Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 15 of 18  •  Prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
8 years ago  ::  May 02, 2010 - 11:49PM #141
WaveringCC
Posts: 5,164

May 2, 2010 -- 3:16PM, gilg wrote:


May 2, 2010 -- 7:34AM, Mysty101 wrote:


 


 


Hi Gil,


 


, the Catholic teachings are the ones more in line with my personal beliefs. But you are right, while I accept the scriptures, there are some official teachings that I don't totally agree with. Perhaps there are some people that accept everything told, if the Church is only for them, well, it will probably be a very tiny tent.


 




Oh, I accept His word on authority and obedience, what I don't always accept is the interpetation the heirarchy may give. Recently I had a discussion going on with Kim, she finds the Doctrine of Deception beautiful, I find it contrary to scripture and conflicting with other Church teachings. Some thing I don't accept, some I don't understand and try accepting, some I totally accept and overall my thinking is aligned with Catholic thought. It is part of my identity, of who I am and what I believe. Now you want to kick me out, but that is ok, I still like you.




I am not a bible scholar, Gilg. But, I read a lot, and listen to talks on tape by spiritual leaders.  Richard Rohr, OFM, once noted in a talk that the PTB are highly selective in their use of scripture, choosing to emphasize those that they have interpreted in a way that gives them exclusive "authority" while denying the church.  For example, Jesus talks of "binding and loosing" in Matthew 16.  In that passage he is speaking to Peter and the others of the twelve.  The PTB emphasizes that passage in order to try to make the case that they (the clerical class) alone have the power to "bind and loose." However, Jesus also talks about "binding and loosing" in Matthew 18, where he is speaking to a large group of his disciples. That passage is really about seeking reconciliation and extending forgiveness (if possible), and that we are all called to do that. We all have the responsibility to "bind and loose." It interested me also because it was the subject of a homily at my (Episcopal) church a couple of weeks ago.  It simply doesn't even cross the minsds of the Episcopalians, including the priests and bishops, that "binding and loosing" is the exclusive province of the clerical class.  They interpret it as applying to all of us, and I think that their interpretation is closer to Jesus's intent and meaning than is that of the RCC.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  May 03, 2010 - 2:01AM #142
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Wavering


I agree with this:


I am not a bible scholar, Gilg. But, I read a lot, and listen to talks on tape by spiritual leaders.  Richard Rohr, OFM, once noted in a talk that the PTB are highly selective in their use of scripture, choosing to emphasize those that they have interpreted in a way that gives them exclusive "authority" while denying the church.


But many other Catholic scholars are often addressing this. I like Fr. Richard McBrien and Fr.  Donald Cozzens and many who post on ncronline.


The RCC is almost in schism right now with Rome as intent as ever to rule with rigidity in all.


I can see some wisdom in Anglican thought but I have no affinity with that community as you do. Franciscan thought is really not up my alley either in toto.


I like the intellectuals, mainly Jebbies, but not exclusively. And I can keep many ideas in tension with little problem.


Good to hear from you.


Jane


( you probably know that my grandson chose MIT. my son said it was a close decision with CalTech.)


 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  May 03, 2010 - 12:25PM #143
WaveringCC
Posts: 5,164

May 3, 2010 -- 2:01AM, jane2 wrote:


Wavering


I agree with this:


I am not a bible scholar, Gilg. But, I read a lot, and listen to talks on tape by spiritual leaders.  Richard Rohr, OFM, once noted in a talk that the PTB are highly selective in their use of scripture, choosing to emphasize those that they have interpreted in a way that gives them exclusive "authority" while denying the church.


But many other Catholic scholars are often addressing this. I like Fr. Richard McBrien and Fr.  Donald Cozzens and many who post on ncronline.


They are among my favorites also.  My reading spans a wide range!


The RCC is almost in schism right now with Rome as intent as ever to rule with rigidity in all.


I can see some wisdom in Anglican thought but I have no affinity with that community as you do. Franciscan thought is really not up my alley either in toto.


I honestly don't know what "Franciscan thought" is - there are many orders of Franciscans, and they do not seem to "speak" with one voice from the little I have read.  Richard Rohr is reported to bishops frequently for his un-orthodoxy, but so far, he has been left alone to write and preach.  The Franciscans I have a slight acquaintance with here in DC seem to be much closer to the views expressed by Richard Rohr, than to those of the Franciscans that Red is close to (a relatively new "branch" from what I have read, and very "orthodox.")


I like the intellectuals, mainly Jebbies, but not exclusively. And I can keep many ideas in tension with little problem.


Good to hear from you.


