Catholic history is disturbing

[Cinette]

We see this ongoing renewal in the hesitancy of the church to excommunicate publically known pro abortionists that claim to be faithful catholics.
You will say they have excommunicated themselves, you may say that they fall under the bible verse I posted.
But, you can not say that there is any reason why the church has not publically barred them.

I saw programmes on EWTN (The World Over) where Bishops in the US have named certain politicians who should not approach the altar.

You are right when you say they excommunicated themselves - because this is exactly the case - if the Church were to name and shame them publically it would be like a mini “McCarthy” thing.

 

[notsmart]

I saw programmes on EWTN (The World Over) where Bishops in the US have named certain politicians who should not approach the altar.

You are right when you say they excommunicated themselves - because this is exactly the case - if the Church were to name and shame them publically it would be like a mini “McCarthy” thing.

If the church were to formally excommunicate them, it would be no different than what the church did in the past. Why change the routine just because its not “popular”?
Formal excommunications were not uncommon in the past. I think you agree.?

 

[Cinette]

If the church were to formally excommunicate them, it would be no different than what the church did in the past. Why change the routine just because its not “popular”?
Formal excommunications were not uncommon in the past. I think you agree.?

You are right of course!.. The Church should stand firm as it has done on many other issues.

When I was young I would criticise the Church for taking a stand - now I have become more and more orthodox. little sinstend tobecome big sins!

 

[notsmart]

You are right of course!.. The Church should stand firm as it has done on many other issues.

When I was young I would criticise the Church for taking a stand - now I have become more and more orthodox. little sinstend tobecome big sins!

Well, maybe we are both just concerned about what is happening now.
I know you are, and I am too.
I just pray so hard that there could be something that would change this state of affairs in the US (regarding the matter we spoke of) because, it really shows a mixed signal to those struggling to find something that will never change-
Truth.

 

[Symux]

You are right of course!.. The Church should stand firm as it has done on many other issues.

When I was young I would criticise the Church for taking a stand - now I have become more and more orthodox. little sinstend tobecome big sins!

I laugh in fondness at this post. I too can relate to this very thing. When I was a youth I used to think the Pope was set in his ways. ( Stubborn old man … ) It wasn’t until I began reading the Bible that I realized … oh … I’m wrong. Society is wrong … … contraceptives are not ok.

I now think of him as a very Holy man, and one who did a lot of great things for the church. His passing was a sad occasion.

Cinette, I have read your posts and you are right. I have no idea why I kept referring to the reformation as a revolution. Thank-you for your well thought out responses. God Bless you.

 

[Cinette]

I laugh in fondness at this post. I too can relate to this very thing. When I was a youth I used to think the Pope was set in his ways. ( Stubborn old man … ) It wasn’t until I began reading the Bible that I realized … oh … I’m wrong. Society is wrong … … contraceptives are not ok.

I now think of him as a very Holy man, and one who did a lot of great things for the church. His passing was a sad occasion.

Cinette, I have read your posts and you are right. I have no idea why I kept referring to the reformation as a revolution. Thank-you for your well thought out responses. God Bless you.

You an enigma Symux. You sometimes make me mad and sometimes you bring tears to my eyes. I suddenly remembered something beautiful which I want to share with everyone:

*“What do I love when I love my God?

Not material beauty, or beauty of a temporal order,
Not the brilliance of earthly light, so welcome to our eyes;
Not the sweet melody of harmony and song;
Not the fragrance of perfumes or spices;
Not manna or honey, not limbs such as the body delights to embrace.

It is not these I love when I love God.
And yet it is true, when I love him I love light of a certain kind;
A voice, a perfume, a food, an embrace.
But they are of the kind I love in my inner self,

When my soul is bathed in light that is not bound by space,
When it breathes a fragrance that is not borne away on the wind;
When it tastes food that is never consumed by eating;
When it clings to an embrace from which it is not severed by
the fulfillment of desire.

That is what I love when I love my God.”

