|
Post by webrunner on Mar 27, 2009 15:35:17 GMT -7
Badly, that's cool. That you're content with your faith is a good thing. I feel the Catholic Church gets unfairly bashed a lot (not by folks here) and not credited for the good it does do. I'm afraid though that it's only going get worse when the movie Angels and Demons comes out. ;D Have you read that book (or the Davinci Code)?
|
|
|
Post by badlygiven on Mar 27, 2009 19:45:59 GMT -7
I read both...they are some pretty good reads...excellent works of fiction...
What I will find funny is that there will be people who all of a sudden become experts on the Church, without ever setting foot in one...all after reading a work of fiction.
Oh well...I know what I have in my church, and in my faith...it took leaving to realize that coming back was the right thing to do...
If you ever want a good movie, that will make you think, watch "Mass Appeal", about a transitional deacon (3 levels of ordination-deacon, priest, and bishop) that has to deal with a real jackass of a monsignor who is the seminary's (think "priest school" here) rector (dean), and how the parish priest where he is assigned gets affected by the young man's honesty with himself, and those he deals with...even when it's a detriment to him.
BTW, I am a "permanent deacon" which means I will stay a deacon till I croak, expire, kick the bucket, go to Valhalla, meet the man upstairs, meet the man downstairs (hope not!), etc...
This means I can witness a marriage, baptize, read the gospel, preach (homily/sermon), and the most important...serve the children of God...
Annnd...the Church gets it for FREE!
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Mar 27, 2009 23:05:57 GMT -7
You know, I can tell by your posts the devotion you have to your Church. That's great, man. Sincerely. The movie you recommend does sound good. I'll put it on my Netflix list.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Mar 28, 2009 6:29:54 GMT -7
I see a lot of devotion to ritual and tradition in Catholicism, and it feels good. But for me, the Catholic church is not really "home", and having been raised in that faith, it's a little disorienting to know that something which held (and demanded) so much reverence for me no longer does.
It never felt "good" knowing that there was such a delineation of roles, even status to some degree--based upon gender, and when the "very Catholic" in my friends and family rushed to point that this exists in other faiths, I felt even more alienated, because that backfired. Somehow, and oddly, I expected more from my church, particulary given the education priests receive. And that was only where it started for me--my path away.
The Church as an institution, I nurtured anger for, for many years. When I sought to resolve that anger, I went back to the Church, its priests and parishioners to do so. I did most of the work, they provided some help here and there, but always with the hope (and the admonishment) that I should return. It was as though it would still be a "bad" thing for me not to return, despite the fact that I could describe positive results (warmth, acceptance, learning, growth) from having learned a little about other faiths, and from not returning to the Catholic church.
Anger and disillusionment can and should be resolved. Differences can be too, but they can also be accepted and respected. I still hold some fundamental disagreements with snil's original point, because for me, what is in one's heart isn't for others to decide--whether one appears to accept/obey doctrine or not. If you still feel in your heart of hearts like you are part of that group or congregation, it's for you to decide and it's for you to reconcile/define your behavior with what you do or don't accept.
And here's where I can also come in line with snil: when you decide that your inability to accept or obey doctrine, scripture, "the rules" makes you something else, this doesn't mean you aren't "Christian" to me, but what is most important is how you see yourself. I see a lot of people who don't describe themselves as "Christian" who behave in accordance with Christ's teachings. I accept what they say they are because that's how they see themselves.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Mar 28, 2009 8:01:24 GMT -7
Badly, that's cool. That you're content with your faith is a good thing. I feel the Catholic Church gets unfairly bashed a lot (not by folks here) and not credited for the good it does do. I'm afraid though that it's only going get worse when the movie Angels and Demons comes out. ;D Have you read that book (or the Davinci Code)? The Catholic church is an easy mark, in too many ways, unfortunately. What is easy to forget is what is also most obvious...its leadership and traditions and doctrine are all guided, implemented and furthered by individuals. So there is a certain level of "oneness", of continuity and authority-yeah, but there are individuals-good and bad-who see to its role in faith and society. All are going to influence the church, its doctrine and its people. The Catholic bible is different-some of the church's interpretations of scripture are "more" or "less"...(fill in the blank here) depending on what Rome says versus what your parish priest says....and what other Christian faiths say. Heck you can get three priests, diocesan or not, who might all have a different understanding of the most basic, accepted scriptural teachings. They will tell you what the church teaches, and they will either extend this teaching or interpret it another way. But the Church has a very long history, its traditions and mores, its hold on doctrine and the loss of influence over the centuries-all make it pretty easy to pick on. sounds like Badly here falls in with the more "open" crowd, in some ways. good to see, if I may say so
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Mar 28, 2009 9:02:09 GMT -7
Anyone know the movie where the new Pope slips out at night to walk the streets of Rome and ultimately decides he is going to give the Vaticans wealth to the poor?
