• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Go Pope!

MrSe7en said:
The only one making implications here is you. Quote where I said mortal sin wasn't a big deal.
Click to expand...

You said "Abortion is murder, and I think it's stupid that killing one gets you excommunicated, while killing the other is treated like any other mortal sin."

The phrase "any other" implies that the category is not so severe. You can argue that it's not, but that's not a debate worth having.
 
Risky Thicket said:
OK, phat, we recognize your very narrow interpretation. Don't start proof texting us or we will proof text back and then interpretation of text and yada yada. Bottomline: If a new interpretation was not intended a new interpretation would not be announced. Life evolves, deal with it.
Click to expand...

That's completely mistaken. There is no new interpretation. There are reformed procedures for obtaining an annulment, but this does not change the requirements to obtain the annulment in the first place. If the marriage was validly entered into it cannot be annulled. That did not change and cannot change. The Holy Father is wonderful, perhaps the most remarkable and groundbreaking pope of the modern era, but he has not fundamentally changed any teachings of the Church, no matter how much secularists like you want him to.
 
Guy Incognito said:
That's completely mistaken. There is no new interpretation. There are reformed procedures for obtaining an annulment, but this does not change the requirements to obtain the annulment in the first place. If the marriage was validly entered into it cannot be annulled. That did not change and cannot change. The Holy Father is wonderful, perhaps the most remarkable and groundbreaking pope of the modern era, but he has not fundamentally changed any teachings of the Church, no matter how much secularists like you want him to.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that little bit of hatred.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Thanks for that little bit of hatred.
Click to expand...

That's a false a accusation. You are a self confessed secularist. You also clearly a desirous to interpret that Holy Father in that light, even though it is obvious that he has not deviated from existing Catholic teaching.

This is a pretty pervasive thing among liberals and secularists, this desire to see Pope Francis's laudable shift in tone as some sort of earth shattering departure from existing Catholic teaching, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
 
Guy Incognito said:
That's a false a accusation. You are a self confessed secularist. You also clearly a desirous to interpret that Holy Father in that light, even though it is obvious that he has not deviated from existing Catholic teaching.

This is a pretty pervasive thing among liberals and secularists, this desire to see Pope Francis's laudable shift in tone as some sort of earth shattering departure from existing Catholic teaching, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
Click to expand...

I am a confessed Zen Buddhist who likes what he hears from Pope Francis. I can live with the fact that, for reasons unknown, my expressed appreciation of the Pope causes overwhelming fear within you.

Your fear is clearly manifested in uncontrollable anger and quick attribution of things I did not say. That's on you. You'll have to deal with that. Meanwhile, I refuse to accept your vitriol and unexplained anger. I continue to be impressed by Pope Francis.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I am a confessed Zen Buddhist who likes what he hears from Pope Francis. I can live with the fact that, for reasons unknown, my expressed appreciation of the Pope causes overwhelming fear within you.

Your fear is clearly manifested in uncontrollable anger and quick attribution of things I did not say. That's on you. You'll have to deal with that. Meanwhile, I refuse to accept your vitriol and unexplained anger. I continue to be impressed by Pope Francis.
Click to expand...

These are really strange and over-the-top accusations. Sounds like you're projecting.

At any rate, it's a good thing that you are impressed by Pope Francis, but you rationale is clearly faulty. There has been no change in the teaching of the Church. Pope Francis is a great Pope, and he is upholding two thousand years of unchanged and unchangeable Catholic teaching. I am glad you are impressed by that, but I suspect that if you really understood it, you wouldn't be so impressed after all.
 
Guy Incognito said:
These are really strange and over-the-top accusations. Sounds like you're projecting.

At any rate, it's a good thing that you are impressed by Pope Francis, but you rationale is clearly faulty. There has been no change in the teaching of the Church. Pope Francis is a great Pope, and he is upholding two thousand years of unchanged and unchangeable Catholic teaching. I am glad you are impressed by that, but I suspect that if you really understood it, you wouldn't be so impressed after all.
Click to expand...

Just stop it! Let it go.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Just stop it! Let it go.
Click to expand...

Anyway, the point is, it would be nice if all the lapsed Catholics turned Zen Buddhists could really find common ground with the Church. There is a great deal of compatibility, and there is even a priest out there named Kennedy is who also an ordained Roshi.

But the problem is that when people look at the pope, whether it is the news media or others, and hear things like forgiveness is available for people who've had abortions, or annulment procedures will be reformed, there is a tendency to take this as if it signals some change in the Church, like all of a sudden everything is going to be revised for the twenty-first century and next thing you know there will be female priests, divorce and abortions for everybody! It's not like that. The problem with the Church has been with tone, and now that we have a Jesuit Pope, the tone has changed tremendously, but the teachings have not.
 
