 |
| |
|
|
Brent
|
|
Well I suppose there are more black Americans than black Catholics. And being direct from Africa rather than being from slave stock (??) may help in some peoples eyes for some reason.
How does the worldwide distribution and ethnic makeup of Catholicism compare to 50 to 100 years ago? Is there enough of a difference there to logically mean a nonitalian is much more likely now? Or is it that the RCC was Italocentric in choosing its leadership for centuries but is not now?
I think the Catholic Church as a whole is probably less racist than the United States as a whole. I don't personally see much racism here in California. I've heard it said that Sacramento is the most integrated city in the country, due to its being a military town or something.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Yeah, I was wrong, but then of course I'm no expert on the subject. So are most of those 200 million in Africa? Anyway I guess it makes more logical sense than I thought to have a black Pope first. Actually I meant percentage, but it sounds like we're close enough to being even in that regard. About a billion catholics total, right? I don't think much more than a fifth of Americans are black. But then of course why dwell so much on the color of the skin if we believe in equality?
Oh, and Levi, Aaron, and other old testament priests were obviously married with children, so considering that how is celibacy in Christianity explained? I don't see why church leadership should exclude one from multiplying and filling the earth and cleaving unto one's wife.
Maybe this is one of the changes that have been made, but do you not have to be a priest in order to be a cardinal and thus to be the pope? I imagine there wasn't always such a position as a cardinal, or is it just a change in the name of the position?
I guess the relevance of some of this has already been nullified in this thread, though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
You miss the point - this isn't about any particular issues - its not about left versus right or conservative versus liberal. |
Apparently, you didn't read my post. I never mentioned left versus right.
I think I get the point just fine. I just don't agree with it. From the US perspective, the situation recently turned for the better once the pope started cleaning house and asserting the power of the papacy. He left the situation to the handling of the American bishops for far too long. Admittedly, the situation in other parts of the world may be different.
I don't know how it is in Australia, but in the US, letters of apology from each bishop were being read aloud during mass after the pope became involved. Certainly, it's nothing that I had ever experienced before.
Last edited by DanS on 06-04-2005 at 02:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
To those of you who believe a decline in the RCC means something, I suppose you also believe the increase in my religion means something? My point here is not that either one means anything, but that maybe as far as you should be concerned neither does?
How long ago was Paul VI?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
ah right - Western Europe is a hot spot, nothing more.
And there are interpretations of the decline which have nothing to do with the role of the Pope.
The next Pope will need to address falling church attendances. That was my point. |
But church attendance has been falling in Europe for all denominations for decades anyway. Is the Pope responsible for falling attendance in the Church of England too?
In South America the Roman Catholic Church is being beset by aggressive protestant evangelists, this too began long before John Paul II began his reign. It's more a function of US influence keeping the Latin American governments from harrassing American missionaries. In North America, Asia and Africa the Roman Catholic Church is growing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Paul also says,
1 Cor 7:32-4
"I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs–how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world–how he can please his wife– and his interests are divided." |
Wasn't Paul heavily influenced by a particularly misogynistic brand of Greek philosophy? Women were inferior, borderline evil. Sex in itself is bad. Must keep the body entirely pure.
AFAIR, Paul said that no good Christians should marry. The only reason to marry was if you could not possibly control your desires, and it was better to take a wife than to be consumed by passion(1 Cor. 7:9) Didn't he also believe that Christ was returning soon, so reproduction wasn't necessary?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
In my denomination, in some countries of Europe attendance may be going up and down a little bit, but over all it is growing there, mainly in the east and south. And it certainly hasn't been falling for decades.
I imagine South Americans who convert to my religion (not protestant, but restorationist) are largely ones who weren't very strong in Catholicism anyway, but I'm not sure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
Paul also said "it is well for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor. 7:1)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Did not Paul say Neither is the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord? If he didn't believe in reproduction, he apparantly didn't believe in Genesis.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-04-2005 00:48
)
|