Catholic Church Cracks Down On Feminist Nuns

[Porter_Rockwell]

Yes porter ,please don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel. I think I have the gist. All religion bad, deceptive, dangerous. All non religion decent, honest, not guilt producing. Life is so much less problematic for the Pol Pots and Chairman Maos of the world when religion has not instilled the idea of sin. Oh , the freedom from hypocrazy (sic).

 

I've never said any of that.

 

I was alleging that female subjugation is justified by many religious types, because of scripture and doctrine. I was discrediting the sources of credibility that seem to appeal to latter poster.

 

I don't believe for a minute that there aren't wicked secular people.

I don't believe that peole are good because of religion either.

 

I think that people are good because it's their nature. They know right and wrong, because of their nature.

 

Here's a point to debate if you'd like:...in my opinion, the secular person who does something good, with no expectation of celestial acknowledgement or reward in another life, is actually acting better than someone who is religious, and thinks their good deeds will be tallied and counted for a better seat in the kingdom.

 

What do you think?

[Porter_Rockwell]

Care to recast that into recognizable English?  I've got no idea what you are asking.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Oaky,

 

Pahoran, on 09 May 2014 - 06:37 AM, said:

I honestly don't think that what the Catholics do about their internal arrangements has any relevance to us.

  And I'm not just saying that because we're the true Church and they're not (even though we are)   but because the whole structure, philosophy and basis of Priesthood authority is so different.

 

After all, we all pretty much agree that the Anglicans (Episcopalians) deciding to ordain women isn't relevant to us, either.

Regards,

Pahoran

- I agree that the Catholic catechism has no bearing on current mormon teachings and belief (irrelevant);

- We're the true church! Has some bearing because they say they're the true church too (but seperate discussion);

- They track their lineage to Peter, whom they believe was the first pope, who actually knew Christ, and whom would have had the 'priesthood' authority as you'll call it. They have some measurable proof in that regard to their claim...mormons really don't; (seperate discussion too);

 

My point is that if you're openly indifferent toward Catholic Church's teachings, viewpoints etc or their relevance to mormonism, why would one of their official documents (the bible), be one of your official doctrines?

 

The RCC (Roman Catholic Church) was responsible for the compilation, translation, and canonization of the ancient texts. Various councils of the RCC audited, edited, and confirmed the 'official' contents therein, and developed the associated creeds of Christian belief.

 

Fully 1/4 of the mormon doctrine is a product of the RCC. Joe Smith said when he prayed about which church was real, it was further revealed to him to follow none of them, as all of them were an abomination. He then was exposed (allegedly) to the fullness of the gospel in the BOM. Why would a doctrine of an abominable, false-church be endorsed as doctrine within your belief system?

 

I'd be happy if you can offer something better than the cliche 'insofar as it's correctly interpreted'. That's lame and it's a copout.

 

By that standard everything I've said in every post is correct, insofar as the work 'correct' is correctly interpreted.

 

Peace

 

 

 

 

 

[strappinglad]

Are there good ants and bad ants? Are there good lions and bad Lions? Are there good chimps and bad chimps? When and where did nature establish goodness and badness? When the new head male lion kills the cubs of the previous male, we see this as instinct to preserve his seed, that is his nature and although not pleasant, we try not to judge. If a human male were to kill the children of his wife's previous husband, there would be outrage. Why? Is it not just his nature? What is it about the human animal that makes it try to suppress the 'natural man' and strive to align itself with a 'divine nature'?

[Sleeper Cell]

I don't believe for a minute that there aren't wicked secular people.

I don't believe that peole are good because of religion either.

 

I think that people are good because it's their nature. They know right and wrong, because of their nature.

 

Here's a point to debate if you'd like:...in my opinion, the secular person who does something good, with no expectation of celestial acknowledgement or reward in another life, is actually acting better than someone who is religious, and thinks their good deeds will be tallied and counted for a better seat in the kingdom.

 

What do you think?

 

If you believe that good people are good because of their nature, they are not being good because of any expectation of a reward.

