Archbishop Invites Pelosi To Conversation

[princessgianna]

[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13727"]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13727[/url]

I found this interesting! Any comments!

[Deb]

I am glad that he finally said something about it. Only half the Bishops in the country jumped on her immediately.
I was so happy that someone FINALLY mentioned The Didache. It was written around the year 150 and is so clear on abortion. How could anyone not understand that? Well, I suppose if you have never heard of it. Pelosi is as clueless about her faith as Biden is.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't know anyone who comes across as understanding this issue very well.
cause the underlying questions get into thorny pontifical statement questions, possibly.

it's always been taught to be a sin. but, we don't go around banning every sin. it clearly was not always taught to be murder, so it wouldn't be obvious that you'd have to ban it on this point. i haven ot seen that it's always been taught to be not murder though, but there are philosohpers such as aquanis who said so, and the way the popes dealt with the issue, says so indirectly,,, just that a clear statement is lacking.

that it's been at least subtlely taught as not murder, is at least something in her favor.

the current popes while maybe not ex cathedra say it's murder, do say it's murder, and that has to be taken into account.
many say you have to follow these non ex cathedra as final even though they are not final and even may change. (like how death penalty is in flux)

some tougher questions are:
-is that "you have to follow these non ex cathedra" statement iself ex cathedra? a non-infallible statement about non-infallible is argualby not very final.
-if death penalty was one teaching informally, and now it's another, informally,,,, it's a lot to expect a person to htink they have to take the current informal teachingas final, when it's subject to change like that, espeically when they have past historical thought and papal actions backing up their current stance. granted, it's not the same as the death penalty thing necesssarily that i can see, but it's somewhat similar, and subject to change.

that is, i have not seen definite teachings from modern or any popes on this matter.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i used to put down catholics who don't follow all its teaching as much as the next person. evne when i became an excatholic i did that. but, then i started to see the weaknesses in the papal infallibility arguments, so i think a catholic could be "liberal catholic" because of this point. (usually those who are cafateria are not so sophistiated about it, and probably not much justified but..) i suppose that's a point in her favor too.
when i have gotten in debates with the orthodox, about infallbility, i feel like i'm making excuses and rationalizations to defend the papal position. i do still debate them from time to time too, to see what else i can learn on the matter, and it ends the same way.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i could be wrong in my first post in this thread, if there's definitive teachings on the matter.
i've not seen them yet though.
and, i mean ex cathedra etc,,,, not just a teaching vaguely etc, like how the death penalty has gone back and forth, because of teachings that were not direct enough. (despite being in the catechism both times)

[Vincent Vega]

She won't even comment to a Fox News reporter. Do you all really believe she'll have a sit-down with the Archbishop?

[dominicansoul]

I hope she asks for confession and absolution and changes with the grace that comes from the Sacrament. If only all Catholic politicians would stand up for TRUTH! Wouldn't that be a great thing? We truly would be a force to reckon with in this election...seeing that the Catholic swing vote is sooo important! (Too bad not all Catholics think the same on the issues of Abortion and the Pro-Life cause.....)

[SpareTime]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1649100' date='Sep 6 2008, 12:04 PM']She won't even comment to a Fox News reporter. Do you all really believe she'll have a sit-down with the Archbishop? [/quote]

I wouldn't comment to a Fox News reporter but I would sit down with the Archbishop gladly!!!

[SpareTime]

Why does it seem like so many on this board actually ENJOY trash-talking these fallen-away Catholics? Eye-rolling smileys, sarcastic commenting, rude jokes... I saw someone somewhere mention that we should be praying for them instead of all the bashing, but no one really commented on it. I am sure some people do both (although to me that seems a little... err.. not ideal for a Catholic)... do you have to be a longtime member to start a prayer thread? I have seen prayers threads that I think we should duplicate in this situation...

Can you imagine if all of us Catholics were praying a rosary for the conversion(not sure if that's the right word here) of Catholic politicians' hearts? "And never was it known that anyone who implored her help was left unaided."

Pax

Edited September 6, 2008 by SpareTime

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='SpareTime' post='1649228' date='Sep 6 2008, 02:50 PM']I wouldn't comment to a Fox News reporter[/quote]
Would you comment to an ABC/NBC/CBS reporter? If so, why them and not Fox?
What I'm getting at is, if she won't even say anything to people who share different political views, why would she sit down with someone who she disagrees with, yet who actually has authority over her? The reporters don't have any sort of pull on her life, but if she's really a Catholic, then the Archbishop does have the authority to shepherd her.