Jane


( you probably know that my grandson chose MIT. my son said it was a close decision with CalTech.)


 Yes - he had absolutely wonderful choices.  I, of course, was rooting for Cal Tech.  But, MIT is a good "second" choice.


It will make it easier for him to come home now and then, and for the family to go see him. He would excel no matter where he went, so -- no worries!  Just enjoy.


And I KNOW you will!





Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  May 03, 2010 - 4:46PM #144
jane2
Posts: 14,295

May 3, 2010 -- 12:25PM, WaveringCC wrote:


May 3, 2010 -- 2:01AM, jane2 wrote:


Wavering


I agree with this:


I am not a bible scholar, Gilg. But, I read a lot, and listen to talks on tape by spiritual leaders.  Richard Rohr, OFM, once noted in a talk that the PTB are highly selective in their use of scripture, choosing to emphasize those that they have interpreted in a way that gives them exclusive "authority" while denying the church.


But many other Catholic scholars are often addressing this. I like Fr. Richard McBrien and Fr.  Donald Cozzens and many who post on ncronline.


They are among my favorites also.  My reading spans a wide range!


The RCC is almost in schism right now with Rome as intent as ever to rule with rigidity in all.


I can see some wisdom in Anglican thought but I have no affinity with that community as you do. Franciscan thought is really not up my alley either in toto.


I honestly don't know what "Franciscan thought" is - there are many orders of Franciscans, and they do not seem to "speak" with one voice from the little I have read.  Richard Rohr is reported to bishops frequently for his un-orthodoxy, but so far, he has been left alone to write and preach.  The Franciscans I have a slight acquaintance with here in DC seem to be much closer to the views expressed by Richard Rohr, than to those of the Franciscans that Red is close to (a relatively new "branch" from what I have read, and very "orthodox.")


I like the intellectuals, mainly Jebbies, but not exclusively. And I can keep many ideas in tension with little problem.


Good to hear from you.


Jane


( you probably know that my grandson chose MIT. my son said it was a close decision with CalTech.)


 Yes - he had absolutely wonderful choices.  I, of course, was rooting for Cal Tech.  But, MIT is a good "second" choice.


It will make it easier for him to come home now and then, and for the family to go see him. He would excel no matter where he went, so -- no worries!  Just enjoy.


And I KNOW you will!








You are right about the different Franciscan orders. My husband graduated from an OFM college--they seem to be fairly middle of the road. My Catholicism was more liberal than his, though. The group that runs Steubenville drives me up walls.


I think the logistics for MIT are simpler and they all loved Boston.


McBrien has a great column this week on ncronline. (www.ncronline.org for those not familiar)




discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  May 03, 2010 - 5:19PM #145
WaveringCC
Posts: 5,164

May 3, 2010 -- 4:46PM, jane2 wrote:


May 3, 2010 -- 12:25PM, WaveringCC wrote:


May 3, 2010 -- 2:01AM, jane2 wrote:


Wavering


I agree with this:


I am not a bible scholar, Gilg. But, I read a lot, and listen to talks on tape by spiritual leaders.  Richard Rohr, OFM, once noted in a talk that the PTB are highly selective in their use of scripture, choosing to emphasize those that they have interpreted in a way that gives them exclusive "authority" while denying the church.


But many other Catholic scholars are often addressing this. I like Fr. Richard McBrien and Fr.  Donald Cozzens and many who post on ncronline.


They are among my favorites also.  My reading spans a wide range!


The RCC is almost in schism right now with Rome as intent as ever to rule with rigidity in all.


I can see some wisdom in Anglican thought but I have no affinity with that community as you do. Franciscan thought is really not up my alley either in toto.


I honestly don't know what "Franciscan thought" is - there are many orders of Franciscans, and they do not seem to "speak" with one voice from the little I have read.  Richard Rohr is reported to bishops frequently for his un-orthodoxy, but so far, he has been left alone to write and preach.  The Franciscans I have a slight acquaintance with here in DC seem to be much closer to the views expressed by Richard Rohr, than to those of the Franciscans that Red is close to (a relatively new "branch" from what I have read, and very "orthodox.")


I like the intellectuals, mainly Jebbies, but not exclusively. And I can keep many ideas in tension with little problem.


Good to hear from you.


Jane


( you probably know that my grandson chose MIT. my son said it was a close decision with CalTech.)


 Yes - he had absolutely wonderful choices.  I, of course, was rooting for Cal Tech.  But, MIT is a good "second" choice.


It will make it easier for him to come home now and then, and for the family to go see him. He would excel no matter where he went, so -- no worries!  Just enjoy.