 

One could also argue that good secular people are good because they find that doing good makes them feel  good.  So who is acting better?  The secular person who does good because of immediate (or near term) gratification in this life, or a religious person who does good  because of hope of gratification in the next life? 

 

One could even argue that some secular people enjoy doing good so they can feel “holier- than-thou “with respect to  religious people.

 

Of course, there is always the possibility that people (and their motives) are far more complicated than we usually give them credit for.    

[Calm]

Here's a point to debate if you'd like:...in my opinion, the secular person who does something good, with no expectation of celestial acknowledgement or reward in another life, is actually acting better than someone who is religious, and thinks their good deeds will be tallied and counted for a better seat in the kingdom.

 

What do you think?

Since you have no way of knowing all the motivations of each person in reality or what they would choose under a different one. I don't see how anyone can have such a valid judgment. If the religious person would do the same if there was no celestial reward, then shouldn't he be judged the same even if he anticipates one? And if the secular person does something good and in doing so makes himself feel good about himself isn't that a reward as well, one more immediate and therefore more powerful?

[saemo]

 

Here's a point to debate if you'd like:...in my opinion, the secular person who does something good, with no expectation of celestial acknowledgement or reward in another life, is actually acting better than someone who is religious, and thinks their good deeds will be tallied and counted for a better seat in the kingdom.

 

What do you think?

The last shall be the first and the first shall be the last.

[cdowis]

My point is that if you're openly indifferent toward Catholic Church's teachings, viewpoints etc or their relevance to mormonism, why would one of their official documents (the bible), be one of your official doctrines?

 

The Bible is not "official doctrine" of the LDS church, but a canonized scripture which we hold in common.  We disagree on certain interpretations of the Bible, so that is why we have modern scriptures and living prophets.

 

The RCC (Roman Catholic Church) was responsible for the compilation, translation, and canonization of the ancient texts. Various councils of the RCC audited, edited, and confirmed the 'official' contents therein, and developed the associated creeds of Christian belief.

 

Not sure of your point as relating to the LDS church.  Our doctrines are based on modern revelation, including the Bible "insofar as it has been translated correctly"  The meaning of that phrase is for another discussion, but it is not inerrant.

 

Fully 1/4 of the mormon doctrine is a product of the RCC. Joe Smith said when he prayed about which church was real, it was further revealed to him to follow none of them, as all of them were an abomination. He then was exposed (allegedly) to the fullness of the gospel in the BOM. Why would a doctrine of an abominable, false-church be endorsed as doctrine within your belief system?

 

You are hopelessly confused.  Our doctrine is a product of modern revelation, not the teachings of the RCC.  Yes, we indeed have many doctrines in common.

 

I'd be happy if you can offer something better than the cliche 'insofar as it's correctly interpreted'. That's lame and it's a copout.

 

As you say, that is the subject of another discussion.  Please start another thread and I will be happy to enlighten you on its meaning.

 

By that standard everything I've said in every post is correct, insofar as the work 'correct' is correctly interpreted.

 

Peace

[Porter_Rockwell]

The last shall be the first and the first shall be the last.

...For the times they are a changing?

Bob Dylan

[Porter_Rockwell]

Are there good ants and bad ants? Are there good lions and bad Lions? Are there good chimps and bad chimps? When and where did nature establish goodness and badness? When the new head male lion kills the cubs of the previous male, we see this as instinct to preserve his seed, that is his nature and although not pleasant, we try not to judge. If a human male were to kill the children of his wife's previous husband, there would be outrage. Why? Is it not just his nature? What is it about the human animal that makes it try to suppress the 'natural man' and strive to align itself with a 'divine nature'?

Because most animals are too smart for religion? Is that the answer?

[Porter_Rockwell]

My point is that if you're openly indifferent toward Catholic Church's teachings, viewpoints etc or their relevance to mormonism, why would one of their official documents (the bible), be one of your official doctrines?