					(St Augustine – Confessions X, 6)

 

[Peter_J]

Cinette, I have read your posts and you are right. I have no idea why I kept referring to the reformation as a revolution. Thank-you for your well thought out responses. God Bless you.

I thought you were just going Beatles on us.

Hmm … You say you want a reformation, well, you know.

 

[Cinette]

I laugh in fondness at this post. I too can relate to this very thing. When I was a youth I used to think the Pope was set in his ways. ( Stubborn old man … ) It wasn’t until I began reading the Bible that I realized … oh … I’m wrong. Society is wrong … … contraceptives are not ok.

I now think of him as a very Holy man, and one who did a lot of great things for the church. His passing was a sad occasion.

Cinette, I have read your posts and you are right. I have no idea why I kept referring to the reformation as a revolution. Thank-you for your well thought out responses. God Bless you.

*But you are absolutely right - it was a revolution. How can you have a reformation when you leave, when you are on the outside? It was a revolution. I am sure he lived to regret it and if he is watching on the world now he will see what a mess it turned out to be!

Thank you Symux for being right!

Cheers
Cinette *

 

[ron77nyc]

I thought you were just going Beatles on us.

Hmm … You say you want a reformation, well, you know.

What I find interesting is the Reformation also needed to be reformed. They changed the New Testament into the Old by adding rules that were never there. ie: no makeup for women, no jewelry, no movies, no drinking etc.

 

[Methodi]

Cinette:
Far from ignorant sweetheart,& how dare U lash out at me, your supposed to be a christian. I know all about catholic charities etc, I support it etc.
& around where I live, The priests drive some very fancy cars which is OK *& I also have a little insight as to how much they get paid, which I wont say.Furthermore, order priests take vows Of poverty, chastity & obedience, secular priests take only one vow, that is obedience to the Bishop & why do people on this forum put people down, we are supposed to be kind to one another.Been around for a while, know what I am talking about Cinette

 

[rikkk1958]

. If you asked me why I’m not a Roman Catholic anymore, I would say it has entirely to do with the fact that we are unwelcome into the church if we do not hold to the entire teachings of it. I cannot believe that any man is infallible, or an organization that has the history this church does. It is not enough in the Roman Catholic church to love God, worship Christ, and to live your life for God. You have to believe in all the other rules created by man for God’s people.

Jesus came to preach to the sinners, as those who were perfect had no need of him. The Roman Catholic church allows unfit sinners to enter, but dare they partake in the sacraments.

Your concept of a Roman Catholic is wrong. This is the kind of misconceptions that are common in describing Catholics.
My response to you, and hopefully you would understand the position of a Catholic once and for all is this, A good Catholic follows the Dogma of the Church because it was based on "Scriptures and Oral traditions by our early fathers’. This Dogma may be man made but all of it was based on what I said above. Catholics believes that the Church is the Body and Blood of Christ, and the Mass is a remembrance and celebration of our Lord’s partaking of the Eucharist with His Apostles. We do not go to Mass or listen to the Words of God and set our agendas so that we would like to hear what the Priest would say and see what we want him to do. The Scriptures for us are sacred. We do not play with it but the Priests who are authorized to explain it may never interpret it with his personal point of view. When he explain, he wants to make sure it is within the universal understanding of the Church.
The infallibility of the Pope is only within “Faith and Morals” of the Church which means, that his personal opinions are different. The infallibility statements are not easy to make because it must adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ. We do not have the freedom to change what the Church had already set before us.
If your opinion and understanding defers than that of the Church then it is your knowledge that makes you decide what to do with your life. For us Catholics, we just follow because we have decided based on our knowledge that the Church is based on what Jesus wants. There is no rules, only the Dogma that is the truth.
Partaking with the Sacraments of the Church is indeed a difficult process. We just want to follow what is righteous. Obedience is still the best way to work with to attain the grace of God. However, we believe God works in mysterious ways and will judge according to His will. Catholics judge on basis of what God wants not on human wants. Therefore, who will be saved is only God’s will.

 

[Cinette]

Far from ignorant sweetheart,& how dare U lash out at me, your supposed to be a christian. I know all about catholic charities etc, I support it etc.
& around where I live, The priests drive some very fancy cars which is OK *& I also have a little insight as to how much they get paid, which I wont say.Furthermore, order priests take vows Of poverty, chastity & obedience, secular priests take only one vow, that is obedience to the Bishop & why do people on this forum put people down, we are supposed to be kind to one another.Been around for a while, know what I am talking about Cinette

I remember I said somewhere about how much priests earn and the cars they drive etc.

Well I can only speak for my part of the world. I remember about 15 years ago a secular priest in charge of a parish I sometimes visited would get R275.00 per month which at the time might have covered his petrol. Two years ago I asked my Sunday parish priest (Jesuit) how much he earned and it was R1200.00. You do the math if one dollar is about R12!! As for the cars they drive, my local parish priest (I go to daily Mass closer to home) has only recently been given a new car (the old one was 15 years old) and I think the new car is a Toyota. The local Parish is affluent and Father is secular but everything is modest. He takes people on pilgrimages to the H Land every 2 years or so. I don’t see any excesses at all.

My Uncle was a priest (RIP) on the Island of Mauritius and in all the years of his life I knew to travel once to France (Lourdes).

It is a life of devotion and sacrifice.

I suppose American priests are different.

 

[Methodi]

I remember I said somewhere about how much priests earn and the cars they drive etc.

Well I can only speak for my part of the world. I remember about 15 years ago a secular priest in charge of a parish I sometimes visited would get R275.00 per month which at the time might have covered his petrol. Two years ago I asked my Sunday parish priest (Jesuit) how much he earned and it was R1200.00. You do the math if one dollar is about R12!! As for the cars they drive, my local parish priest (I go to daily Mass closer to home) has only recently been given a new car (the old one was 15 years old) and I think the new car is a Toyota. The local Parish is affluent and Father is secular but everything is modest. He takes people on pilgrimages to the H Land every 2 years or so. I don’t see any excesses at all.

My Uncle was a priest (RIP) on the Island of Mauritius and in all the years of his life I knew to travel once to France (Lourdes).

It is a life of devotion and sacrifice.

I suppose American priests are different.

Yes, I am From USA & I guess things are different.Many of our priests are well off, there are some who choose to live modestly, to make sacrifice for the church & the people. They are all different, like all of us are different. We have one priest here who rides a bicycle to go around & visit the homebound, which is unusual in this country, but he is a real priest, serious about his vocation, & I am sure most of the others are too, they just do things in a different way.
I commend You On going to daily Mass, pray for me & I will also pray for You:thumbsup:

 

[Cinette]

It is a new day - well not yet since it is now about 3h40 in the morning and I have just caught up with my emails.

I would say that looking back on the history of the Church, so far it has made tremendous progress. The Church is both divine and human and there have some very bad moments in history but there have also been some very glorious moments. The good outweighs the bad just as light overcomes darkness.

I think that it is precisely a testimony to the fact that the Holy Spirit has always been with us to guide the Church into all truth that the Church has managed always to keep us on the narrow path.

I am not sure if I have written about this on this thread but at my Sunday Parish there is a retired couple of Academics - the wife is Catholic and the husband is Atheist. He participates in the life of the Parish in that he comes to talks and events at the Jesuit Institute which is alongside the Parish. The Parish is next to a University and ministers to the students. I have lent this man books and talked with him and he is a strong defender of the Catholic Church. He says that he has witnessed the dedication of the priests and the great work the Church does for years etc etc. The Church has been outspoken in matters concerning injustice etc.

Do I believe in all the Church teaches - absolutely. I have struggled in the past (I am a revert). I look at the Church authority and I am proud of the Popes I have “known” in my lifetime. They do a tremendous job. When the abuse was in the news I suffered tremendously because I thought of all the Holy men and their life of sacrifice who will be tainted with the brush and judged according to a few who abuse their position. It was a very sad period.

All in all I am happy to be back in the Catholic Church - it is my home. I wish every Christian could be united with us. I think we need to obey because the guidance we receive is in accordance with the precepts of God. We must obey the commandments and strive to be holy.

“Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Lev 19:2)

Our lives on earth is so short anyway and Eternal Life is forever.

 

[SyCarl]

. The Scriptures for us are sacred. We do not play with it but the Priests who are authorized to explain it may never interpret it with his personal point of view. When he explain, he wants to make sure it is within the universal understanding of the Church.

The Catholic Church has only defined what it says Scripture means for a very few passages in the Bible. In any other case a priest is just giving his own interpretation in a way he feels is consistent with Church teaching. The Church does not claim infallibility for its priests or its individual bishops.

The infallibility of the Pope is only within “Faith and Morals” of the Church which means, that his personal opinions are different.

The whole matter of the infallibility of the Pope speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals does not really make sense to me. We are told that the Pope can teach infallibly. Why then would he ever choose not to? I don’t mean to sound trite, but why would he take the chance of speaking an error? When he speaks, should he be saying “I am not wearing my infallible hat today so what I am telling you might be wrong. I could choose to be infallibly right but I am not doing so today so you must decide if I am making an error or not.” It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[guanophore]

Who knows what to believe anymore, it`s all become very confusing

John 18:37-38
37 Pilate asked him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate asked him, “What is truth?”

John 14:5-7
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

 

[Peter_J]

The whole matter of the infallibility of the Pope speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals does not really make sense to me. We are told that the Pope can teach infallibly. Why then would he ever choose not to?

If you don’t mind, I’d like to answer your question with another question. Well, actually 2 questions.

1. Do you believe that St. Paul could teach infallibly?
2. If so, then why would St. Paul ever choose to teach fallibly?

(If you believe that St. Paul couldn’t teach infallibly, then … well we should definitely talk about that. But from the little I know about you, I feel pretty confident that you believe that St. Paul was able to teach infallibly.)

 

[SyCarl]

If you don’t mind, I’d like to answer your question with another question. Well, actually 2 questions.

1. Do you believe that St. Paul could teach infallibly?
2. If so, then why would St. Paul ever choose to teach fallibly?

(If you believe that St. Paul couldn’t teach infallibly, then … well we should definitely talk about that. But from the little I know about you, I feel pretty confident that you believe that St. Paul was able to teach infallibly.)

Paul was an Apostle which makes a big difference. His teaching as recorded in Scripture is certainly infallible. But I think Scripture shows us that the Apostles were not necessarily infallible in other ways. There is no specific example of Paul doing found in Scripture but there is of Peter.

I hope that we can agree that teaching can be by way of example. In Galatians we read:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
(Galatians 2:11-13 NASB)

Peter, by his actions, was teaching error and led others, including Barnabas, into error.

I don’t know that the Apostle’s ever claimed the chrism of infallibility the way the Catholic Church claims it for the Pope. In fact, it would seem that Paul realized that he was not infallible in his teachings because he submitted them to other Apostles in case he was.

It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
(Galatians 2:2 NASB)

 

[Peter_J]

Paul was an Apostle which makes a big difference. His teaching as recorded in Scripture is certainly infallible. But I think Scripture shows us that the Apostles were not necessarily infallible in other ways.

That’s what I’m saying too: St. Paul was infallible at times (while writing Scripture), much like the Pope is infallible at times (while making an ex cathedra statement).

 

[SyCarl]

That’s what I’m saying too: St. Paul was infallible at times (while writing Scripture), much like the Pope is infallible at times (while making an ex cathedra statement).

Again, as I mentioned, Paul was an Apostle. The Pope is not an Apostle. Also, Paul did not claim infallibility, the Pope does.