Is This It? Changes in the Text of the Roman Catholic Mass?

[DeaconLance]

BadenP,

 

Several of my diaconate courses were taught by Eastern Orthodox priests so I am confident I got a balanced education. The facts I posted are easily checked, I never said I was better than anyone else.

[Beavah]

What an odd view. At da time of Innocent III, the territorial bishops were mostly appointed by the king, eh? Far from being da dupes of the pope, the secular rulers were likely to be manipulators of da church and of papal politics, through appointments and seizures of property or territory. Innocent played da political game rather well and did his best to assert some independence and papal privilege. He even won a few rounds, eh? But he was a rare bird. Most of da popes were pushed hither and yon by da Emperor and da other secular rulers. As a group they were never very good at the game.

 

Who financed da crusades? Which one? The first was mostly financed by da lesser nobles who took part, though Byzantium assisted. Da second and third were financed by the monarchs who participated. Yah, da church contributed to da Fourth a bit, mostly with pronouncements of loan deferrals. But they made a hash of it, eh, since that Crusade ran out of cash before it left da pier. It's a bit silly to confuse an ordinary war with genocide, but there's certainly no need to fault Innocent for the latter since that crusade never encountered a single Moor. . Of course like all such things at the time, secular or religious, the Crusades were in part financed by predation on da area the soldiery passed through.

 

So if you're goin' to fault da popes, yeh mostly should fault them for being inept at governance and politics, not for being wicked. And Innocent III spent most of his time trying to mediate da various Christian-on-Christian political violence throughout Europe. Lateran IV did preach crusade, but then it was also da first council where a lot of secular representatives and their appointed territorial bishops held sway, eh?

 

Like I said, complicated. Mostly just people and governments being their usual selves. But I see something in that history that I think you're missing. In da other parts of the world where Emperors and warlords held sway, that was it, eh? But in Europe, da emperors and warlords were always being challenged and checked by the Roman Church you revile. That's a powerful notion, eh? That government can be checked. That da king is not absolute. Before there were Constitutional checks and balances, there was Church/state checks and balances. And probably da reason Europe eventually developed da former is because da popes taught us the latter.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Trevorum]

Beavah, I am so curious: do you ever accidently slip into dialect when writing emails and such in your profession?

[BadenP]

Beav

What was the source of your diatribe, Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

 

You grossly mistate the power the popes had over royalty until Henry the VIII finally told the pope the hell with you and started his own church, after the reformation the rest followed suit and the RC church's stranglehold over European politics was gone forever, except in Spain and Italy. Anyway if you want a list of books to learn what really happened pm me. The ridiculous statements several posters have put out really brings to light the poor quality of their education and understanding of world history. You all can battle on if you like but I am done with this thread.

[Eagle92]

BP,

While I did not specialize in European History, 20th century US military was my specialty with am emphasis on Korea War, I did study enough European History to state that Beav does have an accurate reading of the period. Although the bishops were consecrated by the popes, marking them as spiritually subservient to the popes, they were appointed by the local kings, and held allegiance to their king as well as promote his ideas to the various councils. Sorry forgot the historical term used to describe this situation as it has been a while, but there is one. Also the Roman Emperors prior to the fall did have heavy influence in the selection of bishops, popes, and various church Councils. Some examples of secular influence include Constatine's calling a Church council ( sorry forgot which one possibly Nicea), Phillip the Fair of France's call for the dissolution of the Knights Templar, and the temporary dissolution of the Jesuits.

 

Now grant you, some bishops would go against the wishes of their secular patrons, Thomas a' Becket is the best known example.

[Beavah]

Nah, Trevorum. Dat's what secretaries and interns are for, eh? I always try to find ones who are good at translatin' Beaverish . Of course, when spoken, da ladies all find it charming .

 

Guess BadenP has taken his marbles and gone home, with some vague mention of "books.". Yah, and perhaps a misunderstanding of da definition of "diatribe." .

