2007 Church Yearbook Ranks Largest Denominations

[BarnGoddess]

I had to search for a bit to find a link to an AP article in today's Rocky Mountain News.

http://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/articles/2007/03/11/news/news07.txt

A lesbian couple, married in Canada received a letter denying them communion.

While searching, I also found this:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Benedicts-Conservatism.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Divorced couples who re-marry cannot receive communion. There's more on the Pope's decisions towards gay's, etc.

My question is, if these individuals can't receive communion, are they still considered Catholic? Why? I personally wouldn't like to remain in a church that denied me rituals and sacrements.

 

[Dark Knight]

Agreed. Our disagreement about the use of the term "hate speech" was entirely political. It wasn't personal OR religious.

I wrote what I did because I noticed that one of your later responses to me (the witty one advising abstention) had been deleted. I don't know why. Sometimes posts are deleted because they quote or inspire problematic posts; and sometimes they are deleted in haste because the Mods don't have time to sit and think about each of the thousands of posts at WS.

In any event, I certainly wasn't offended by anything in that post and I hope nobody complained about it. And that's why I made the point that you and I are not abusing one another (or the TOS, I hope).

Jeanna gets a wee bit overzealous at times when someone says something she disagrees with (I am SO gonna pay for that, hehe.)

Love ya, Jeanna Darlin' as you know. :blowkiss:

 

[Dark Knight]

I doubt that would affect the numbers of Catholics because these aren't exactly new rules. What the Pope did was just reaffirm the teachings that the Catholic Church has always held.

The re-establishment of the Latin Mass with Gregorian chants is a suggestion from the Pope where there are large numbers of international participants.

Yes, it simply allows for it, it doesn't mandate it.

 

[Dark Knight]

It makes sense to me - it's a gigantic loophole! I agree that it doesn't make much theological sense to me...

Go back to some of the old discussion on this. I gave one explanation that others seemed to actually understand, lol. (Praise God for that!) But it has been discussed in great detail before on here, just seek and ye shall find. :crazy:

 

[BarnGoddess]

Here's something about Henry VIII and the beginning of the Church of England.

http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Henry_VIII.htm

snip
The Act of Supremacy. Henry's situation was now desperate, for Anne was pregnant, and at all costs the child, which Henry was sure must be a son, had to be legitimate. Henry got Parliament to declare that his first marriage was void, and he secretly married Anne. Unfortunately for Henry, the child proved to be female once again, the future Elizabeth I. Over the next several years Henry's wrangle with the pope grew ever deeper, until in 1534 the Act of Supremacy was passed, making Henry, not the pope, head of the church in England. This was not at first a doctrinal split in any way, but a personal and political move.


It's an interesting article.

 

[Maral]

My question is, if these individuals can't receive communion, are they still considered Catholic?

Yes, of course they are still considered Catholic.

Why?

When a Catholic is in the state of sin, he/she doesn't cease being a Catholic.

 

[Nova]

Here's something about Henry VIII and the beginning of the Church of England...

I don't know if the article mentions it, but Henry got his older brother's marriage annulled after the brother's death. Henry wanted to marry his brother's widow (Catherine of Aragon) to secure an alliance with Spain, but Elizabethan mores held that marrying a brother- or sister-in-law was incest.

 

[BarnGoddess]

I don't know if the article mentions it, but Henry got his older brother's marriage annulled after the brother's death. Henry wanted to marry his brother's widow (Catherine of Aragon) to secure an alliance with Spain, but Elizabethan mores held that marrying a brother- or sister-in-law was incest.

Nova, it's in the article I quoted. I was going to snip that part too, but didn't.

There was more to his split than wanting a divorce. He considered himself the sole ruler of his country and didn't want Rome telling him what to do.

snip, again:

Marriage to Catherine. Henry received a special dispensation from the pope in order to marry his brother's widow, Catherine. The only child of that marriage was a daughter, Mary. Henry desperately wanted a male heir, and as time went on it became obvious that Catherine would have no more children. Henry began to cast around for a solution.

 

[Nova]

Nova, it's in the article I quoted. I was going to snip that part too, but didn't.

There was more to his split than wanting a divorce. He considered himself the sole ruler of his country and didn't want Rome telling him what to do.

Not to mention all the treasure held in Catholic churches and monasteries all over England.

More than a divorce, but less than a religious revelation, I'd say.

 

[BarnGoddess]

Not to mention all the treasure held in Catholic churches and monasteries all over England.

More than a divorce, but less than a religious revelation, I'd say.

Absolutely, the riches the Catholic church held in England was vast and under control of Rome. Again, in the article.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Um, Peter, actually the trend is in the obvious direction. The supposed health benefits of circumcision are highly debatable (and I'm not at all sure how it helps with AIDS), and even those supposed benefits can also be accomplished with regular, basic hygiene. As I understand the recent studies, anyway.

And for what it's worth, circumcision never caught on in Europe. I've heard jokes on British TV to the effect of "that's how you can tell a guy's American."

Recent health studies found that circumcision is helpful as protection from AIDS, but there are caveats.

While circumcision may help protect a man from catching the AIDS virus, men who are already infected and are then circumcised should refrain from sex until they have fully healed, researchers said last week.--->> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/health/13prev.html

My 84-yr-old father was circumcised about 4 months ago because of health concerns (not related to AIDS). I don't know how often elderly, uncircumcised males need the procedure, but I sure thought it was interesting.

Until very recently, I never realized that there was actually such a thing as "uncircumcision", but there is and has been for thousands of years. 1st century (uncircumcized) Greek males could exercise in public in the nude but circumcized male Jews who wanted to go to public baths or exercise in the nude had to undergo one of several procedures to become "uncircumcized" so their nudity wouldn't be obscene.

 

[Nova]

Absolutely, the riches the Catholic church held in England was vast and under control of Rome. Again, in the article.

Could you please stop referring to the bloody article when I'm showing off like the only two things I know about English history?!

:razz:

 

[LovelyPigeon]

All the Church can do is inform its members of the teachings. But it is up to the individual people whether or not to strictly follow the teachings. When a Catholic walks up to receive Communion, the priest doesn't ask first if you take birth control pills, if you you've been divorced and remarried, if you are in the state of sin, etc. All of that is between the individual and God.

What does the Church teach members about the resulting penalty if they don't strictly follow the teachings?

Say a Catholic is taking birth control pills, living with an unmarried partner, taking sacraments while knowing being in a state of sin, etc...what does the Church say happens to those people concerning their relationship with God and eternity?

 

[Nova]

My 84-yr-old father was circumcised about 4 months ago because of health concerns (not related to AIDS). I don't know how often elderly, uncircumcised males need the procedure, but I sure thought it was interesting.

My brother and I were circumcised (I know: TMI) because our father had vivid memories of his father's adult circumcision. Apparently, grandpa would cry out at night every time he got an erection in his sleep. My father said it was the only time he ever heard his dad cry.

I guess the healing process can be - or used to be - quite painful.

 

[BarnGoddess]

Could you please stop referring to the bloody article when I'm showing off like the only two things I know about English history?!

:razz:

Sorry Nova. We watch a lot of history on the dish. There are some fantastic series produced by the BBC. They even had one on the Wives of Henry VII. I believe in 6 parts. Then they also had a series of the history of England. Just love that stuff.

I remember history in school and boring. Had a difficult time with it sometimes. Seemed to skim over a lot and gave dates and a few facts to remember. I love taking pieces of history and seeing it in depth. Makes it more enjoyable and memorable.

 

[Nova]

Until very recently, I never realized that there was actually such a thing as "uncircumcision", but there is and has been for thousands of years. 1st century (uncircumcized) Greek males could exercise in public in the nude but circumcized male Jews who wanted to go to public baths or exercise in the nude had to undergo one of several procedures to become "uncircumcized" so their nudity wouldn't be obscene.

Today, the operation is called "foreskin restoration," I believe. There's a militant movement that opposes circumcision and supports restoration. At least one very famous gay star ("Al Parker) was known for having the restoration operation.

(I read your link, LP, and I stand corrected on the benefit of circumcision in avoiding AIDS. I have heard, IIRC however, that those results are still disputed in some quarters, the argument being that good hygiene can produce the same result as surgery.)

 

[Nova]

Sorry Nova. We watch a lot of history on the dish. There are some fantastic series produced by the BBC. They even had one on the Wives of Henry VII. I believe in 6 parts. Then they also had a series of the history of England. Just love that stuff.

I remember history in school and boring. Had a difficult time with it sometimes. Seemed to skim over a lot and gave dates and a few facts to remember. I love taking pieces of history and seeing it in depth. Makes it more enjoyable and memorable.

I used to have the same argument with colleagues when we were teaching theater history. Rather than giving students a bunch of names and dates they will forget 5 minutes after the test, let's take a few historical periods and teach them really well. If we give them the skills to understand history (and a love of doing so), they'll find out most of the rest on their own.

I have that BBC History of England on DVD. It is great.

(And I was kidding about you referencing a source. Of course, you were right to do so.)

 

[IrishMist]

Could you please stop referring to the bloody article when I'm showing off like the only two things I know about English history?!

:razz:

You are cracking me up today, Nova!

Thanks- belly laughs feel great!

 

[IrishMist]

Sorry Nova. We watch a lot of history on the dish. There are some fantastic series produced by the BBC. They even had one on the Wives of Henry VII. I believe in 6 parts. Then they also had a series of the history of England. Just love that stuff.

I remember history in school and boring. Had a difficult time with it sometimes. Seemed to skim over a lot and gave dates and a few facts to remember. I love taking pieces of history and seeing it in depth. Makes it more enjoyable and memorable.

I have found this to be true for myself, also, BG. I mostly stick to non-fiction reading, (only because that's what interests me) but I surprise even myself in how my interest in history has increased over the years. The History channel usually has some interesting shows.

 

[Nova]

I have found this to be true for myself, also, BG. I mostly stick to non-fiction reading, (only because that's what interests me) but I surprise even myself in how my interest in history has increased over the years. The History channel usually has some interesting shows.

Funny, isn't it? I've always been something of a (very) minor history buff, but I find myself fascinated with all sorts of history nowadays. In the past year I've read scholarly works on the history of the British Navy and Native Americans in the years before Columbus, as well as everything Jared Diamond has published.

Who knows why?