The list of Popes

[No E]

You seldom see this name associated with the church hierarchy: Christ, the head of the Church (Eph. 5:23). If Peter was the first pope, why does the bible refer to his being married? That's not allowed.

Not true... Technically, any faithful Catholic male can be named pope (though realistically, it will be a cardinal). Priestly celebacy was introduced as a discipline (NOT a dogma) in the early middle ages, well after Peter joined the choir invisible.

No E

(edit) NOTE TO SELF...READ WHOLE THREAD BEFORE POSTING

[Joseph E. Smith]

Not meaning to ruffle feathers, but I see it is as a practice that can't possibly aid in a priest's ability to counsel marriage issues... OK, I'm done, bye...

[feadogin]

Hi pipers!

Are you trying to get elected pope, Larry?

Justine

[The Weekenders]

Don't know if many of you read this, but on RWHR this a.m. they were quoting Bono about his meeting with the Pope. He felt self-conscious about his fancy shades and had taken them off for communion.

Apparently, the Pope got his hands on 'em and tried them on! The pictures were never made public by Vatican minders...I would love to see that pic...

[Lorenzo]

Hi pipers!

Are you trying to get elected pope, Larry?

You must be thinking of the pipacy. Just goes to show you can't go by the way auzzie dog says it.

[Dale]

You seldom see this name associated with the church hierarchy: Christ, the head of the Church (Eph. 5:23). If Peter was the first pope, why does the bible refer to his being married? That's not allowed.

Not true... Technically, any faithful Catholic male can be named pope (though realistically, it will be a cardinal). Priestly celebacy was introduced as a discipline (NOT a dogma) in the early middle ages, well after Peter joined the choir invisible.

No E

(edit) NOTE TO SELF...READ WHOLE THREAD BEFORE POSTING

It can, in principle, be any baptized Catholic male. I believe it is true that it has been a cardinal without exception since the 14th century.

[Dale]

Hi pipers!

Are you trying to get elected pope, Larry?

You must be thinking of the pipacy.

That's actually, uh, ....funny.

[Walden]

Right. It's very hard to stop on a dime with 'Christ came,
died on the Cross, and rose again.' One needs to know
how to live as a Christian in this world, it would be a poor
religion that didn't equip you to deal with major
moral problems in a way that is
informed by the central vision, even though the 'essential
doctrine' doesn't immediately speak to them.
Not ALL of the debates are mere mental exercises,
quite a number of them arose because they
had to (can Christians fight in war, kill in self-defense?), and I don't see dismissing them in advance. When you do engage them
quite a few are pretty plainly not mere mental exercises, but
the religion made practical.

I see the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as essential, but, likewise, the social message is also essential. Too many wish to subject the one to the other. They will minister to the poor and needy if they can also try and convert people. It becomes almost pharisaical, in the sense that Christ spoke of so many among the Pharisees of His day. In the parable of the Samaritan, we see that the priest, who had what is to be understood as the right form of religion, neglected the beaten-up man, while the Samaritan, what would have been considered a heretic, behaved in the much more Christlike manner, in tending to the man's wounds and renting him a room.

[Dale]

Yes Dale, me too. I don't think the concept of God requiring a blood-price is correct at all. Which is why I'm in the heretic group at church.

Yeah, I've always had difficulty with it. I'd really like to study the development of the atonement model. It obviously has scriptural roots, although not in the synoptics. Is it more John? I'm kinda weak in my understanding of Paul so I'm not sure what he said about atonement.

Then, I wonder how much of it developed in CHurch traditions, the Church Fathers, etc.

[Dale]

Right. It's very hard to stop on a dime with 'Christ came,
died on the Cross, and rose again.' One needs to know
how to live as a Christian in this world, it would be a poor
religion that didn't equip you to deal with major
moral problems in a way that is
informed by the central vision, even though the 'essential
doctrine' doesn't immediately speak to them.
Not ALL of the debates are mere mental exercises,
quite a number of them arose because they
had to (can Christians fight in war, kill in self-defense?), and I don't see dismissing them in advance. When you do engage them
quite a few are pretty plainly not mere mental exercises, but
the religion made practical.

I see the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as essential, but, likewise, the social message is also essential. Too many wish to subject the one to the other. They will minister to the poor and needy if they can also try and convert people. It becomes almost pharisaical, in the sense that Christ spoke of so many among the Pharisees of His day. In the parable of the Samaritan, we see that the priest, who had what is to be understood as the right form of religion, neglected the beaten-up man, while the Samaritan, what would have been considered a heretic, behaved in the much more Christlike manner, in tending to the man's wounds and renting him a room.

Thanks.

[Lorenzo]

I'm kinda weak in my understanding of Paul so I'm not sure what he said about atonement.

Paul said, in Hebrew 9, "Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin."

Originally, atonement was an ancient oriental practice designed to appease the gods with sacrifice. It evolved from there if history is of any worth.

[jim stone]

I think Aquinas is very good on the atonement,
and Eleonore Stump's new book on Aquinas
explains his views on it very well.
She considers various views of why atonement
is necessary and what it really consisted in,
and positions Aquinas as giving
a uniquely palatable and satisfying
answer--as she attempts to do on
most everything he wrote about.

[Antaine]

You seldom see this name associated with the church hierarchy: Christ, the head of the Church (Eph. 5:23). If Peter was the first pope, why does the bible refer to his being married? That's not allowed.

the prohibition on married priests only came about in the middle ages and even then *only* in the Latin Rite. The Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church can still marry, at least some, if not all...

It was a response to abuse of the situation. If you have a family you need to pass on to them something so property accumulation became too much of a concern for the priests. That put an end to it.



I wonder, on a completely different note, when something's really funny, can we coin a new term? "oh, that's so 46!" and submit it here: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wrader/slang/

[emmline]

I'm kinda weak in my understanding of Paul so I'm not sure what he said about atonement.

Paul said, in Hebrew 9, "Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin."

Originally, atonement was an ancient oriental practice designed to appease the gods with sacrifice. It evolved from there if history is of any worth.

Hebrews is among the books thought least likely to have actually been written by Paul.

[Nanohedron]

I'm kinda weak in my understanding of Paul so I'm not sure what he said about atonement.

Paul said, in Hebrew 9, "Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin."

Originally, atonement was an ancient oriental practice designed to appease the gods with sacrifice. It evolved from there if history is of any worth.

I'd be hard-pressed to believe that the ancient Greeks got the idea of sacrificial rites from the Persians. Sacrificial practices in various forms and for various purposes are to be found worldwide, and quite a few independent of Asian contact, I'm willing to bet.