One Church, Vatican document on Ecumenism

oldraven;

Isn't that the part where J.C. says to Peter "Upon this rock I will build my church", As to Rome; if your going to spread a religion why not start with the guys in charge? After all it was said that all roads lead to Rome.


Camac.

It is strange that we didn't hear of the excommunication in the in my church. There have been instances where priests are relieved of all priestly duties but still are allowed to remain in the Catholic faith. Excommunication is being removed from all aspects of the church. Pretty harsh!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Ok, I read it. The papers of excommunication were first prepared in 2003 by a Cardinal (who has no power to excommunicate) The Holy See did not excommunicate him. The papers were redone and filed again in 2007 and no action appears to have been taken by the Church to date. This, as any thing else in the Church, is a slow process. I may be wrong but I doubt it will happen this time. I suspect he might loose his authority to administer the rites of the church. We had a church in the U.S. where the Priest was performing gay marriage ceremonies and committing other violations of the faith. His authority was removed by the Church but he was not removed from the Church. As I recall he moved and formed his own church still loosely based on Catholicism but with no financial help from the Catholic organization.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

It is strange that we didn't hear of the excommunication in the in my church. There have been instances where priests are relieved of all priestly duties but still are allowed to remain in the Catholic faith. Excommunication is being removed from all aspects of the church. Pretty harsh!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Ok, I read it. The papers of excommunication were first prepared in 2003 by a Cardinal (who has no power to excommunicate) The Holy See did not excommunicate him. The papers were redone and filed again in 2007 and no action appears to have been taken by the Church to date. This, as any thing else in the Church, is a slow process. I may be wrong but I doubt it will happen this time. I suspect he might loose his authority to administer the rites of the church. We had a church in the U.S. where the Priest was performing gay marriage ceremonies and committing other violations of the faith. His authority was removed by the Church but he was not removed from the Church. As I recall he moved and formed his own church still loosely based on Catholicism but with no financial help from the Catholic organization.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

We had the same situation here in Toronto where a Priest was in flagrant violation of Canonical was defrock so went out and started his own church. Methinks you really have to screw up before the hammer of excommunication falls.

Camac.

It is strange that we didn't hear of the excommunication in the in my church. There have been instances where priests are relieved of all priestly duties but still are allowed to remain in the Catholic faith. Excommunication is being removed from all aspects of the church. Pretty harsh!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Ok, I read it. The papers of excommunication were first prepared in 2003 by a Cardinal (who has no power to excommunicate) The Holy See did not excommunicate him. The papers were redone and filed again in 2007 and no action appears to have been taken by the Church to date. This, as any thing else in the Church, is a slow process. I may be wrong but I doubt it will happen this time. I suspect he might loose his authority to administer the rites of the church. We had a church in the U.S. where the Priest was performing gay marriage ceremonies and committing other violations of the faith. His authority was removed by the Church but he was not removed from the Church. As I recall he moved and formed his own church still loosely based on Catholicism but with no financial help from the Catholic organization.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

We had the same situation here in Toronto where a Priest was in flagrant violation of Canonical was defrock so went out and started his own church. Methinks you really have to screw up before the hammer of excommunication falls.

Camac.

As I recall, the church used excommunication as a veiled threat in the 40's (If you messed up bad enough you could be excommunicated and burn in hell) but the last one was over two hundred years ago. Priests are taken care of pretty well. They are not paid as in the protestant religions. Once they leave the umbrella of Catholicism, they are at the mercy of "the collection plate" and may lead a pretty spartan existence. My parish has about 2500 members and when the annual giving is averaged one comes up with about $7.00 per member per week. If a person had a following of a couple of hundred, at that rate, there would be $1,400 a week to cover ALL expenses. In a major city, that would be a very poor existence! That is the ultimate punishment. He might be sleepomg in a pew, heating soup on a hot plate and doing his laundry dishes and personal cleansing in a bathroom sink.

Slàinte,   

 Patch    

It is strange that we didn't hear of the excommunication in the in my church. There have been instances where priests are relieved of all priestly duties but still are allowed to remain in the Catholic faith. Excommunication is being removed from all aspects of the church. Pretty harsh!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Ok, I read it. The papers of excommunication were first prepared in 2003 by a Cardinal (who has no power to excommunicate) The Holy See did not excommunicate him. The papers were redone and filed again in 2007 and no action appears to have been taken by the Church to date. This, as any thing else in the Church, is a slow process. I may be wrong but I doubt it will happen this time. I suspect he might loose his authority to administer the rites of the church. We had a church in the U.S. where the Priest was performing gay marriage ceremonies and committing other violations of the faith. His authority was removed by the Church but he was not removed from the Church. As I recall he moved and formed his own church still loosely based on Catholicism but with no financial help from the Catholic organization.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

We had the same situation here in Toronto where a Priest was in flagrant violation of Canonical was defrock so went out and started his own church. Methinks you really have to screw up before the hammer of excommunication falls.

Camac.

