "catholic" means.

    Protestant ministers, OTOH, tend to return to their favorite readings time and again, limiting the exposure of their flock to those favorites. Also, I understand that there are 35,000 different Protestant denominations in the US alone and that all use the Bible in different ways, but lack the commonality of service - the Mass - that Catholics take for granted.

    That "Catholics don't use the Bible" stuff is a myth that needs to get put away.
    A church that doesn't provoke any crisis,
    A Gospel that doesn't unsettle,
    A word of God that doesn't get under anyone's skin,
    A word of God that doesn't touch the real sin of society around it,
    What kind of Gospel is that?

    Oscar Romero

  17. #17
    jaded bitter joy crusher
    Reputation: Fredke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    19,723
    Quote Originally Posted by moneyman
    That's simply not true. Its a DIFFERENT emphasis than Evangelicals.
    We're talking about two different things. I meant emphasis in deciding how to live your life; what's right and wrong. You're talking about using scripture as part of worship. Those are two different things.

    As I understand things (do correct me if I'm wrong) for individual Catholics, quoting scripture to support a position seems beside the point because if the Pope says contraception is wrong, then it doesn't matter what you can quote from scripture, it's still wrong. And if the Pope says that divorce and remarriage are wrong, the matter is settled and nothing you quote from scripture can change it.

    For Protestants arguing over contraception or divorce, scripture can be very relevant, and hence it gets quoted more frequently.

    If I'm wrong on this, I'm happy to be schooled.
    Fredke commented in your thread. You won't believe what happens next!

  18. #18
    Iohannes fac totum
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,150
    Quote Originally Posted by moneyman
    Protestant ministers, OTOH, tend to return to their favorite readings time and again, limiting the exposure of their flock to those favorites. Also, I understand that there are 35,000 different Protestant denominations in the US alone and that all use the Bible in different ways, but lack the commonality of service - the Mass - that Catholics take for granted.

    If you aren't fond of sweeping statements about the Catholic Church, then I don't think you should be making sweeping comments on the Protestant ministers.

    Maybe I come from an exceptional church (and I do feel our church is exceptional), but I don't see any of what you speak of. We cover the Bible, front to back. The tough and the easy, and we have a strong community of believers who are like second family to me. The exposure of our flock is not in question and we have a strong biblical guidance and council at our church.

    I do not question your salvation, nor your knowledge on the Catholic Church, BUT I do wonder how it is you can condemn someones thoughts on the Catholic Church only to do the same to the Protestant Church.

    You are more than welcome to peruse our sermons. http://www.covfel.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=50793

    Click on "show details" to show the sermons from within the series.

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredke
    I meant emphasis in deciding how to live your life; what's right and wrong. You're talking about using scripture as part of worship. Those are two different things.
    It's a bit of a false dichotomy. The CC tends to view Mass as more than simply worship-it is an integral part of living life.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredke
    As I understand things (do correct me if I'm wrong) for individual Catholics, quoting scripture to support a position seems beside the point because if the Pope says contraception is wrong, then it doesn't matter what you can quote from scripture, it's still wrong. And if the Pope says that divorce and remarriage are wrong, the matter is settled and nothing you quote from scripture can change it.
    Kind of. But this is more a matter of how scripture gets used, rather than if. Teachings from the Pope(and bishops) are derived from scripture(along with tradition, which itself is based at least in part on scripture).

    In regards to citations of selected verses, I would agree with you. Of course, I'd also point to the fact that many evangelicals appeal to teachings from their preferred denomination/theologian/etc, which mirrors the method used by Catholics

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,033
    Quote Originally Posted by moneyman
    In part two, there is a proclamation of the Nicene Creed, more prayers that come from the Bible, preparation of the gifts using prayers from the Bible, the consecration of the host and the wine, where the priest repeats the words that Jesus used at the Last Supper to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus, which comes form the Bible. We say the Lord's Prayer, which comes from the Bible. Then we say more prayers that come from the Bible.
    Agreed. Using methods derived from scripture is every bit as much an emphasis on scripture, just of a different form
    Quote Originally Posted by moneyman
    Over the course of a year, according to a good friend who is a priest and an excellent theologian, Catholics hear 17% of the OT and 73% of the NT just by attending Sunday Mass. If one goes during the week that number increases dramatically. Add to that the common practice of praying the Liturgy of the Hours on a daily basis (morning prayer is made up of three psalms, a canticle from one of the prophets or the Gospel writers, readings from the OT and the NT, and suddenly it makes Catholics look like the Biblical authorities. And this is true for Catholics around the world, because these items are universal, which is what "catholic" means.