[SpareTime]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1649239' date='Sep 6 2008, 02:01 PM']Would you comment to an ABC/NBC/CBS reporter? If so, why them and not Fox?
What I'm getting at is, if she won't even say anything to people who share different political views, why would she sit down with someone who she disagrees with, yet who actually has authority over her? The reporters don't have any sort of pull on her life, but if she's really a Catholic, then the Archbishop does have the authority to shepherd her.[/quote]

More likely I would comment to the ones you mentioned rather than FOX or CNN or MSNBC. You really wonder why? The fact that FOX is trying to accomplish being so far to the right that it balances out the rest of the news media is not to its benefit.

I think my post that you didn't quote is the more relevant topic here, though.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='SpareTime' post='1649299' date='Sep 6 2008, 04:55 PM']More likely I would comment to the ones you mentioned rather than FOX or CNN or MSNBC. You really wonder why? The fact that FOX is trying to accomplish being so far to the right that it balances out the rest of the news media is not to its benefit.[/quote]
Not gonna dignify that with a response.
[quote]I think my post that you didn't quote is the more relevant topic here, though.[/quote]

Alright.
[quote name='SpareTime' post='1649235' date='Sep 6 2008, 01:57 PM']Why does it seem like so many on this board actually ENJOY trash-talking these fallen-away Catholics? Eye-rolling smileys, sarcastic commenting, rude jokes... I saw someone somewhere mention that we should be praying for them instead of all the bashing, but no one really commented on it. I am sure some people do both (although to me that seems a little... err.. not ideal for a Catholic)... do you have to be a longtime member to start a prayer thread? I have seen prayers threads that I think we should duplicate in this situation...

Can you imagine if all of us Catholics were praying a rosary for the conversion(not sure if that's the right word here) of Catholic politicians' hearts? "And never was it known that anyone who implored her help was left unaided."

Pax[/quote]
I agree.
Feel free to start a prayer thread, if you so desire.
(I didn't quote it that time around, cause as you can see, my words really didn't contribute much.)
And remember, judgement of actions is fair game. To say that a Catholic supporting abortion is deplorable and non-Catholic is completely fair. Just putting that out there.

[Norseman82]

When I saw the word "conversation" in the thread title, it didn't take me long to think of "conversation" in the hockey sense:

[img]http://www.crashingthenet.com/29.jpg[/img]

[SpareTime]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1649396' date='Sep 6 2008, 07:43 PM']Not gonna dignify that with a response.

[color="#FF0000"]My comment: Alrighty then. It is the truth though. FOX caters to ultraconservatives in the same way that MSNBC and CNN cater to ultraliberals. To believe that FOX is "balanced" is a sign of said believer's own irrational state.
[/color]

Alright.

I agree.
Feel free to start a prayer thread, if you so desire.
(I didn't quote it that time around, cause as you can see, my words really didn't contribute much.)
And remember, judgement of actions is fair game. To say that a Catholic supporting abortion is deplorable and non-Catholic is completely fair. Just putting that out there.[/quote]

Yes I agree! However there is a difference between constructive criticism and whining, complaining, and bashing someone all the time. For instance someone may say "Obama cannot be supported by Catholics because he is pro-abortion." And the comments that follow could say "Obama is evil" "What do you expect from a liberal" "He hates babies" "He doesn't wanna punish his daughters with a baby" etc etc etc... and I only put the tame ones. While all these things may (or may not, depending on what we're talking about) be true, they don't really do any good to be repeated ad infinitum, like I have read here over the past few weeks. Rather, wouldn't it be better to have comments/responses that say something of more substance, like how we can educate the people about Obama's sole vote against the BAIPA? And what said act says and means? Or about actually trying to figure out why people overlook the flaws (not just "what do you expect, they're drinking the kool-aid" as that does NOTHING for our cause but make us look like elitists [something we tend to accuse Obama of])? I know I am perhaps asking a lot but I think we could make such a bigger difference if we approached this in a different way, like trying to see what people see in Obama and understand their reasoning so we know how to better converse with them, rather than just act like they're all stupid/robots.

However now that Palin is on the ticket I don't think we have as much to worry about with Obama. I still think it would be good to pray for the fallen-away Catholic politicians rather that just sit around and talk a lot of... "croutons"... lawl.

