Divorce and Remarriage

[1beleevr]

Hi Jimmy,

I’m not going to reply to each and every statement here because A, it will become too convoluted, and B, it isn’t in our best interest to keep a tit-for-tat going. That not what either of us wants.

I’ll sum it up just briefly (yeah, right, like I do anything briefly! ) When I said you were “making it personal,” I was referring to your implication that someone (being me) isn’t qualified to judge or discuss this because I’m not Catholic or privy to things, etc. You were saying you found it odd/ironic that someone is commenting on Catholicism who isn’t in it (again, me). It’s obvious you were talking about me. That’s ok. I can move on…

You also state that you’re a Catholic. And as a Catholic you are bound to rubber stamp everything the pope says no questions asked. I can respect that. But the problem with a discussion with that mode of thinking is, you can never discuss the “why’s” or reasoning or motivation or truth of something and defend it if it’s just “because the pope says so.” That’s my concern. Non-Catholics want some meat in the discussion, not just a “cuz I told ya so!” type of approach. I’m not saying you necessarily do that but the end cumulation of our discussion turns to that. And the result will ALWAYS be, “so you think you know better than the pope!” or “I follow the Church, whom do you follow!” or words to that effect. I think in dealing with my son, I tell him why I want him to eat his vegetables, why I want him to stay out of the middle of the street, and why he has to go to bed on time, not just because I’m dad and I said so, etc. So that’s my point there.

I’m glad you’re here, too. You’re right. You’re NOT a drive-by poster at all. I like that about you among other things.

To answer your question, I went through RCIA in 1993. I went to the Anglican Church starting around 1996 until around 2002. In the past few years, for various reasons I’ve been back and forth between the two. I’ve been at the Catholic Church lately and Anglican, caught in between, as my description says. I am prayerfully, cautiously, and intellectually trying to make the right choice. Long story, pretty personal, etc.

God bless you as well! Have a great afternoon, Jimmy. Hey, you’re not a Dodgers fan I hope! I see you’re a SoCal guy!

It is rather curious as to why the pope would be interested in the number of civil divorces or annulments! And nothing personal, but many of us non-catholics do not like or use holy father in reference to your poe. That title is reserved for the One and Only Holy Father, God Almighty! Thank You, and I am a Dodger fan true blue, through and through!

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hi Jimmy,

I’m not going to reply to each and every statement here because A, it will become too convoluted, and B, it isn’t in our best interest to keep a tit-for-tat going. That not what either of us wants.

I’ll sum it up just briefly (yeah, right, like I do anything briefly! ) When I said you were “making it personal,” I was referring to your implication that someone (being me) isn’t qualified to judge or discuss this because I’m not Catholic or privy to things, etc. You were saying you found it odd/ironic that someone is commenting on Catholicism who isn’t in it (again, me). It’s obvious you were talking about me. That’s ok. I can move on…

You also state that you’re a Catholic. And as a Catholic you are bound to rubber stamp everything the pope says no questions asked. I can respect that. But the problem with a discussion with that mode of thinking is, you can never discuss the “why’s” or reasoning or motivation or truth of something and defend it if it’s just “because the pope says so.” That’s my concern. Non-Catholics want some meat in the discussion, not just a “cuz I told ya so!” type of approach. I’m not saying you necessarily do that but the end cumulation of our discussion turns to that. And the result will ALWAYS be, “so you think you know better than the pope!” or “I follow the Church, whom do you follow!” or words to that effect. I think in dealing with my son, I tell him why I want him to eat his vegetables, why I want him to stay out of the middle of the street, and why he has to go to bed on time, not just because I’m dad and I said so, etc. So that’s my point there.

I’m glad you’re here, too. You’re right. You’re NOT a drive-by poster at all. I like that about you among other things.

To answer your question, I went through RCIA in 1993. I went to the Anglican Church starting around 1996 until around 2002. In the past few years, for various reasons I’ve been back and forth between the two. I’ve been at the Catholic Church lately and Anglican, caught in between, as my description says. I am prayerfully, cautiously, and intellectually trying to make the right choice. Long story, pretty personal, etc.