And I KNOW you will!








You are right about the different Franciscan orders. My husband graduated from an OFM college--they seem to be fairly middle of the road. My Catholicism was more liberal than his, though. The group that runs Steubenville drives me up walls.


Ah, yes. Steubenville. And the then there is the group at Medjugorje, making a fortune off the "seers" and those who flock to watch them "see."  They are also Franciscans.


I'm quite sure the Franciscans at Steubenville would not like to even admit that Richard Rohr is a Franciscan too. However, I suspect that his views are more in line with those of the original than are the views of the men of Steubenville.


I think the logistics for MIT are simpler and they all loved Boston.


I think Boston is very much an east coast/west coast thing.  I could hardly wait to see Boston, after hearing so much about it over the years, especially from a good friend in college who was from Boston and considered it the next thing to heaven itself.


Oh well, to each their own. I was so disappointed when I finally visited Boston, staying with my college friend, who showed me everything with great love. I didn't say anything to her, of course, but, sadly, Boston does not appeal to me at all, except for a couple of the areas bordering the river in Cambridge etc,. It just seems to be an old, tired city, full of either dark brown, dreary old buildings, or soulless new highrises.  It reminds me a lot of Baltimore, actually, except maybe not as many poor neighborhoods. 


However, I absolutely love the coast both north and south of Boston.  All the way up to the NH border, and south too, especially Cape Cod and Nantucket.  Absolutely beautiful coastline, and charming towns.  There is a Jesuit retreat house north of Boston a bit, and I'm thinking of trying to do an individual retreat there - just to have some silence, peace, and beauty.


I much prefer Pasadena, but, as I said, to each his or her own.  Pasadena is beautiful, but not a great college town.


Your grandson will be happy in Boston, and that's important.  And the logistics will definitely be easier. Plus Boston really is a truly a great college town - so many colleges there, and the kids who go to school there (many of my sons' various friends have gone to a very large sample of them!) and all seem to have loved it.  However, not even one chose to stay there after college.  After all, DC is much prettier and has a better climate to boot!


;)


McBrien has a great column this week on ncronline. (www.ncronline.org for those not familiar)


I read it. Excellent as usual.  Kennedy's column today is MUST reading too. 





Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  May 03, 2010 - 5:29PM #146
gilg
Posts: 5,200

Jane,


I read the article, I also read the article by Joan Chittister, The God who beckons, I have to read it again and spend sometime thinking about it, thanks for the link.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  May 04, 2010 - 6:50PM #147
Mysty101
Posts: 2,025

May 2, 2010 -- 11:49PM, WaveringCC wrote:


May 2, 2010 -- 3:16PM, gilg wrote:


May 2, 2010 -- 7:34AM, Mysty101 wrote:


 


 


Hi Gil,


 


, the Catholic teachings are the ones more in line with my personal beliefs. But you are right, while I accept the scriptures, there are some official teachings that I don't totally agree with. Perhaps there are some people that accept everything told, if the Church is only for them, well, it will probably be a very tiny tent.


 




Oh, I accept His word on authority and obedience, what I don't always accept is the interpetation the heirarchy may give. Recently I had a discussion going on with Kim, she finds the Doctrine of Deception beautiful, I find it contrary to scripture and conflicting with other Church teachings. Some thing I don't accept, some I don't understand and try accepting, some I totally accept and overall my thinking is aligned with Catholic thought. It is part of my identity, of who I am and what I believe. Now you want to kick me out, but that is ok, I still like you.




I am not a bible scholar, Gilg. But, I read a lot, and listen to talks on tape by spiritual leaders.  Richard Rohr, OFM, once noted in a talk that the PTB are highly selective in their use of scripture, choosing to emphasize those that they have interpreted in a way that gives them exclusive "authority" while denying the church.  For example, Jesus talks of "binding and loosing" in Matthew 16.  In that passage he is speaking to Peter and the others of the twelve.  The PTB emphasizes that passage in order to try to make the case that they (the clerical class) alone have the power to "bind and loose." However, Jesus also talks about "binding and loosing" in Matthew 18, where he is speaking to a large group of his disciples. That passage is really about seeking reconciliation and extending forgiveness (if possible), and that we are all called to do that. We all have the responsibility to "bind and loose." It interested me also because it was the subject of a homily at my (Episcopal) church a couple of weeks ago.  It simply doesn't even cross the minsds of the Episcopalians, including the priests and bishops, that "binding and loosing" is the exclusive province of the clerical class.  They interpret it as applying to all of us, and I think that their interpretation is closer to Jesus's intent and meaning than is that of the RCC.




