--- Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William T. Goodall wrote:
> >I must have missed the announcement when the RC church became a democracy
> >... the RC church is not controlled by North American catholics. It never
> >will be. If you want a more liberal church you'll have to have a schism
> and
> >set up an American Pope :)
>
> Fairly recent history shows that members of the church certainly can have
> an influence on the organization as a whole. Take the Vatican II council,
> as the biggest example.
>
> >From http://nov55.com/rel/vat.html
>
> From these results, it is clear that the primary reason why V-II
> occurred
> was because the Catholic principle that only Catholics get saved was
> not
> credible and needed to be changed. Prior to V-II, kids were
> incredulous
> when told in catechism that their Protestant friends were not going to
> get saved. They didn't believe it; they just assumed that Catholic
> theology
> was really messed up. So the Bishops needed to reestablish their
> credibility,
> and V-II was an attempt to do so.
>
> (This is from a site, by the way, with is not at all favorably disposed to
> some
> of the changes made because of Vatican II.)
>
> In other words, the members of the Roman Catholic Church said "this doesn't
> make sense," and the church responded with sweeping, breathtaking reforms.
> (This is a pretty drastic oversimplification of the reasons behind Vatican
> II, but
> a full discussion of the reasons can -- and has -- filled many books and
> would
> be far beyond the scope of this email.)
>
> Here are some of the reforms:
>
> Altars were moved out from the wall, and the priest went to the other
> side facing the people. He spoke in English (vernacular) instead of
> Latin.
> Guitars were brought in to replace organs. People sang folk songs...
>
> Nowdays, the emphasis is on redesigning the buildings, so people sit
> in
> a
> circle, were they can see each other. They participate in every way
> possible
> reducing the visibility of the priest. The purpose is said to have
> changed from
> representing the crucifixion to representing the resurrection.
>
> Now I'm not going to try to tell you that the results of Vatican II have
> been
> overwhelmingly positive; in fact this has been the cause of much discussion
> within the RC church, as further reforms or adjustment of reforms are
> considered. The fact that this kind of activity is happening even at the
> level of each diocese or even each parish shows that an individual within
> a parish has a say as to what happens within the church.
>
> So clearly the Roman Catholic Church is capable of responding to critics
> with
> meaningful change, and has done so in the past, and will likely continue to
> do so in the future.
The problem with religious leaders changing their story, or changing the set
accepted beliefes is that over time one can look back on all the changes that
have taken place and postulate that more changes will take place in the
future. Since these decisions are made by man and not god any and all of the
teachings of such men become suspect. If the church is constantly finding out
that it's teachings are not the proper teachings of god, and are therefore
altering the teachings to be more in line with god, then who is to say that
the one teaching you do not particularly find correct is also not just the
mistake of some men.
If the church has been so wrong, so often, why should anyone continue to hold
the church as an athority?
If the church is so in touch with god, and so good, then wouldn't they get
their teachings right the first time?
Isn't any explination for this simply a conveluted spindoctoring to maintain
a faith? Isn't just that the church is changing to say whatever needs to be
said to maintain their influence and power?
Imagine what the pope and his bishops of 100, 300, or 500 years ago would of
thought of the church today. Now imagine what the pope and his bishops of
today would think of the church 100, 300, or 500 years from now. What about
1000 years?
Certainly one can imagine female, and maried prists, perhaps even the first
femal & maried pope of mixed african decent. Homosexuality will have been
understood as a differnce in genetics, one of god's creations, not an
abomination. Birth control will not be a sin. In fact sexuality in general
will no longer be the realm of sin. Marrage will be seen as what it is a
bonding that lasts as long as it is benificial to both partners.
The idea that one can simply say a few hell-maries and be free of a sin will
have faded into history as barbaric. Instead real pentance, twice the good
and the evil commited will be required.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
