Confusing purity

[GraceDK]

A few more points:

“women were the strength of Catholic culture. Their influence was greater than men. They ran the schools and hospitals. Every child in Catholic school was instructed by religious whose word was law. They went home to their families with what they were taught daily. “Sister said”, was like “It is written”.”
- grandfather

This I hardly see as good thing. “sister said” is not the same as “it is written”, and the two should not be confused at any cost. I believe you agree with me on that…

“The Church is being restored or rebuilt and the loving hands that.will do most of the work will be the hands of women. As their vocations fell the most they will now increase the most. One of the reasons the Church has suffered so much in the last few decades is the loss of our women vocations. Everyone was worried about not enough priests and it is true we needed more, but in my opinion the loss of the women was a greater problem. God bless you in your vocation.”

This is your idea of why the Church is not thriving… to me the answer lies in the laity that has been passified both though the structure of the Church and the rigidity and through their own tepidity. I say we need more of the Holy Spirit and to be open to Him… at least that is what we need in my part of the world… we need public ministry like that of the three years of Jesus… people who dare go out and heal in His Name… preach the truth from the roof tops and really show that we are not ashamed of the Gospel… If all Christians lived like the apostles then the world would not be threatened by secularism and islam… Jesus called us all to go out and make new disciples… thats the practical pure Gospel.
Praised be the Name of Yeshua

 

[GraceDK]

Dear everybody
Thanks for all your thoughts. Especially puzzleannie, thanks for shedding light on the use of the word purity in this context. I think you are right. Thanks also to homewardbound and GraceDk. Through the whole discussion I have to say your opinion makes most sense to me. Also the talk about which sacrifice is greater is for me to see simplified. I completely agree that a married person can live a sacrifice that is much greater than a religious. Only God can see the heart of a person and knows the burdens we carry.
To the person who said “you are not called” I disagree. I surely believe I was called into my vocation as a wife. And in other denominations and missionaries we clearly see that married people and couples can give their all to the service of God. I indeed believe it is a mistake of the Church to often speak as if only religious and priests can and are called into full time ministry and service of the Kingdom! Lets remember Jesus himself called a bunch of married both men and women to follow him as apostles and disciples.
in Christ,
Annibc

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi GraceDK,

I think I have miscommunicated, and so apologize. Let me try to clear things up.

I am a bit dissapointed or confused…
You quote Trent and Canon etc as though they were the direct oppinion of God…

I don’t think I do. Not only because God doesn’t have an “opinion” about anything, but also because the Canons are not opinions but the infallible teaching of the Church.

yet when I state that I dont like the anathema-part you water it down into meaning something which it does not say, because the anathema does not sound nice or charitable to your ears.

Why do you assume the anathema doesn’t sound charitable to my ears? I think the anathema was eminently charitable. The whole point of the anathema was based on charity (both to those who taught and held error, and to those who were in danger of being taught error).

This is what you said:

sorry that some pope curses me then. but that practice with cursing people was also a practice of a certain time that the Church does not use today… thank God for that…

I don’t mind the anathema. You seemed to mind it, and you seemed to misunderstand what it meant. It did not mean that “some pope” was “cursing you.” Because of what I perceived to be a misunderstanding I tried to explain that the point of the anathema was the underscore the grave nature of the teaching.

take it with a grain of salt…? then why not take the whole thing with a grain of salt? Instruct me as to how you know which parts to take with a grain of salt…

Right. The anathema was a ecclesiastical penalty, but which did not automatically attach, to those who denied the dogmatic teaching of the Councils. The penalty was rarely invoked - and usually only when the erroneous party was obstinate and vocal. To my knowledge the penalty no longer exists in canon law (as far as I know). The *dogmatic teaching *however to which the penalty was attached remains and always will remain true and infallible.

I think you must quote and then take your quotes to the full consequence, not apologising for the text as it is. It says what it says.

I agree. I certainly did not water down what the Church teaches. I pointed out what the Church teaches – that virginity and celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is objectively a higher state and more excellent than marriage. I made no apology for that teaching. My comment about the anathema was limited only to the anathema portion of the Canon, and was directed at your comment that you were cursed.

Fair enough?
VC

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

To the person who said “you are not called” I disagree. I surely believe I was called into my vocation as a wife.

I meant you were not called to be a religious. Not that marriage isn’t a vocation, or that you were not called to it.

However it is a lesser one than being a nun.

 

[grandfather]

It goes for both married and religious… one vocation is not better than another just as Aron was not finer than Moses but each has his vocation and a role to fill…

What does the Apostle Paul say?

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

I think that we need to distinguish between what if objectively a and what is subjectively a higher state in life. Subjectively, the state to which you are called is the higher state – as other posters have correctly pointed out.

But, objectively, virginity or celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is a higher state in life.

I think there is one higher state in life - to live as God would have one live, be it as a religious or as a spouse/parent.

---

To do either without it being what He would have or to do either not for the sake of giving Him glory would not be very high at all.
grandfather;3127391:

If one state is better than the other, spiritually speaking, it is because one is a greater sacrifice.

Again, neither can be greater than the other. What constitutes a great sacrafice depends very much on how willing a person is to give to begin with. For someone who has no desire to marry or have children, or is widowed becoming a nun might not be much of a sacrifice for them in those regards.

Dear everybody
Thanks for all your thoughts. Especially puzzleannie, thanks for shedding light on the use of the word purity in this context. I think you are right. Thanks also to homewardbound and GraceDk. Through the whole discussion I have to say your opinion makes most sense to me.
Yes, indeed I agree with them too.

---

in other denominations and missionaries we clearly see that married people and couples can give their all to the service of God. I indeed believe it is a mistake of the Church to often speak as if only religious and priests can and are called into full time ministry and service of the Kingdom!

This I would not agree with you to that extent.
**The Church most certainly does believe that a couple can give their all to the service of God in fulltime ministry and service fo the Kingdom. That service and ministry is called parenting. And it’s probably the highest duty of every couple and the most vital need in the Church, if not the world. To fill the world and heaven with Catholic faith instilled souls is certainly a fulltime job!! And like most important things to do, it begins in the home. **

 

[grandfather]

**Again, neither can be greater than the other. **

What does Saint Paul say about the matter?