[littleflower+JMJ]

This is great news!

I think we're going to see a change soon with the pro-abortion politicians that are Catholic These people have been too comfortable for way too long and will have to start facing some consequences for their choices if they decide to be disobedient. This is especially true with Pope Benedict XVI to save the day!

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='SpareTime' post='1649436' date='Sep 6 2008, 08:45 PM']Yes I agree! However there is a difference between constructive criticism and whining, complaining, and bashing someone all the time. For instance someone may say "Obama cannot be supported by Catholics because he is pro-abortion." And the comments that follow could say "Obama is evil" "What do you expect from a liberal" "He hates babies" "He doesn't wanna punish his daughters with a baby" etc etc etc... and I only put the tame ones. While all these things may (or may not, depending on what we're talking about) be true, they don't really do any good to be repeated ad infinitum, like I have read here over the past few weeks. Rather, wouldn't it be better to have comments/responses that say something of more substance, like how we can educate the people about Obama's sole vote against the BAIPA? And what said act says and means? Or about actually trying to figure out why people overlook the flaws (not just "what do you expect, they're drinking the kool-aid" as that does NOTHING for our cause but make us look like elitists [something we tend to accuse Obama of])?...[/quote]
I agree. I'm more for real discussion than simply snide remarks; I know you weren't talking directly to me, but if you'll look at my post history, I think you'd find that to be accurate.

Edited September 7, 2008 by USAirwaysIHS

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1649060' date='Sep 6 2008, 10:05 AM']i used to put down catholics who don't follow all its teaching as much as the next person. evne when i became an excatholic i did that. but, then i started to see the weaknesses in the papal infallibility arguments,...when i have gotten in debates with the orthodox, about infallbility, i feel like i'm making excuses and rationalizations to defend the papal position. i do still debate them from time to time too, to see what else i can learn on the matter, and it ends the same way.[/quote]


What weaknesses? How does it end? I often find that this issue get horribly misunderstood and therefor is not correctly questioned or scrutinized.

On another note, it is good to see the Bishops and Archbishops getting mentioned in the media about questioning Catholic politicians views on important life matters such as abortion. While this confrontation will generate some backlash among these politicians, many non-Catholics, and even some Catholics, it will begin to force those who are in such positions to question why are they Catholic and do they want to be Catholic.

We may lose some Catholics this way, however, we will have a stronger church by having members who are truly Catholic and who believe in core Catholic principles and teaching.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i appreciate that you opened an account and are new, just for a response to me.



[quote]here's some interesting books off hand for someone interested in that subject.

You Are Peter: An Orthodox Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy
[url="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/CarlsonPrimacy.shtml"]http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/CarlsonPrimacy.shtml[/url]
Papacy and development : Newman and the primacy of the Pope
Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present


also here's something i tend to quote a lot here. for whatever its worth.
QUOTE
QUOTE
if you look at all those early church writings, even the ones from clement, and read them in the spirit of a unifying church, not necessarily in any way infallible, you'll see a different way to interpret history. ie just a unifying and persuasive authority.

the only possibly convincing quotes are from firmilian and cyprian. firmilian was not a believer, but in fact a non-believer in the autority of rome. cyprian... there's the cyprianic theory that said that the church was suppose to be one, but that doesn't necessarily imply what catholics say it does. i do know cardinal newman talks about the cyprianic theory briefly in that sense before he became catholic. see the next set of quotes for the context.

Newman said the alternative unifying thory is a formidable belief. he said the chruch grew like an acorn tree. whether it grew through God's power into what it is now, or by man's power, he said early history could be interpreted either way. the reason he was saying this is because people were dissing the chuch because the early text is so ambiguos, and he wanted them to realize the organic nature of the church: even if it were true, it's not gonna just spring up; if you were Peter, you wouldn't just say hey i'm infallible, watch out; it's be more natural (if it were true, i'm sure he had a time coming to grips with what it was... and i'm not even sure, even if the chruch is true,, whether he would have to even know (or did know) the extent of his power) Newman was resistant of hte first vaitcan council to vote yea on infallibilty because of ehse historical difficulties, as he put it, even though he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church.

when i look at the question of whether hte orthodox broke away or who did. i see it exemplified by the pope steven (or was it victor?) controversy where the guy said said to the pope who excommunicated his people "in excommunicating us from you, you've excommunicated yourself from all". again, it goes back to how you take the pope's assertion to excommunicate. (remember too that many of the bishops back then were called "pope") it's all a matter of perspective.

lastly, not only could the dissenters at vatican I dissent, the orthodox can remain separate precisely because this ambiguity. it's not that they aren't aware of the quotes you provide from catholic.com.....