    Protestant ministers, OTOH, tend to return to their favorite readings time and again, limiting the exposure of their flock to those favorites. Also, I understand that there are 35,000 different Protestant denominations in the US alone and that all use the Bible in different ways
    To be fair, at least a few of those denominations use the Revised Common Lectionary(based in part on Ordo Lectionum Missae), and prayer of the daily offices from the Book of Common Prayer(officially Anglican, but I know of many outside that tradition who make use)

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixed
    *Central authority with chain of command
    *People are told what to believe and how to act
    *Obligated to assist the poor
    *Tithing to the church to support the church and programs to assist the poor

    Looks generally authoritarian and socialist to me (irrespective of actual forms of socialism past or present).
    Those aren't political positions.

    At least in theory the third and fourth points should apply to all Christians

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: moneyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,778
    Quote Originally Posted by 88 rex
    If you aren't fond of sweeping statements about the Catholic Church, then I don't think you should be making sweeping comments on the Protestant ministers.

    Maybe I come from an exceptional church (and I do feel our church is exceptional), but I don't see any of what you speak of. We cover the Bible, front to back. The tough and the easy, and we have a strong community of believers who are like second family to me. The exposure of our flock is not in question and we have a strong biblical guidance and council at our church.

    I do not question your salvation, nor your knowledge on the Catholic Church, BUT I do wonder how it is you can condemn someones thoughts on the Catholic Church only to do the same to the Protestant Church.

    You are more than welcome to peruse our sermons. http://www.covfel.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=50793

    Click on "show details" to show the sermons from within the series.
    There is nothing in what I am saying that is a condemnation of Protestant churches. The (mis)conception is that Protestants, particulary Evangelicals, use the Bible extensively and that Catholics do not. Even Fredke's (mis)conception that we do things because the Pope tells us to misses the boat. Doctrine is based on scripture, not the ideas of an old man in Rome. If one reads papal encylclicals, they are extensively footnoted from scripture. If one reads homilies by the Pope, they are heavy with reference from scripture. To say that Catholics somehow don't depend on or use the Bible in either worship (the Mass) or for determining the difference between right and wrong is simply wrong. The difference is that we don't read the Bible and then determine for ourselves how it should be interpreted. That doesn't mean we are automotons who just blindly accept things on the word of one man, but rather that Church doctrine has evolved over 2,000 years from the study of scripture by thousands of people, and Church doctrine is derived from the interpretation of scripture.

    I am sure your church is exceptional. It looks like a celebratory and welcoming place. I'm sorry, but I didn't listen to the sermons. If you say you cover the Bible front to back each year, then I believe you do. But if I take a trip away from Glen Mills, PA, and attend church on a Sunday in Virginia, or New Jersey, or California, I have no idea what I will hear. I have no idea how the Bible will be proclaimed, and the pastor will have a much different view on things than does Jared Mellinger. Good, bad or indifferent, it is true. One thing I love about the Catholic Church is that I can attend Mass anywhere in the world, in any language, and still know enough to participate meaningfully. If I attend a Protestant church in Santa Ana, El Salvador, it won't mean much to me.

    Again, no condemnation. Just a statement of the facts as I understand them. If I am wrong, then I am wrong.
    A church that doesn't provoke any crisis,
    A Gospel that doesn't unsettle,
    A word of God that doesn't get under anyone's skin,
    A word of God that doesn't touch the real sin of society around it,
    What kind of Gospel is that?

    Oscar Romero

  23. #23
    No Crybabies
    Reputation: Fixed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,684

    and

    And... I'm not condemning anything, either, by the way. My contacts with the Catholic Church are certainly more limited. As I noted, my kids went though Catechism and never once cracked a Bible. When I have attended Mass, there are two readings. They tend to be fairly short. And, yes, there is a lot of recitation of rote prayers from the Bible.

    To me, the difference is that in the Lutheran and Methodist churches I have attended, you go to Bible study. In church, the pastor tells you to pick up your Bible and read along. You have what amounts to homework. As soon as you can read, you have a Bible and study it. There are interactive discussions about what each thinks it means.

    Agree, not saying one is any better or worse, but the whole point of bringing this up was the comment that Protestants "pick and choose" what parts of the Bible they like. I don't think that is what is going on. They may be more likely to cite passages, as they may read them more and do not rely upon a central authority to tell them what they mean. So, yes, they are likely to arrive at more disparate conclusions. That is what happens then people read and interpret for themselves, and it's not necessarily bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by moneyman
    That's simply not true. Its a DIFFERENT emphasis than Evangelicals. The Mass, the central part of the faith, is made up of two parts: The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. In part one on Sundays, there are is a reading from the OT, a psalm, a reading fromt the NT (typically a letter from Paul or a reading from the Acts of the Apostles), then a proclamation of the Gospel. At daily Mass, we skip the middle reading. The readings are preceded by prayers that come from the Bible.

    In part two, there is a proclamation of the Nicene Creed, more prayers that come from the Bible, preparation of the gifts using prayers from the Bible, the consecration of the host and the wine, where the priest repeats the words that Jesus used at the Last Supper to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus, which comes form the Bible. We say the Lord's Prayer, which comes from the Bible. Then we say more prayers that come from the Bible.

    Over the course of a year, according to a good friend who is a priest and an excellent theologian, Catholics hear 17% of the OT and 73% of the NT just by attending Sunday Mass. If one goes during the week that number increases dramatically. Add to that the common practice of praying the Liturgy of the Hours on a daily basis (morning prayer is made up of three psalms, a canticle from one of the prophets or the Gospel writers, readings from the OT and the NT, and suddenly it makes Catholics look like the Biblical authorities. And this is true for Catholics around the world, because these items are universal, which is what "catholic" means.

    Protestant ministers, OTOH, tend to return to their favorite readings time and again, limiting the exposure of their flock to those favorites. Also, I understand that there are 35,000 different Protestant denominations in the US alone and that all use the Bible in different ways, but lack the commonality of service - the Mass - that Catholics take for granted.

    That "Catholics don't use the Bible" stuff is a myth that needs to get put away.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    When my fist clenches, crack it open
    Before I use it and lose my cool
    When I smile, tell me some bad news
    Before I laugh and act like a fool

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixed
    My contacts with the Catholic Church are certainly more limited...
    To me, the difference is that in the Lutheran and Methodist churches I have attended, you go to Bible study.
    I just checked the websites of the local Catholic parishes, all but one had bible study times listed(the one that didn't listed 'small groups', not sure of the content) and many included the previously mentioned daily readings in their bulletins. It may be an issue of the particular parish you have interacted with
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixed
    and do not rely upon a central authority to tell them what they mean. So, yes, they are likely to arrive at more disparate conclusions. That is what happens then people read and interpret for themselves, and it's not necessarily bad.
    I can fairly consistently guess a persons interpretation of a particular passage by finding out what denomination they are(in some cases I have to dig to find out which side of the internal divides they are on). They may not consciously appeal to a central authority, but the consistency I've seen within particular traditions suggests that it is not simply reading and interpreting for themselves

  25. #25
    AJL
    AJL is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: AJL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredke
    A new report from the Pontifical Academy of Science says:
    We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home. By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility, we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet blessed with the gift of life.
    Although academy's chancellor, Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, was one of the signatories, the report is not "an act of the magisterium of the church," but according to Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi, it is "a significant scientific contribution to be valued in the context of the concerns about environmental problems often shown in recent magisterial documents and in the words of the Holy Father."
    Interesting. Of course, outside of Faith and Morals, the Roman Catholic church has no magisterial province, AFAIK.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.