I'm still pedantic - i was making fun of the pedantic garbage this thread has turned into

What do you mean the Church doesn't have the power to change it's stance on married priests or women being ordained? - the Church does have that power because they have done it in the past... read up on your Church history and you will find that in the early Church priests where allowed to be married...

Seems to me that this discussion has less to do with the New Pope than with RC dogma, the nature of sin, and who is technically a real Catholic.
For those who say that dogma will not change, yeah you are right. Dogma will not change. Dogma is the bare bones essence of what the Faith is really founded upon. However, most of what has been discussed is not found in dogma per se. Married clergy and the gender of those able to be ordained is not found in dogma but in practice. St Peter was married and he was most certainly Catholic.
The Holy Father can not change dogma but can and does adjust practice from time to time.
The essence of Catholic Faith is the Nicene Creed. One can be a Catholic and still be in error or be in a state of sin. Technically, anyone who accepts that JC is who we believe Him to be is a Catholic, though that person might be scismatic or simply in error. Remember that the definition of Catholic is Universal.
As to the nature of sin, I was taught that there are some acts which by their nature are essentially positive and some that are essentially negative. However, for an act or ommision of an act to be a sin one must believe that this act or omission is contrary to the will of God and that one must act or fail to act in the knowledge that this is offensive to God. It has a lot to do with personal responsibility and one's ability to understand the nature and gravity of the act or omission. That is best left up to the judgment of God. The more you understand the more is expected of you, but I'll (excuse the expression) be damned if I judge you for your honest decisions.
The very essence of the Catholic faith is reconcilliation and redemption. There are certain revealed truths which are immutable and there are plenty of incidental practices which are open to adjustment. It used to be mandatory to avoid eating meat of Fridays. That was not dogma but practice. It was designed as an act of self denial to express devotion. It came to be viewed as an unnecessary disciplinary rule that had outlived its usefullness and was being seen as an essential rather than an incidental. The rule was eliminated as a mandatory requirement and simply suggested as a voluntary expression.
To sum up, dogma will not change but practice can. I think it will be interesting to see how the next 20 or 30 years play out.

Totally. The worst thing any Buddhist says to another Buddist is "Dude, that is SO not Zen of you."

I'm going to attempt to answer a lot of the issues you have with me as best I can in one message. First off, I'm actually a Catholic Theologian - and ORTHODOX Catholic Theologian. That IS a role within the Church. It is also one role among many that I have in the greater Church, not just my parish (World Youth Day Leader, Youth Minister, teacher, etc)

Secondly, this dicussion can be linked back to Pope Benedict XVI because he has been 'fighting' against moral relativism for YEARS and will continue to do so. This discussion is moral relativism at its finest. (For those that are not aware of what moral relativism is, it is deciding what is right and what is wrong based on how you feel rather than based in solid truth; that morals are personal and can change from one person to another depending on their individual circumstance, etc). The Ten Commandments are not suggestions - they are COMMANDMENTS. A sin is a sin is a sin, no matter what color you try and paint it - and standing by and watching something happen and not doing anything IS a sin of omission.

There is a great difference between catholic and Catholic. The term catholic in the Nicene Creed is actually the little 'c' catholic (meaning universal) so no, not every Christian is a Catholic - but every Catholic had better be Christian.

Vatican II did not change ANYTHING! This is one of hte greatest misconceptions about the Council. What happened was the Church (not the faith) was more clearly defined. I might also add that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were very instrumental in many of the documents written at the Second Vatican Council.

The celibacy of priests, women in the priesthood, etc those are issues that WILL NOT CHANGE. The closest to the Roman Catholic Church are the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Yes, they do allow men who are married to be priests - but you cannot marry AFTER you are a priest. You also cannot be a Bishop if you are married. You also really cannot compare the RCC and the Protestant denominations on these issues because there are too many differences between them to even know where to begin. This 'push' for women to be priests is a VERY recent thing brought about by post-Vatican II disgruntled sisters/nuns (there is a difference between a sister and a nun by the way) and this ultra-feminist nonsense.

Actually Catholics are still supposed to fast on Fridays - and if you do not, you are supposed to make some sacrifice in its place.

There are actually very few Dogmas within the Catholic Church (I want to say only three or four). You also have a distinction between Tradition and tradition. Tradition (Big "T") will not change. Those are things passed down from the Apostles. This includes priestly celibacy, baptism of infants, etc.

To not agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church is technically to be a Protestant, not a Catholic. Once again, you either believe in the Catholic Church and all she teaches or you don't. There is no gray area. There is no picking and choosing what you want to believe at any time that suits you (once again, moral relativism). You cannot call yourself a Catholic and blatantly go against Her teachings. Those teachings are based on the Word of God through His Son, Jesus.

So Beryana, are those who converted to Catholicism as adults not really Catholic? They certainly weren't baptized as infants. I wasn't baptized until I was five, but I still took my first communion with my grade when I went to Catholic school. Was that wrong? (I don't attend a Catholic Church anymore, and am pretty much Anglican (I haven't officially converted yet))

ETA: One more thing, Beryana, in your PERSONAL opinion, are Protestants "wrong," especially those who are "liberal?"

And being born and raised in Italy, going to Catholic schools, etc has WHAT to do with actually being a true, practicing, orthodox Catholic?

Actually I should thank you for helping me with my Christian Moral Priniples class.

The only reason I mentioned infant baptism because there are some protestant denominations out there that refuse to baptize infants. I have known MANY orthodox Catholics who went through RCIA and were baptized as adults.

My personal opinion on Protestants - they just have not understood the full truth of God revealed through Christ. because that will be taken COMPLETELY out of context by some, to clarify, they are not complete (only 2 sacrements (some have more but not all 7), the fullness of the Eucharist, denying the assistance of Mary and the Saints, etc).

What EXACTLY is orthodox Catholic? I've never heard that term used before (outside of Eastern Orthodox)

Me neither............

I was educated in the best Catholic schools in the state for 13 years, went through the sacraments of Baptism, Reconciliation, the Eucharist, and Confirmation, my "home" parish is a co-cathedral where I've had the privilege of meeting and interacting with the Bishop and other visiting clergy.

I have never never never ever heard of "Orthodox Catholic". In school, you were either Catholic or Non-Catholic.

I think you're pulling "Orthodox Catholic" out of your ass.

I've heard that there's a branch of Catholism that isn't officially recognized because they do not accept Vatican II. I read about it around the time The Passion of the Christ came out because Mel Gibson's family is part of the church. Is that "Orthodox Catholic?"

i think people pull the word 'orthodox' outta their asses when they want to emphasize how 'conservative' they are.

whatever - there is only ONE catholic church (and fyi - it's not listed as orthodox)

and yes, i'm catholic - so i hope that my catholic upbringing hasn't cheated me by never mentioning the word 'orthodox'

- marissa