QUOTE
Here's Victor and Stephen info, two most notable events early on...


Though Victor tried to change the stance of the churches of Asia Minor, and though he threatened to break fellowship with them if they didn’t change their stance, they ignored his threats. The church father and church historian Eusebius, in his church history (5:24), records part of a letter written to Victor by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates explains that he and other church leaders will maintain their stance on the celebration of Easter, and that they aren’t intimidated by Victor’s threats:
"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘we ought to obey God rather than man.’ "


As to Stephen and the rebaptism controvery with Firmilian and Cyprian:
I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).
How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24).[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm pretty knowledgeable about all this stuff, so i doubt there's much to add. i know most of how the arguments go for the below and above stuff, from both sides of the catholic v. orthodox (or protestant) argument.
but if you have any ideas, i'm all ears.

here's some more interesting stuff.

[quote]QUOTE
POPE GREGORY
Pope Gregory was deeply concerned that the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster, had accepted that title of Ecumenical (or universal) Patriarch. He immediately condemned any such title with the following quote: "I say it without the least hisitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride the precursor of the anti-Christ because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of the anti-Christ. For as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whosoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others"

Pope Gregory also demonstrated that such a title would be harmful to the church. He quotes: "It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the church crumbles if that universal one fall"

Pope Gregory refused the title for himself because he believed that he was equal to the other patriarchs. He wrote to the bishop of Alexandria these words: " Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain tiles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me 'as you have commanded me.' I pray you let me never again here this word command; for i know who i am and who you are, by your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still i do not find that your Holiness has perfectly remembered what i particularly wished to empress on your memory; FOR I SAID THAT YOU SHOULD NO MORE GIVE THAT TITLE TO ME THAN TO OTHERS; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the VAINGLORIOUS TITLES OF UNIVERSAL AND POPE. May your sweet Holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; FOR YOU TAKE FROM YOURSELF WHAT YOU GIVE EXCESS TO ANOTHER. I do not esteem that an honor which caused my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. IF YOUR HOLINESS CALLS ME UNIVERSAL POPE, YOU DENY THAT YOU ARE YOURSELF WHAT I SHOULD BE ALTOGETHER. GOD FORBID! FAR FROM US BE WORDS THAT PUFF UP VANITY AND WOUND CHARITY."

AUGUSTINE
St. Augustine also referred to Peter's primacy, but he does not understand this to mean power over the church. He quoted, "He had not the primacy over the disciples, but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons"
(interesting he talks about Stephen, given that the stephen and baptism etc controversy mentioned above is so prominent and pivotal.... if it's the same stephen being referred to)

AMBROSE
St. Ambrose taught that peter and paul were equal. He quotes: " Is it proper that Paul should go to see Peter? Why? Was peter superior to him and the other apostles? No, but because, of all the apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that peter might know the paul has received the power which had also been given to himself"

St. Ambrose also taught that peter's primacy was not one of honor or rank, but of faith and confession.He quoted: "As soon as peter heard these words 'whom say ye that i am?' remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honor, a primacy of faith, not of rank"

St. Jerome (342-420 a.d.)
"Wherever a bishop may be whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth...for all of them are the successors of the apostles."[/quote]


[quote]QUOTE
St. Cyprian(200-258 a.d.):
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:565, "The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian")

and
ugustine’s comments in Sermon 131, quoted by Keating as "Rome has spoken; the case is closed."
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Augustine never said what Keating quotes. In fact, here is the actual Latin text of the final section of Sermon 131 from Migne, PL 38:734:

Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error.

Translated, it reads,

. . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

also the bottom line with the bishop statement stuff.... is that yes it's always been taught to be a sin. but it hasn't always been taught to be murder, and in fact has been hinted at that it's not.

there is a compelling argument, that there's no teachings that it's not murder from the past,,,, and even if this teaching currently, that it is murder, is subject to change, one doens't have any contra authority to follow, and so for this reason is different than the death penalty issue.
my main point is just how sad it'd be for those death penalty followers on either side of the issue to feel compelled to take a stand, only to be later told they were wrong. and likewise, how it'd be bad if the current teaching on abortion is murder at all stages could change.