God bless you as well! Have a great afternoon, Jimmy. Hey, you’re not a Dodgers fan I hope! I see you’re a SoCal guy!

Thank you for your post, your understanding and your kind words. Now, as far as your question “you’re not a Dodgers fan I hope!” I little off topic, but… My sports are Boxing, the MMA/UFC and Football!!! As far as a Dodger fan, yes, sort of … a little now… have changed my opinion over the past few years now. A while ago (10 years or so) I took my kids to the game and the players wouldn’t even stop, when leaving the stadium to autograph a ball for my son. I’m a 70’s-80’s Dodger fan (and an LA Rams fan). However the Dodgers did recently give complimentary tickets to the Police Union (LAPPL), for active officers and their families. So, they are pro- police and anybody who likes and supports the police or our soldiers are friends of mine. I also use to swim in the same pool with Tommy Lasorda, at the Police Academy (located behind Dodger Stadium), he’s a great guy and I’m pretty sure a Roman Catholic… And, I have also worked games in the past as a medic and as a policeman. I’ve also watched the game, while sitting on my motor, parked behind the bleachers on the first level… on Code 7 of course… the good ole’ days… …So, yes… maybe still sort of a Dodger fan… Athletes in general, aren’t like they use to be though…

Now, I’ll try to stay on topic…

 

[Jimmy_B]

The Catholic Church seems to have the strictest view towards multiple-marriages. Am I wrong? I believe that there are many, who are former Catholics because of this. Does this mean that the Church is wrong? I don’t think so. For example, birth control was forbidden in every denomination, up until about 40 years ago and now, today the Catholic Church stands alone on that issue and I believe that got that right as well.

Your thoughts?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sorry you feel that way. I give the title of respect that any religious leader goes by be it “elder” for Mormons (despite my intense disagreement with Mormonism), “Father” for priests in Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy, “Holy Father” for the pope, “Metropolitan” etc. I also think monarchies are silly but “His Royal Highness” is the title so I go by it.

It is rather curious as to why the pope would be interested in the number of civil divorces or annulments! And nothing personal, but many of us non-catholics do not like or use holy father in reference to your poe. That title is reserved for the One and Only Holy Father, God Almighty! Thank You, and I am a Dodger fan true blue, through and through!

 

[1beleevr]

Sorry you feel that way. I give the title of respect that any religious leader goes by be it “elder” for Mormons (despite my intense disagreement with Mormonism), “Father” for priests in Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy, “Holy Father” for the pope, “Metropolitan” etc. I also think monarchies are silly but “His Royal Highness” is the title so I go by it.

And i totally respect your position! Having been in the military, and now where I work, I am in total agreement with rank structure and titles. However, speaking only for myself, I have not found anyone on earth worthy of the title Holy Father. I address those with titles by said title,you know President, Governor, Pastor,etc. But I would feel more comfortable calling the pope sir.

 

[Vico]

Just the word no fault divorce does not make sense. I guess it wasn’t anyones fault

It does sound odd. It means evidentiary proceedings or showing of wrong doing is needed for the divorce. In some states, an indivdual or couple can simply apply for the divorce, with mutual agreement, and have it granted if uncontested, in a month.

 

[Jimmy_B]

And i totally respect your position! Having been in the military, and now where I work, I am in total agreement with rank structure and titles. However, speaking only for myself, I have not found anyone on earth worthy of the title Holy Father. I address those with titles by said title,you know President, Governor, Pastor,etc. But I would feel more comfortable calling the pope sir.

“Sir” or “sir”?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not sure why it’s offensive. Obviously the pope is a father of sorts. He is a shepherd of the Catholic Church. He is in a position of guiding the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church so in his position he is a holy father. It’s well-known that the Catholics are not trying to consider him a “father” in the role of Father (capital F) as God is our Father. My kids can call me father around the house and it’s not an attempt to usurp the divine, sovereign, and universal Fatherhood of God Almighty. Actually they call me daddy but if they did call me “father” it wouldn’t be objectionable? The pope is in a position of guiding holy doctrine, being a steward of holy sacraments, and Catholics recognize him as the successor of Peter. For that “holy” and “father” are totally appropriate in my opinion. Why is it ok to call a Protestant pastor “reverend?” This of what that is saying? Which is more lofty–Father or Reverend? A pastor is a type of shepherd as well. Or “elder”? These are all titles of respect elevating a person’s status in a way. I think a lot of times people take the Scriptural statement “call no man Father” except the Lord Jesus and they think that’s what one is doing calling a priest “father.” It’s not and the context Christ speaks in is totally different. I don’t see it as a problem.