 

I wonder if this means OGE is goin' to bless me in Latin for defending da papists against calumny, or sentence me to da nether regions for my critique of their quaint and slightly idolatrous worship practices?

 

Beavah

[packsaddle]

OGE, Nah, by now you'd do better to be thinking about Father Guido Sarducci...

"I blame myself..."(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[OldGreyEagle]

what can I say, as a victim of Catholic propaganda blessing others is what we do

[sherminator505]

I have read the changes to the Mass, and they do not concern me. I have also seen the Church's recent forays into governmental issues, and those do concern me. It seems that the Church has had its greatest difficulties when it has inserted itself into politics (rendering onto Caesar what is God's, IMHO), and I don't see much good coming from these present efforts either.

[Beavah]

I have also seen the Church's recent forays into governmental issues, and those do concern me.

 

Yah, just curious, sherm. What forays into governmental issues are yeh speaking of, particularly?

[sherminator505]

Historically, a lot of the schisms the Church has experienced have been accompanied by political forays (for example, the Church's closeness to the Holy Roman Empire made it easier for the Reformationists and the Church of England to separate). More recently and locally, I've seen direct lobbying against gay marriage and petitions on local measures, just to name a few.

 

Now don't get me wrong. I'm OK with a religious leader commenting on morality as it relates to current political issues in church. Nothing wrong with that. But when church officials lobby legislators and push positions as a church, then it opens them up to the same kind of scrutiny that is often leveled against unions at it appears to go beyond their mandate or the implied assent of their membership. I believe that this is a fair criticism in both cases.

[RANBOW]

While continuing to read through daily.(with some of these posts.)

 

It tends to bother me that a group of example setters for our youth can get so upset over such a thing as a difference in religious belief. This to me, seems to go against all Scout code of conduct and the very things we strive to teach our youth. A few statements being made have been outright demeaning, belittling, discriminatory, name calling attacks. This is not a healthy way of conducting oneself in an intellectual discussion.

 

I think by now OGE has his answer for, Deacon Lance has posted a link to the most recent information.

 

If someone were to ask. Who thinks this has become out of line and/or out of control just for the sake of argument or personal belief without tolerance for others raise your hand? I WOULD BE TOUCHING THE CEILING.

 

 

[sherminator505]

Welcome to I/P, RANBOW. Things tend to get a bit wooly in here - thus the disclaimer. Believe me, things could be a lot worse, say, if our resident non-Scouter decided to chime in...

[Beavah]

Yah, RANBOW, I hope you're not talkin' about me . I think I've made it clear by my back-and-forth bit that I consider this a campfire conversation among friends. Da criticism is meant in that friendly way, eh? And I'd take comments like Protestants having wind vanes on the top of their church because our theology just "blows around with the prevailing wind" in the same light . Even OGE doesn't think I'm the devil anymore, but it took him a while to come 'round. Of course, da Jesuit canon lawyer I do lunch with about once a month still has hope for me, but as I understand it half da curia think the Jesuits are heretics.

 

I think yeh also see a real but more pointed criticism from BadenP, but it's also one worth thinkin' about and not dismissing just because it's pointed. I have every reason to believe that he's working with disaffected priests, and certainly he expresses da viewpoint of a fallen-away Catholic. We protestant fellows tend to not get as angst-ridden when we change churches as you "one, holy, catholic, apostolic" types . So from my perspective his argument was unfair, but I reckon from a practicing Catholic's perspective it's worth thinkin' about why his experience with da church had such a negative effect on him.

 

Same as with the LDS threads, eh? I think a lot of da criticism was unfair. At the same time, I'm glad some folks in that community are reflecting on it a bit, and recognizing where they might have work to do. In that way, campfire chats and criticism are a good thing, eh? Not so much because of da critic, but because the listener chooses to do the right thing and take the criticism in the best, most productive way.

 

Beavah