Couldn’t one say much the same about “JC” himself? (A disgruntle employee starting his own business?)

J.C. Me. Not him.

Couldn’t one say much the same about “JC” himself? (A disgruntle employee starting his own business?)

J.C. Me. Not him.


Yes, one could and some do. Some religions say Jesus was a prophet, (Islam being one) a few ignore his "existence" and some believe he is the Son of God. We will not know until our time is done or maybe the "end of time". (which allegedly according to the bible, Nostradamus, the Mayan calender and an ancient method of Chinese fortune telling, will be in 2012.) That could be a whole other discussion.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

The papacy claimed spiritual descent from Peter, when it was founded some hundreds of years later, but I think maybe that's a ways from saying that Jesus appointed Peter as the first Pope. The thing about "upon this rock . . . " was a pun on Peter's name as translated into Greek: Petrus, or "rock;" and what Jesus might have meant by the word which is glossed as "church" in that passage is very likely not the Roman church as it later developed. Then of course, if you read Acts and the epistles, you see that Rome was only one center of apostolic activity, and it had no real claim to supremacy in the spread of the early church just because the world power was still seated there.

The papacy claimed spiritual descent from Peter, when it was founded some hundreds of years later, but I think maybe that's a ways from saying that Jesus appointed Peter as the first Pope. The thing about "upon this rock . . . " was a pun on Peter's name as translated into Greek: Petrus, or "rock;" and what Jesus might have meant by the word which is glossed as "church" in that passage is very likely not the Roman church as it later developed. Then of course, if you read Acts and the epistles, you see that Rome was only one center of apostolic activity, and it had no real claim to supremacy in the spread of the early church just because the world power was still seated there.

stoirmeil;

I am not really up on the history of Christianity, or Catholicism and correct me if I'm wrong but I believe in the days of the early christian church the two biggest communities were in Jerusalem and Antioch. It really wasn't until later that a community established by Peter arose in Rome.



Camac.

Ulster my friend, you are intitle of your opinion and I greatly respect that but if I may,and please don't think that I'm trying to sermon you this is not my point here. But here are some guidelines that Paul established here for ALL members to respect them. Here some of them that I think this member completely disregard.

And I trust in your good judgment that you'll understand the banishment for this member. Who quite frankly did nothing to gain respect from the members here who just wanted to express their opinions. Mine included.

P.S. Please forgive me but I am relieved by the decision that stevenpd has taken.

Thanks dear friend, LOA

Oh, certainly, and it's been years myself since I've read about it. I guess I would say that anything in Peter's lifetime would have been "early church," especially relative to roman catholicism and the papacy. An early community in the city of Rome would not yet be the Roman Church as it has come down to the present.

All thanks to the rules, but this is an UNMODERATED forum. We ALL enter here knowing that things could get pretty hot. We are NOT children and can defend ourselves! I say let him back in and face the outcome of his OUTRAGEOUS and ignorant posts!

All thanks to the rules, but this is an UNMODERATED forum. We ALL enter here knowing that things could get pretty hot. We are NOT children and can defend ourselves! I say let him back in and face the outcome of his OUTRAGEOUS and ignorant posts!

My personal opinion is that he had nothing to say that represented the Catholic church today. The rest of you had beaten him as evidenced by Royal resorting to personal attacks. The closest he came to insulting me (may have been meant as a compliment) was to include me with him in a Priestly order, or words to that effect. Should he be allowed back he could be disruptive in other topics too.

I do not care either way.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

It's not a kindness to the site or ultimately to him to entertain more of the same -- he ends up being a punching bag, and most of the interaction turns into an ugly troll-bait that drags the community down. It doesn't stay within unmoderated forums or site boundaries, either -- there were people he attempted to carry on his accusatory discussion with via private e-mails that he picked up from our member profiles when the site was blocked to him, and not in a reasonable or rational manner.

Ok. I'm glad he's gone. The guy was a classic Troll who would have kept on spreading his disease throughout CR. He's one of a million, and we'll see more like him again. Do not doubt it.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is the difference between Man's Church and Christ's Church. What parts of Christianity, of any denomination, is of direct influence of Jesus, and what parts came from those he left behind. I have much respect for the Apostles, but I'm not a Peterian, I'm a Christian. I base my views on Christ's words and works, not his followers. They had much to say, and most was good advice. But making new rules and creating positions of power for men was loosing the path and taking liberties. Some even used Christianity as a platform to attack Rome.

If Jesus could only hear us now. I imagine he'd say something to the effect of; "Oh, come on! Does it matter how has the 'better piece of bread' when you're all eating it the same. You're arguing like children over who loves me more."

Again, this is how I see it.

I hadn't realized he had gone that far. I have noticed that a few people feel they can get by with anything on the net. In a face to face if they became so insulting, someone would knock them off their bar stool. That fact tends to keep society polite with very few exceptions. Royal will move to another site and do the same. I doubt he had a love of Celtic music anyway.

Slàinte,    

Patch