 

The Bible is not "official doctrine" of the LDS church, but a canonized scripture which we hold in common.  We disagree on certain interpretations of the Bible, so that is why we have modern scriptures and living prophets.

 

From LDS.org:

"'...the volumes of scripture officially accepted by the Church, including the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price."

doctrine is the wrong word. Apparently they're all just official 'scripture'?

Peace

[cdowis]

From LDS.org:

"'...the volumes of scripture officially accepted by the Church, including the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price."

doctrine is the wrong word. Apparently they're all just official 'scripture'?

Peace

 

That is correct.  The Bible is one source of doctrine for both the LDS and RCC churches.

 

Related to this is the statement:  "Inerrancy of the Bible is a moot issue without inerrancy in interpretation of the Bible."

[Porter_Rockwell]

If you believe that good people are good because of their nature, they are not being good because of any expectation of a reward.

 

One could also argue that good secular people are good because they find that doing good makes them feel  good.  So who is acting better?  The secular person who does good because of immediate (or near term) gratification in this life, or a religious person who does good  because of hope of gratification in the next life? 

 

One could even argue that some secular people enjoy doing good so they can feel “holier- than-thou “with respect to  religious people.

 

Of course, there is always the possibility that people (and their motives) are far more complicated than we usually give them credit for.

Religions not necessary for any of it...

[Porter_Rockwell]

That is correct.  The Bible is one source of doctrine for both the LDS and RCC churches.

 

Related to this is the statement:  "Inerrancy of the Bible is a moot issue without inerrancy in interpretation of the Bible."

Well that seems weird too...to have RCC scripture as the foundation for some Mormon doctrine.

[Pahoran]

Well that seems weird too...to have RCC scripture as the foundation for some Mormon doctrine.

I have a confession to make: the more I read from you, the more I am staggered by some of the truly astounding assumptions you deliver.

Since the Bible was written by divinely appointed apostles and prophets, and contains the Word of God, why should we reject it just because the Catholics have had their hands on it?

What is there about the Catholics that makes anything they touch turn to straw? Do they have some kind of religious Midas touch in reverse?

Or do you imagine that Latter-day Saints should hold such a view?

If so, why?

Most Catholics I know get up in the morning, eat three meals during the day, and go to bed at night. In your view, are Latter-day Saints therefore obligated to get up in the evening, eat four meals, and go to bed in the daytime?

How far does your anti-Catholicism extend?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cdowis]

Well that seems weird too...to have RCC scripture as the foundation for some Mormon doctrine.

 

Huh?  You just don't make sense. 

[Sleeper Cell]

Huh?  You just don't make sense. 

 

Yeah.  I noticed that too.  As Solzhenitsyn: once wrote about a similar discussion:.

And arguing with him is like walking through a desert.

  

 

[Porter_Rockwell]

I have a confession to make: the more I read from you, the more I am staggered by some of the truly astounding assumptions you deliver.Since the Bible was written by divinely appointed apostles and prophets, and contains the Word of God, why should we reject it just because the Catholics have had their hands on it?What is there about the Catholics that makes anything they touch turn to straw? Do they have some kind of religious Midas touch in reverse?Or do you imagine that Latter-day Saints should hold such a view?If so, why?Most Catholics I know get up in the morning, eat three meals during the day, and go to bed at night. In your view, are Latter-day Saints therefore obligated to get up in the evening, eat four meals, and go to bed in the daytime?How far does your anti-Catholicism extend?Regards,Pahoran[/quote

Is the Catholic Church true...or is it a lie? Strangely, we agree on this

[Porter_Rockwell]

Porter,

I believe that the universe of religious discourse can be divided into two non-intersecting groups of people.

Group 1 consists of those who suppose that those who believe differently from them are "delusioned or deceptive."

Group 2 consists of those who have any business at all discussing the beliefs of others.

 

It's becoming increasingly clear which group is most likely to contain you.

Regards,

Pahoran

Zzz.. You're so tiresome

[cdowis]

Is the Catholic Church true...or is it a lie? 