Before we go any further into left field, we really need to watch the disecting of quotes---This was from Gil, not me-----


, the Catholic teachings are the ones more in line with my personal beliefs. But you are right, while I accept the scriptures, there are some official teachings that I don't totally agree with. Perhaps there are some people that accept everything told, if the Church is only for them, well, it will probably be a very tiny tent.


(no wonder personal interpretations are so off)

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  May 04, 2010 - 6:56PM #148
Mysty101
Posts: 2,025

No one has responded to this--


If one accepts these scriptures:



 


 "He who hears you hears Me" or "whatever you bind on earth....." 



 


 Then one  believes what the Church teaches.  I am not speaking of the rulings of invividual Bishops (such as those who chose to change the sacrament of orders or cover up abuse), but the official teachings of the Church.



 


If one can pick and choose which scriptures to believe, then why not go where the teachings are more in line with personal beliefs?


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  May 04, 2010 - 8:39PM #149
WaveringCC
Posts: 5,164

May 4, 2010 -- 6:50PM, Mysty101 wrote:


May 2, 2010 -- 11:49PM, WaveringCC wrote:


May 2, 2010 -- 3:16PM, gilg wrote:


May 2, 2010 -- 7:34AM, Mysty101 wrote:


 


 


Hi Gil,


 


, the Catholic teachings are the ones more in line with my personal beliefs. But you are right, while I accept the scriptures, there are some official teachings that I don't totally agree with. Perhaps there are some people that accept everything told, if the Church is only for them, well, it will probably be a very tiny tent.


 




Oh, I accept His word on authority and obedience, what I don't always accept is the interpetation the heirarchy may give. Recently I had a discussion going on with Kim, she finds the Doctrine of Deception beautiful, I find it contrary to scripture and conflicting with other Church teachings. Some thing I don't accept, some I don't understand and try accepting, some I totally accept and overall my thinking is aligned with Catholic thought. It is part of my identity, of who I am and what I believe. Now you want to kick me out, but that is ok, I still like you.




I am not a bible scholar, Gilg. But, I read a lot, and listen to talks on tape by spiritual leaders.  Richard Rohr, OFM, once noted in a talk that the PTB are highly selective in their use of scripture, choosing to emphasize those that they have interpreted in a way that gives them exclusive "authority" while denying the church.  For example, Jesus talks of "binding and loosing" in Matthew 16.  In that passage he is speaking to Peter and the others of the twelve.  The PTB emphasizes that passage in order to try to make the case that they (the clerical class) alone have the power to "bind and loose." However, Jesus also talks about "binding and loosing" in Matthew 18, where he is speaking to a large group of his disciples. That passage is really about seeking reconciliation and extending forgiveness (if possible), and that we are all called to do that. We all have the responsibility to "bind and loose." It interested me also because it was the subject of a homily at my (Episcopal) church a couple of weeks ago.  It simply doesn't even cross the minsds of the Episcopalians, including the priests and bishops, that "binding and loosing" is the exclusive province of the clerical class.  They interpret it as applying to all of us, and I think that their interpretation is closer to Jesus's intent and meaning than is that of the RCC.




Before we go any further into left field, we really need to watch the disecting of quotes---This was from Gil, not me-----


, the Catholic teachings are the ones more in line with my personal beliefs. But you are right, while I accept the scriptures, there are some official teachings that I don't totally agree with. Perhaps there are some people that accept everything told, if the Church is only for them, well, it will probably be a very tiny tent.


(no wonder personal interpretations are so off)




Assuming you are addressing this to me (are you?), then...Yes, I was aware that Gilg made the statement and I was responding to him (not you) because of his statement about not always accepting the interpretations of the hierarchy. 


While I agree that "personal" interpretations may be "off," it is also true that the history of the church demonstrates quite clearly that the interpretations of "Rome" have also been off at times - including when they pick and choose which passages of scripture to emphasize and which to gloss over (such as the example provided - by ignoring the passage where Jesus gives ALL of the disciples - not the 12, but ALL disciples - the responsibility for "binding and loosing."

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  May 04, 2010 - 9:31PM #150
Mysty101
Posts: 2,025

re-Assuming you are addressing this to me (are you?), then...Yes, I was aware that Gilg made the statement and I was responding to him (not you) because of his statement about not always accepting the interpretations of the hierarchy. 


If it was you who posted that disected mess, which atributed Gil's post to me, then yes, I am addressing you.  Check who posted what before you hit "submit"

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 15 of 18  •  Prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook