I ask that you indulge me for the next 3+ minutes, find your “inner child” and listen to and enjoy this clip.
The rainbow, in the Judeo-Christian culture, is a sign the God will never again destroy the earth. The “symbolism” that this “sign” has taken on in secular culture, to some, may seem the antithesis of the “sign”, but that is the beauty part of “symbolism”- it all depends on one’s perspective, so, in essence, no one has the ‘wrong’ idea!
And for me, this “rainbow connection” is peaceful co-existence of "orthodox & progressive" so that we may be the “one, holy catholic and apostolic Church” and work together to spead the Good News!
Peace to All!
I know I'm probably treading on thin ice here, but honestly I associate the "rainbow" with the gay (homosexual) movement. The new age movement has the 7 seven rays of the rainbow. There is the Catholic Rainbow Bible (TEV).So I am always very skeptical of rainbowish sentiments.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how orthodox and progressive Catholic can co-exist in matters of doctrine.
I'm orthodox and believe in transubstantiation; my progressive friends (I do have them) believe it is transignifcation.
How is this compatabile with the firm and unchanging teachings of the Catholic Church?
PS, Persis...did you mean to eliminate "catholic" in the "one, holy and apostolic Church"?
Thanks for letting me give my .02
Choir,
ReplyDeleteThank you for you good eyes! No I did not mean to leave "catholic" out, I have fixed that!
Your thoughts on the rainbow are exactly what I was talking about in my post, that sometimes "signs" take on much different "symbolic" meanings.
As far as "doctrine" is concerned, I agree that we can't argue about that, but ultimately it is up to the local Bishop(in line with Church teaching) to set matters of doctrine, and from my limited understanding of Canon Law, it takes very grave "abuses" for Rome to even "get involved", so to speak. So if Rome has not sent someone by now, I am thinking that, while they may not agree completely with our Bishop, he is not committing any "violations" in the DOR from their eyes. (Please, if any one can shed light on this, or if I am wrong in my assumption of "church authority", let me know!)
As far as I am concerned one cannot call themselves "Roman Catholic" and not believe in transubstantiation. This is what seperates us from our Protestant brothers and sisters, and in my opinion is the "true gift" of the Church and of a loving God who loves me so much, He allowed His only son to die for me.
I do not want to argue points of doctrine, my issue is with interpretation of how one should practice their faith and both sides insisting that their way is the only way-
it leaves the rest of us "adrift"!
I will be making another post soon about this subject, looking forward to more dialogue with you and others! Stay tuned!!! :)
Peace to All!
No, bishops can not decide what is and isn't doctrine, that's for the Holy See and Curia to decide.
ReplyDeleteNo, it does not take only grave abuses for Rome to get involved. Rome needs credible evidence of an abuse that has occurred or will occur. Rome does intervene, you just don't often hear about it because communications are done quietly. Its more likely that a bishop is being disobedient or looking the other way than Rome is not taking some action. There were a SERIES of letters about the problems at Corpus Christi before Rome finally said enough. All that time Bishop Clark was doing nothing, or if he was doing something, it was telling Callan to just be quiet with his abuses. Don't assume that something is OK or not problematic because you don't see action taken.