Last edited:
SlevinKelevra said:
when it is all said and done, his legacy will be greater than JP2.
Click to expand...

I think that's right. JP2 was an ultimate conservative. I don't think he changed anything in the church's doctrine or practice, did he? Pope's, like other political leaders, are remembered for the innovations they make, for what they do, rather than what they don't do.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Anyway, the point is, it would be nice if all the lapsed Catholics turned Zen Buddhists could really find common ground with the Church. There is a great deal of compatibility, and there is even a priest out there named Kennedy is who also an ordained Roshi.
Click to expand...
That's true. There are quite a lot of Christian Zen practitioners. I was at a Zen retreat a couple of years ago and there was a catholic and a moslem attending, as well as a few of us atheistic Buddhists. As one of those atheistic Zen Buddhists, I don't find a contradiction between atheism and Buddhism, so I can't think why Christians, Moslems or any other religionists should either. Of course, others might disagree.
 
Andalublue said:
That's true. There are quite a lot of Christian Zen practitioners. I was at a Zen retreat a couple of years ago and there was a catholic and a moslem attending, as well as a few of us atheistic Buddhists. As one of those atheistic Zen Buddhists, I don't find a contradiction between atheism and Buddhism, so I can't think why Christians, Moslems or any other religionists should either. Of course, others might disagree.
Click to expand...

Zen is interesting in that way, since it is essentially divorced from Buddhist cosmological doctrines, and as you say, atheistic (or at least agnostic) it can easily overlay another religion as a sort of adjunct philosophy. The moral values of Buddhism and the values of Christianity are, and this always astonishes me, practically identical.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Zen is interesting in that way, since it is essentially divorced from Buddhist cosmological doctrines, and as you say, atheistic (or at least agnostic) it can easily overlay another religion as a sort of adjunct philosophy. The moral values of Buddhism and the values of Christianity are, and this always astonishes me, practically identical.
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't say that, at all. Zen isn't divorced from Buddhism, it simply doesn't place the same emphasis on ritual as other schools do. It's an intensely practical approach to life. As you say, you can overlay many other philosophical traditions because, from a Zen point of view, it doesn't matter. What does it matter what you believe was the cause of creation, or indeed what you believe happens after death? The only thing you can personally and directly affect is what happens right now. Do the 'now' thing right, and everything else takes care of itself, no matter what you believe. That is totally consistent with all schools of Buddhist thought.
 
Andalublue said:
No, I wouldn't say that, at all. Zen isn't divorced from Buddhism, it simply doesn't place the same emphasis on ritual as other schools do. It's an intensely practical approach to life. As you say, you can overlay many other philosophical traditions because, from a Zen point of view, it doesn't matter. What does it matter what you believe was the cause of creation, or indeed what you believe happens after death? The only thing you can personally and directly affect is what happens right now. Do the 'now' thing right, and everything else takes care of itself, no matter what you believe. That is totally consistent with all schools of Buddhist thought.
Click to expand...

No, it's not divorced from Buddhism, but it is certainly divorced from Buddhist cosmology. It is not inconsistent with other Buddhist schools any more than it is inconsistent with any other religion, but you certainly couldn't say that about the Pure Land school, for example, which has specific cosmological teachings that are not present within Zen.
 
phattonez said:
You said "Abortion is murder, and I think it's stupid that killing one gets you excommunicated, while killing the other is treated like any other mortal sin."

The phrase "any other" implies that the category is not so severe. You can argue that it's not, but that's not a debate worth having.
Click to expand...

It does not imply anything, because all mortal sins contain with them the same severity. You're manufacturing an argument where there is none, like you're typing just to hear the clicks and clacks of your own keyboard.
 
MrSe7en said:
It does not imply anything, because all mortal sins contain with them the same severity. You're manufacturing an argument where there is none, like you're typing just to hear the clicks and clacks of your own keyboard.
Click to expand...

Not all mortal sins incur a latae sententiae excommunication penalty, that is reserved within the Latin Rite for certain extremely heinous sins.
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, it's not divorced from Buddhism, but it is certainly divorced from Buddhist cosmology. It is not inconsistent with other Buddhist schools any more than it is inconsistent with any other religion, but you certainly couldn't say that about the Pure Land school, for example, which has specific cosmological teachings that are not present within Zen.
Click to expand...