But I’m not coming from your perspective. Even as an Anglican I have called my rector “Father James” instead of by his first name like the more evangelical parishoners do. The Catholic side, we call him “father.” But I would NEVER call a female “priest,” “mother” or “reverend” because I don’t respect holy orders for women. So I understand where you’re coming from I suppose.

Blessings to you.

And i totally respect your position! Having been in the military, and now where I work, I am in total agreement with rank structure and titles. However, speaking only for myself, I have not found anyone on earth worthy of the title Holy Father. I address those with titles by said title,you know President, Governor, Pastor,etc. But I would feel more comfortable calling the pope sir.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I will pray a steady rosary for you since you have mortal sin on your soul—being a Dodgers fan! No amount of indulgences can free you from that. It has serious consequences. Repent! Repent! Turn away from the abyss of Chavez Latrine! uh, I mean, Chavez Ravine! Go Giants!

Actually my Giants lost tonight LOL…and the Padres look to take back first place. I can’t win, man!

It is rather curious as to why the pope would be interested in the number of civil divorces or annulments! And nothing personal, but many of us non-catholics do not like or use holy father in reference to your poe. That title is reserved for the One and Only Holy Father, God Almighty! Thank You, and I am a Dodger fan true blue, through and through!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Can’t use a capital “s” Sir. The pope hasn’t been knighted…yet!

“Sir” or “sir”?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Can’t use a capital “s” Sir. The pope hasn’t been knighted…yet!

By a Protestant Queen? He was “knighted” by the Holy Spirit, He was “knighted” by the College of Cardinals. He was “knighted” by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and he was “knighted” by God, as the Vicar of Christ, Successor to St. Peter. Mister, God outranks any queen and so does His servant, the Pope. … Does the Queen hold the keys to heaven? I don’t think so. So I think Sir , or His Holiness, or Holy Father are appropriate titles…

 

[rinnie]

Hi Gurney, Read your first sentence in 201. Then in 213!

By the way in post 213! Testy Testy Testy

And if I could make one more point. When God gave Peter now the (Holy Father) the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose that is part of it.

Now think about that for a minute. I understand you do not agree with it at times as you stated but think about it!

To bind or loose is a technical term of Rabbinic that an action is forbidden or permitted by the Law of Moses.

Now we as Roman Catholics do not question our teachings. And I know that you cannot understand that at times. But here is why. We truly believe that when a person is granted a annulment in the RCC that there is a higher power in that decision. We believe that all that is seen on the outside may not be all that is seen on the inside. We trust God’s word that much. We believe that somehow someway God did make that possible!

Now I have been called brainless, brainwashed, many many names on this site alone because I believe that if the Pope and the Bishops allow it, then its okay.

I cannot say that a bad decision was ever made. I do not know. I only know that God allowed it in his house for whatever reason. There are many thing’s that happen in the CC that God allows and I am not in the position to explain, or even understand why at the time.

But I do have a promise from God that for whatever happens, somehow someway he makes a good out of it.

Now go back to Matt 19. And really read it. The Catholic Church still stands with Gods rule. What God has joined together no human must separate. Now Jesus says from the beginning I say to you whoever divorces his wife commits adultery. But Jesus does say one other thing here. (Unless the marriage is unlawful).

Now who is to decide what is Unlawful and what is not? Simple the Pope and Bishops who he gave that right to.

Now go back to basic standards of Law. What does unlawful mean. Simple not RECOGNIZED by Law or Rules.

Now if a Person is granted a annulment it is not recognized by the Church laws or rules to be a valid marriage.

Now you want to know what are the RULES EXACTLY!! That is impossible to define. Because like any other basics of Law, there must be people to testify, and by the court like hearings the truth will come out. At least we pray that it will. The process for annulments are alot like that. And it is by the GRACE of GOD that we pray that the Bishop, Priests, whoever involved in the process can see the truth. Then by the AUTHORITY given to THEM by GOD is used to either grant or deny the request.

Now who are we to say I agree or disagree? Who are we to question? I know that you said you KNOW the process. But what I am saying is no one really KNOWS the process. What one may be granted, the next may not. But SOMETHING was seen or said or Proven to show that Bishop that there was never a marriage. A marriage has nothing to do with Vows that were said, or promises that we made at the altar. A marriage is what really went on after those vows were said.

So bottom line, we cannot even judge our own marriage. Sound crazy? Well its really not. Because only I know what I put in to my marriage, and only my spouse knows what he put into our marriage. And only GOD knows what we are capable of putting in it.

Some people can put in 100% truly in their hearts and still not be capable of marriage. Just like the bible says some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, some because they we made so by others, some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

Think about that. Some are incapable of marriage and do not know that until they have failed. As Jesus said whoever can accept this ought to accept it. Those are pretty powerful words do you not agree?

 

[rinnie]

It does sound odd. It means evidentiary proceedings or showing of wrong doing is needed for the divorce. In some states, an indivdual or couple can simply apply for the divorce, with mutual agreement, and have it granted if uncontested, in a month.

Yes I know. I am pretty sure we are one of those States or used to by anyway. Kinda reminds you of no fault car insurance. We had that too! But I believe it failed also

 

[rinnie]

Been thinking a lot about the title of this thread, and how people are reacting to it. Just finished an awesome marriage study, which was authored by Chip Ingram; and then I stumble onto this thread. When I whittle down the true issue here, my take is this: whether you’re catholic or Protestant, believer or not, how strict your religion is on divorce and remarriage, it all comes down to you and God. Ultimately, you are mocking Him, if you marry and remarry at will! Being strict on divorce, does not guarantee that your congregants will adhere! Each of us who call ourselves Christians, and believe in the sanctity of marriage, must make a pact with not only each other, but with God. God knows that we are weak, and vulnerable to sin and temptation. For men especially, lust is our worst enemy. So, regardless if your church is strict, lax, or somewhere in the middle, it is on you to honor your marriage vows, and honor God, who ordained your union! It seems to me that on the issue of annulments, which I know are not being discussed here, one could manufacture a reason for an annulment, even if it weren’t true, to end the marriage. How would anyone know whether it was true? Anyway, I love being married, and I wish that everytime I attend a wedding, that the couple seriously vows to honor the union, into which they are entering! Marriage, like life is tough, but with God, all things are possible!

Hi IB that ANYONE we believe is the Holy Spriit. We believe that it is the Holy Spirit alive and well still working in the RCC to not only KNOW what is true, but to use that Power and reveal that truth to the Bishop in making that decision.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Popes don’t consider themselves knighted…

By a Protestant Queen? He was “knighted” by the Holy Spirit, He was “knighted” by the College of Cardinals. He was “knighted” by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and he was “knighted” by God, as the Vicar of Christ, Successor to St. Peter. Mister, God outranks any queen and so does His servant, the Pope. … Does the Queen hold the keys to heaven? I don’t think so. So I think Sir , or His Holiness, or Holy Father are appropriate titles…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Both 201 and 213 don’t contradict in the slightest, rin. I’m not saying that divorce and annulment are the same; you’re trying to get me to say that. I know the difference and have proven (even though I shouldn’t have to ) to you in recent posts that I can enumerate the differences. They are nothing alike by definition. But what I said, ad nauseum here, is that they can be used as a pseudonym for a divorce if the rubrics, reasoning, and process isn’t done properly! It’s easy to turn around and give an “annulment” that is really not an anulment. You know that. A tribunal can misinterpret things, be too generous, and too liberal and just “grant” an “anulment” but in reality it more meets just the criteria for a civil divorce, not an anulment.

I’m not being testy, I’m just getting tired of re-hashing this. I’m happy to move on and indicated so with JimmyB in recent posts. I don’t want to beat a dead horse either. I think we can all agree

a) what a civil divorce is
b) what an annulment is
c) that sometimes tribunals are too generous or liberal in giving annulments and that the criteria for the “annulment” was ignored a bit and it really should fit just in the divorce category. Why should we agree on this? Because many cardinals, bishops, and even the POPE himself has said he’s wanting to look into the excessive amount of annulments being doled out.

Hi Gurney, Read your first sentence in 201. Then in 213!

By the way in post 213! Testy Testy Testy

And if I could make one more point. When God gave Peter now the (Holy Father) the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose that is part of it.

Now think about that for a minute. I understand you do not agree with it at times as you stated but think about it!

To bind or loose is a technical term of Rabbinic that an action is forbidden or permitted by the Law of Moses.

Now we as Roman Catholics do not question our teachings. And I know that you cannot understand that at times. But here is why. We truly believe that when a person is granted a annulment in the RCC that there is a higher power in that decision. We believe that all that is seen on the outside may not be all that is seen on the inside. We trust God’s word that much. We believe that somehow someway God did make that possible!

Now I have been called brainless, brainwashed, many many names on this site alone because I believe that if the Pope and the Bishops allow it, then its okay.

I cannot say that a bad decision was ever made. I do not know. I only know that God allowed it in his house for whatever reason. There are many thing’s that happen in the CC that God allows and I am not in the position to explain, or even understand why at the time.

But I do have a promise from God that for whatever happens, somehow someway he makes a good out of it.

Now go back to Matt 19. And really read it. The Catholic Church still stands with Gods rule. What God has joined together no human must separate. Now Jesus says from the beginning I say to you whoever divorces his wife commits adultery. But Jesus does say one other thing here. (Unless the marriage is unlawful).

Now who is to decide what is Unlawful and what is not? Simple the Pope and Bishops who he gave that right to.

Now go back to basic standards of Law. What does unlawful mean. Simple not RECOGNIZED by Law or Rules.

Now if a Person is granted a annulment it is not recognized by the Church laws or rules to be a valid marriage.

Now you want to know what are the RULES EXACTLY!! That is impossible to define. Because like any other basics of Law, there must be people to testify, and by the court like hearings the truth will come out. At least we pray that it will. The process for annulments are alot like that. And it is by the GRACE of GOD that we pray that the Bishop, Priests, whoever involved in the process can see the truth. Then by the AUTHORITY given to THEM by GOD is used to either grant or deny the request.

Now who are we to say I agree or disagree? Who are we to question? I know that you said you KNOW the process. But what I am saying is no one really KNOWS the process. What one may be granted, the next may not. But SOMETHING was seen or said or Proven to show that Bishop that there was never a marriage. A marriage has nothing to do with Vows that were said, or promises that we made at the altar. A marriage is what really went on after those vows were said.

So bottom line, we cannot even judge our own marriage. Sound crazy? Well its really not. Because only I know what I put in to my marriage, and only my spouse knows what he put into our marriage. And only GOD knows what we are capable of putting in it.

Some people can put in 100% truly in their hearts and still not be capable of marriage. Just like the bible says some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, some because they we made so by others, some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

Think about that. Some are incapable of marriage and do not know that until they have failed. As Jesus said whoever can accept this ought to accept it. Those are pretty powerful words do you not agree?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The pope would never wish to have Sir as a title. Show me one time in history where he has taken such a title and I’ll concede on the point. I hardly think the popes would want to enter into heraldry, the warrior class of the Middle Ages, or as is done in modernity have a monarch declare them knighted? This is a real stretch, Jimmy!

By a Protestant Queen? He was “knighted” by the Holy Spirit, He was “knighted” by the College of Cardinals. He was “knighted” by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and he was “knighted” by God, as the Vicar of Christ, Successor to St. Peter. Mister, God outranks any queen and so does His servant, the Pope. … Does the Queen hold the keys to heaven? I don’t think so. So I think Sir , or His Holiness, or Holy Father are appropriate titles…

 

[Jimmy_B]

The pope would never wish to have Sir as a title. Show me one time in history where he has taken such a title and I’ll concede on the point. I hardly think the popes would want to enter into heraldry, the warrior class of the Middle Ages, or as is done in modernity have a monarch declare them knighted? This is a real stretch, Jimmy!

The pope would never wish to have Sir as a title. Show me one time in history where he has taken such a title and I’ll concede on the point.

Then concede the point, because as a Roman Catholic I would never refer to the Pope as “Sir”. You are the one who was referring to the Pope as sir, using a lower-case “s” and that is what I was responding to.

Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Can’t use a capital “s” Sir. The pope hasn’t been knighted…yet!

In other words, if the other proper titles for the Pope bother you, at least have enough respect to refer to him as “Sir”, using an upper-case “S”. That was my point; to please, show a little respect… If you were addressing a Judge in writing, I doubt that you would be so disrespectful that you would write “sir”, using the lower-case “s”.

I like the word “Sir” and use it often. It shows that I was taught not be rude and that I have manners. I show respect to those in leadership positions and address people by their proper titles.
.
I hardly think the popes would want to enter into heraldry, the warrior class of the Middle Ages, or as is done in modernity have a monarch declare them knighted? This is a real stretch, Jimmy

I was speaking figuratively, not literally when using the word “Knight”.

Although…

Have you ever heard of the Knights of Columbus? I am a 3rd degree member.

Apparently you have not watched many events involving the Pope and all of the pomp and ceremony associated with those events. Keep in mind that the Pope is the leader of Catholicism, with over 2500 dioceses worldwide and over a billion Catholics and the leader of a nation state, recognized by the United Nations; the Vatican. When Pope John Paul II, for example, made visits to foreign countries, millions show up. Are you and I talking about the same person when you say “pope”?

I like you gurneyhalleck1, so if I misunderstood your point here and in your last post, where you used the word “sir”, please correct me.

If you were just kidding, which you probably were, then disregard this post and I’ll just leave it here as general information…So, people aren’t confused about how I feel about the position of Pope. .

Thanks, God bless…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Jimmy, Jimmy, you’re cracking me up because this doesn’t make any sense? I would never call a judge, “Sir” with a capital “s” as he is not knighted. “Sir” with a capital “s” is a title that goes at the beginning of a person’s name as a title. For example, “Sir Lancelot” is a knight, knighted by a royal. If I just say, “yes, sir, Mr. Smith,” I’m not referring to heraldry or a knighted person, just a lower case title of a common man who is not knighted. Of course I was the one referring to the pope in the lower case. Why? He’s not knighted? Why would I call him “sir” anyway? I’d call him “Holy Father” or “Your Holiness.” I wouldn’t call him sir. He is not a knight.

Your example with the judge is puzzling, Jimmy. Why would I call a judge “Sir” with a capital “s” either? First of all I’d call him “Your Honor,” which is the appropriate title. Secondly the guy isn’t knighted so “Sir” is again inappropriate at the front of his name. Saying, “yes, sir” is fine as it is a commoner title.

Also, how can you speak “figuratively” about knighthood?

I’m wondering why you assume I haven’t watched papal audiences, papal events, and the pope in general just because I won’t call him a knight? That’s one of the most unusual accusations I’ve ever read here. You’d assume wrong. I’ve watched countless papal events and find them very very interesting and impressive. My respect for the pope is HIGH. And I don’t need to prove it by calling him a knightly title. I wouldn’t call President Obama “Sir Obama,” that’d be quite odd. But “Mr. President” would suffice.

As far as knights of columbus, a group I’m not at all interested in but respect for their charity, etc., they are not true knights but rather it is a title given for members of a club. So that doesn’t apply here either.

Yes, you and I are indeed talking about the same person when we say “pope.” I just won’t call him by a knighted title. Holy Father, Your Holiness, Holy Father, etc. are the appropriate address.

Blessings, Jimmy

Then concede the point, because as a Roman Catholic I would never refer to the Popeas “Sir”. You are the one who was referring to the Pope as sir, using a lower-case “s” and that is what I was responding to.

In other words, if the other proper titles for the Pope bother you, at least have enough respect to refer to him as “Sir”, using an upper-case “S”. That was my point; to please, show a little respect… If you were addressing a Judge in writing, I doubt that you would be so disrespectful that you would write “sir”, using the lower-case “s”.

I like the word “Sir” and use it often. It shows that I was taught not be rude and that I have manners. I show respect to those in leadership positions and address people by their proper titles.
.
I hardly think the popes would want to enter into heraldry, the warrior class of the Middle Ages, or as is done in modernity have a monarch declare them knighted? This is a real stretch, Jimmy

I was speaking figuratively, not literally when using the word “Knight”.

Although…

Have you ever heard of the Knights of Columbus? I am a 3rd degree member.

Apparently you have not watched many events involving the Pope and all of the pomp and ceremony associated with those events. Keep in mind that the Pope is the leader of Catholicism, with over 2500 dioceses worldwide and over a billion Catholics and the leader of a nation state, recognized by the United Nations; the Vatican. When Pope John Paul II, for example, made visits to foreign countries, millions show up. Are you and I talking about the same person when you say “pope”?

I like you gurneyhalleck1, so if I misunderstood your point here and in your last post, where you used the word “sir”, please correct me.

Thanks, God bless…

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jimmy, Jimmy, you’re cracking me up because this doesn’t make any sense? I would never call a judge, “Sir” with a capital “s” as he is not knighted. “Sir” with a capital “s” is a title that goes at the beginning of a person’s name as a title. For example, “Sir Lancelot” is a knight, knighted by a royal. If I just say, “yes, sir, Mr. Smith,” I’m not referring to heraldry or a knighted person, just a lower case title of a common man who is not knighted. Of course I was the one referring to the pope in the lower case. Why? He’s not knighted? Why would I call him “sir” anyway? I’d call him “Holy Father” or “Your Holiness.” I wouldn’t call him sir. He is not a knight.

Your example with the judge is puzzling, Jimmy. Why would I call a judge “Sir” with a capital “s” either? First of all I’d call him “Your Honor,” which is the appropriate title. Secondly the guy isn’t knighted so “Sir” is again inappropriate at the front of his name. Saying, “yes, sir” is fine as it is a commoner title.

Also, how can you speak “figuratively” about knighthood?

I’m wondering why you assume I haven’t watched papal audiences, papal events, and the pope in general just because I won’t call him a knight? That’s one of the most unusual accusations I’ve ever read here. You’d assume wrong. I’ve watched countless papal events and find them very very interesting and impressive. My respect for the pope is HIGH. And I don’t need to prove it by calling him a knightly title. I wouldn’t call President Obama “Sir Obama,” that’d be quite odd. But “Mr. President” would suffice.

As far as knights of columbus, a group I’m not at all interested in but respect for their charity, etc., they are not true knights but rather it is a title given for members of a club. So that doesn’t apply here either.

Yes, you and I are indeed talking about the same person when we say “pope.” I just won’t call him by a knighted title. Holy Father, Your Holiness, Holy Father, etc. are the appropriate address.

Blessings, Jimmy

Then concede the point, because as a Roman Catholic I would never refer to the Popeas “Sir”. You are the one who was referring to the Pope as sir, using a lower-case “s” and that is what I was responding to.

In other words, if the other proper titles for the Pope bother you, at least have enough respect to refer to him as “Sir”, using an upper-case “S”. That was my point; to please, show a little respect… If you were addressing a Judge in writing, I doubt that you would be so disrespectful that you would write “sir”, using the lower-case “s”.

I like the word “Sir” and use it often. It shows that I was taught not be rude and that I have manners. I show respect to those in leadership positions and address people by their proper titles.
.
I hardly think the popes would want to enter into heraldry, the warrior class of the Middle Ages, or as is done in modernity have a monarch declare them knighted? This is a real stretch, Jimmy

I was speaking figuratively, not literally when using the word “Knight”.

Although…

Have you ever heard of the Knights of Columbus? I am a 3rd degree member.

Apparently you have not watched many events involving the Pope and all of the pomp and ceremony associated with those events. Keep in mind that the Pope is the leader of Catholicism, with over 2500 dioceses worldwide and over a billion Catholics and the leader of a nation state, recognized by the United Nations; the Vatican. When Pope John Paul II, for example, made visits to foreign countries, millions show up. Are you and I talking about the same person when you say “pope”?

I like you gurneyhalleck1, so if I misunderstood your point here and in your last post, where you used the word “sir”, please correct me.

Thanks, God bless…

Thank you Sir!