I know the actor if I see him, dark hair, italian or spanish looking.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Mar 28, 2009 13:09:38 GMT -7
there's an old movie, I think Anthony Quinn was in it, don't know if that's the one...he becomes Pope and decides to sacrifice a bunch of the Church's wealth to save China, where everyone is starving....something along those lines?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Mar 28, 2009 15:43:11 GMT -7
No that is not it. The actor I am thinking of is younger than Anthony Quinn I think the movie came out in the late 1980s.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Mar 28, 2009 16:05:32 GMT -7
well, there went my trip to the Bahamas I have no idea which one you're talking about maybe it was a fantasy flick
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Mar 28, 2009 19:45:14 GMT -7
Anyone know the movie where the new Pope slips out at night to walk the streets of Rome and ultimately decides he is going to give the Vaticans wealth to the poor? I know the actor if I see him, dark hair, italian or spanish looking. This one? If not, can you give me more info? us.imdb.com/title/tt0091895/usercomments
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Mar 28, 2009 20:16:25 GMT -7
Badly, that's cool. That you're content with your faith is a good thing. I feel the Catholic Church gets unfairly bashed a lot (not by folks here) and not credited for the good it does do. I'm afraid though that it's only going get worse when the movie Angels and Demons comes out. ;D Have you read that book (or the Davinci Code)? The Catholic church is an easy mark, in too many ways, unfortunately. What is easy to forget is what is also most obvious...its leadership and traditions and doctrine are all guided, implemented and furthered by individuals. So there is a certain level of "oneness", of continuity and authority-yeah, but there are individuals-good and bad-who see to its role in faith and society. All are going to influence the church, its doctrine and its people. The Catholic bible is different-some of the church's interpretations of scripture are "more" or "less"...(fill in the blank here) depending on what Rome says versus what your parish priest says....and what other Christian faiths say. Heck you can get three priests, diocesan or not, who might all have a different understanding of the most basic, accepted scriptural teachings. They will tell you what the church teaches, and they will either extend this teaching or interpret it another way. But the Church has a very long history, its traditions and mores, its hold on doctrine and the loss of influence over the centuries-all make it pretty easy to pick on. And it's not just the Catholic Church either. When a person or an institution "presumes" to speak on what is moral or morality, the public takes great delight when that person or members of that institution fail to meet the mark. Remember Mel Gibson. I thought he did a great thing with that movie Passion of the Christ, although, I must admit that I've never seen it. To me it would be like watching two hours of my best friend get beaten up. Then he gets caught DWI and goes on that drunken rant and that movie was no longer spoken of by itself but in tandem then with the arrest. I was so pissed at him (like he would care right?).
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Mar 28, 2009 20:19:55 GMT -7
I read both...they are some pretty good reads...excellent works of fiction... What I will find funny is that there will be people who all of a sudden become experts on the Church, without ever setting foot in one...all after reading a work of fiction. DaVinci Code was pretty good but I thought Angels and Demons was too far fetched (and I've read a fair amount of Stephan King). Have you ever read any Frank Peretti books? I think he's a better writer than Dan Brown.
|
|
|
Post by badlygiven on Mar 28, 2009 20:52:10 GMT -7
I think the movie is The Shoes of the Fisherman" I don't know if there was a remake, but Anthony Quinn did a great job as the Pope...
Yep, I am one of those "open" Catholics...it's not that I hold any teachings to be untrue, it's just that I realize, as rosa says...that those teachings are written by and interpreted by human beings...with all the attendant frailties of humans...
From "Keeping the Faith"...Ed Norton character..."my parishoners want me to be the perfect Catholic they could never be"...and there in lies the rub...that so many people want us to be so many things, and we also want people to try and understand us, for them to be the pefect Catholic as well...but it ain't gonna happen...
You rosa, you snil, you web, you are all Christians, simply because in your respectful writings, you have shown His face...remember that questioning your faith, searching it is not a sin...but always be ready for the answer you don't like...no answer is preordained...
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Mar 29, 2009 4:34:27 GMT -7
Web - you got it - "Saving Grace" I asked my wife for the actor's name last night - I stink at actors. It was Tom Conti so this is the movie
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Mar 29, 2009 5:41:57 GMT -7
The Catholic church is an easy mark, in too many ways, unfortunately. What is easy to forget is what is also most obvious...its leadership and traditions and doctrine are all guided, implemented and furthered by individuals. So there is a certain level of "oneness", of continuity and authority-yeah, but there are individuals-good and bad-who see to its role in faith and society. All are going to influence the church, its doctrine and its people. The Catholic bible is different-some of the church's interpretations of scripture are "more" or "less"...(fill in the blank here) depending on what Rome says versus what your parish priest says....and what other Christian faiths say. Heck you can get three priests, diocesan or not, who might all have a different understanding of the most basic, accepted scriptural teachings. They will tell you what the church teaches, and they will either extend this teaching or interpret it another way. But the Church has a very long history, its traditions and mores, its hold on doctrine and the loss of influence over the centuries-all make it pretty easy to pick on. And it's not just the Catholic Church either. When a person or an institution "presumes" to speak on what is moral or morality, the public takes great delight when that person or members of that institution fail to meet the mark. Remember Mel Gibson. I thought he did a great thing with that movie Passion of the Christ, although, I must admit that I've never seen it. To me it would be like watching two hours of my best friend get beaten up. Then he gets caught DWI and goes on that drunken rant and that movie was no longer spoken of by itself but in tandem then with the arrest. I was so pissed at him (like he would care right?). truer words were never spoke, Web.....but see, that's the thing: "The Passion of the Christ" was all about the grit to me and it was marketing the grit that trumped the rest....like the differences between crucifixes depending on the area, even the time period.....the more blood and tears, the more guilt-Gibson does the violence up pretty good I remember being pretty shocked with the things he's said about Catholicism over the years, so when he got busted, the rant didnt' surprise me too much. The harder that morality is imposed on those around you, the greater your fall when you screw up. When I was growing up, priests were held in the highest esteem by my family and they just did not "screw up". No one ever spoke of things like that. So when you saw ugly actions as a kid, there was nowhere to take that. Naturally, there were questions ;D
|
|