 

The answer is both, but I don't think you are able to wrap your mind around that answer,

[Pahoran]

The answer is both, but I don't think you are able to wrap your mind around that answer,

 

He really does take an astonishingly binary view of a complex and nuanced matter.  Actually if we were to weigh up the "truths" versus the "untruths" (I reject the term "lie" in this connection) I'd have to say that the Catholic Church has far more truth than untruth.

 

But that seems entirely beyond his grasp.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Zzz.. You're so tiresome

 

So tiresome, in fact, that you went to the trouble of replying to the same post twice.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[cdowis]

I did not mean to make this an ad hominem, but I cannot conceive this as a choice between a lie and the truth.  The RCC teaches many good and positive doctrines, and I have a great deal of respect for it.  Any differences in doctrine are relative minor.  The primary issue is that it brings its members to the terrestrial kingdom, but does not have the priesthood authority to bring them to the celestial.

 

Your either/or is inappropriate to describe such an outstanding organization.  Nothing personal.

[toon]

The cathoilc church is continuing to crack down on a feminist nuns' organization under pope francis. I find that what the catholic church has said to be right on. However, after reading the article I began to think about the lds ordain women movement. Would the lds church be correct in issuing a similiar kind of edict about their radical feminist themes? And if so, what would be the reaction of members of this forum and critics of the lds church?

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-francis-vatican-continue-crackdown-u-s-nuns-article-1.1783576

 

The photos of the nuns may not be apart of the nun's organization. Interestingly, I think that I know one of the nuns in the photos and although this person has left the convent, it was not over feminist issues.

 

The LCWR is a canonically approved organization. It is an official arm of the Catholic Church.  I don't think you can make direct comparisons between Catholic and LDS church organization, but this would be more like if the Church had issued a statement and apppointed formal oversight to reign in the Relief Society, or maybe even a mission president cracking down on some rogue sister missionaries.  This is a far cry from cracking down on a lay organization that has no formal affilitation with the Church.

[MiserereNobis]

Paul of Tarsus, the first Pope of the Catholic Church

 

And there goes the ethos... St. Peter was the first Pope, not St. Paul.

 

Most Catholics I know get up in the morning, eat three meals during the day, and go to bed at night.

 

Except during Lent, when we traditional Catholics only eat 1 meal a day... (which brings up a TOTALLY unrelated side note: Mormons fast on Sundays, but in Catholicism Sunday is the celebration of the resurrection, so it is a feast, and never a fast.  For example, the Sundays during Lent do not count as part of Lent.  We can feast away and are often encouraged to do so, in honor of Jesus's resurrection)

 

He really does take an astonishingly binary view of a complex and nuanced matter.  Actually if we were to weigh up the "truths" versus the "untruths" (I reject the term "lie" in this connection) I'd have to say that the Catholic Church has far more truth than untruth.

 

 

I've been quite intrigued during my visits to this board how similar some of the beliefs between Catholics and Mormons are.  Of course and obviously, there are glaring differences, but we seem to have some similar frames of reference, even including ideas such as modern-day revelation and prophets (using LDS terms that wouldn't make sense to a Catholic, but the ideas behind them are quite similar).

Edited May 13, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[EllenMaksoud]

The cathoilc church is continuing to crack down on a feminist nuns' organization under pope francis. I find that what the catholic church has said to be right on. However, after reading the article I began to think about the lds ordain women movement. Would the lds church be correct in issuing a similiar kind of edict about their radical feminist themes? And if so, what would be the reaction of members of this forum and critics of the lds church?

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-francis-vatican-continue-crackdown-u-s-nuns-article-1.1783576

 

The photos of the nuns may not be apart of the nun's organization. Interestingly, I think that I know one of the nuns in the photos and although this person has left the convent, it was not over feminist issues.

What I have been hearing in the ward level lately is "Men and Women are equal, but with different jobs" That is totally acceptable to me. Most non feminist Mormon women say they already have plenty to do and do not want the men's job. It is the only thing that keeps the men from being complete slackers.