Well, there are plenty of people who would argue that Buddhism doesn't really have a cosmology as such. There's no unifying or orthodox Buddhist take on the origin or nature of the universe. There are those who hark back to Hindu creation myths, there are those who syncretise Buddhist ideas into other philosophical traditions, but one thing you can always say about Buddhism is that there's no orthodoxy, nothing you have to accept. Go figure it out for yourself.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Not all mortal sins incur a latae sententiae excommunication penalty, that is reserved within the Latin Rite for certain extremely heinous sins.
Click to expand...

No, only Abortion, Apostasy, Heresy, Schism, Violation of the Sacred Species, Physically attacking the Pope, Sacramentally absolving an accomplice in sexual sin, Consecrating a Bishop without authorization, and Violating the Seal of Confession.

My criticism is that Abortion does not fit. It is murder, and I disagree that the sinner, regardless of penitence, be turned away and excommunicated for it while a murderer is not. A murderer, a rapist, a thief, a pedophile, and others who enact mortal sin against others do not get punished via latae sententiae excommunication, so why the special treatment for abortion? I was raised and taught that the truly penitent sinner shall be forgiven and absolved by the authority of Christ, so when I discovered this, it was surprising to me.
 
Andalublue said:
Well, there are plenty of people who would argue that Buddhism doesn't really have a cosmology as such. There's no unifying or orthodox Buddhist take on the origin or nature of the universe. There are those who hark back to Hindu creation myths, there are those who syncretise Buddhist ideas into other philosophical traditions, but one thing you can always say about Buddhism is that there's no orthodoxy, nothing you have to accept. Go figure it out for yourself.
Click to expand...

That's not really true of Buddhism outside of Zen, and although there is a tremendous diversity of belief within the various Buddhist traditions, within each tradition is are clearly orthodox cosmological teachings on the ordering of the physical universe, the nature of the soul, the various planes of existence and afterlife, the various divinities, buddhas and bodhisattvas. And even within the Zen/Chan tradition some schools of thought are extremely doctrinaire. It is pretty dismissive to write all off as syncretization and hodge podge. Being unable to grasp the complexities and nuances of Buddhist orthodoxies doesn't mean they aren't there. This is a pretty offensive stereotype about Buddhism that has its roots in orientialism.
 
MrSe7en said:
No, only Abortion, Apostasy, Heresy, Schism, Violation of the Sacred Species, Physically attacking the Pope, Sacramentally absolving an accomplice in sexual sin, Consecrating a Bishop without authorization, and Violating the Seal of Confession.

My criticism is that Abortion does not fit. It is murder, and I disagree that the sinner, regardless of penitence, be turned away and excommunicated for it while a murderer is not. A murderer, a rapist, a thief, a pedophile, and others who enact mortal sin against others do not get punished via latae sententiae excommunication, so why the special treatment for abortion? I was raised and taught that the truly penitent sinner shall be forgiven and absolved by the authority of Christ, so when I discovered this, it was surprising to me.
Click to expand...

Tell me something, what does someone who is in a state of mortal sin get that is different than someone who is excommunicated? What is different for that person?
 
phattonez said:
Tell me something, what does someone who is in a state of mortal sin get that is different than someone who is excommunicated? What is different for that person?
Click to expand...

A penitent sinner in a state of mortal sin may still receive the Sacrament of Confession. If absolved by a priest under the authority of Christ, they may continue to receive the Sacrament of Communion. The excommunicated cannot receive any Sacrament with the exception of Confession prior to the time of death. They are dead to the Church, unless a Bishop is willing to lift the excommunication.
 
phattonez said:
Tell me something, what does someone who is in a state of mortal sin get that is different than someone who is excommunicated? What is different for that person?
Click to expand...

It is exponentially more difficult for an excommunicant to return to good standing with the Church than it is to go to confession and absolve a mortal sin.
 
MrSe7en said:
A penitent sinner in a state of mortal sin may still receive the Sacrament of Confession. If absolved by a priest under the authority of Christ, they may continue to receive the Sacrament of Communion. The excommunicated cannot receive any Sacrament with the exception of Confession prior to the time of death. They are dead to the Church, unless a Bishop is willing to lift the excommunication.
Click to expand...

And what bishop is not going to forgive someone who's wants confession and is repentant? And in most diocese in the US even the priests were granted the faculty to lift the excommunication since that was more expedient. So what is the problem here?
 
Guy Incognito said:
It is exponentially more difficult for an excommunicant to return to good standing with the Church than it is to go to confession and absolve a mortal sin.
Click to expand...

For abortion it is just as simple. This is why priests were granted the faculty to lift the excommunication in most dioceses in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom