- Status
S
stanmaxkolbe
Guest
Well did you ever think maybe these LA Bishops are in schism taking advice from people with mental problems with fear of weapons or people that are evil?
When the Holy See sends the Swiss Guards home; I’ll disarm.
Leaving the Latin Rite does not put you in schism.
What is great is that I live in the Holy State of Texas and that anti-gun, anti-freedom rule will never happen here.
If the USCCB ever decides to do…no they’re not that stupid.
I feel sorry for all you people out there that is in fear of a tool, a firearm is nothing but a tool—what’s next ban knifes from the KoC banquet? Well Stan it’s not designed to kill? Yeah neither is my truck. That the scumbag use as a weapon when he crashed into Luby’s here in the Holy City of Killeen. [his truck not my truck].
This is why I think this is just a feel good liberal rule; some years ago at the VA hospital in Temple, TX where they had unarmed security guards a nutcase that lived there shot up the place and I think killed a couple of vets I have not looked it up this is just from memory I know at least one vet was killed. Well now they have armed VA Police at this and all VA hospitals and of course evil guns are banned.
I have appointments at this hospital I have a concealed gun safe in my truck that can only be opened by my hand—now here is what is stupid when I go for my appointments I have to park my truck right across the street in a civilian parking lot [food joint] because if I go on VA property with my gun I would commit a felony.
So I park my truck on Texas property not VA property but it’s right across the street! Why do I park my truck across the street from the VA because I’m a law abiding citizen do you think Joe Scumbag—gangbanger is going to abide by those rules or laws? Give me a break man!
These rules and laws don’t protect jack! They just make some liberal feel good that’s all they do—that’s fact jack—love you all but we have to agree to disagree on this one.
J
JReducation
Guest
You said that you would join the Orthodox. To join the Orthodox is a schism. If you mean joining one of the other Catholic Churches, that’s a whole other story. The Orthodox are not one of the 22 Catholic Churches…
There are Catholic Churches, Orthodox Churches, and Christian Rites. They’re not the same things.
The Orthodox follow the same rites as the Oriental Catholic Churches, but are in schism. They are not guilty of it, because it’s a situation that they inherited, just as we’re not guilty of it, because we inherited it from our forefathers. But any peson who crosses over is guilty of schism.
Crossing to one of the other Catholic Churches is a whole other issue. That can be done with the permission of the Metropolitan.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
stanmaxkolbe
Guest
Don’t worry Brother I maybe half Polish but I’ll never leave the Catholic Church I’ll die a Catholic—what I did was a fire for effect!You said that you would join the Orthodox. To join the Orthodox is a schism. If you mean joining one of the other Catholic Churches, that’s a whole other story. The Orthodox are not one of the 22 Catholic Churches…
There are Catholic Churches, Orthodox Churches, and Christian Rites. They’re not the same things.
The Orthodox follow the same rites as the Oriental Catholic Churches, but are in schism. They are not guilty of it, because it’s a situation that they inherited, just as we’re not guilty of it, because we inherited it from our forefathers. But any peson who crosses over is guilty of schism.
Crossing to one of the other Catholic Churches is a whole other issue. That can be done with the permission of the Metropolitan.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
So if someday I have to park my truck off Church property like I do at VA I’ll bite the bullet and do it—I just think this is just a silly rule to make somebody feel good.
May the Lord be with you—Stan. HOOAH!
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
State your position on the issue, not your opinion about the bishops. You may never say anything that is offensive toward a deacon, priest, and bishop or religious. We need not tear down someone to defend our position. If you have a real issue with a bishop or a diocese, write them. Catholic Answers is not the place to discuss personal issues with the clergy, parish or a diocese.
Thank You
Thomas Casey
Moderator
Thank You
Thomas Casey
Moderator
G
GEddie
Guest
Problem is, it’s the Church hierarchy who can diagnose schism. Not the guy in the pews. Ours is to obey.
Were you living in Rome, you would not be allowed to pack heat anywhere near His Holiness. Average citizens with pistols are not a professional security force!
A
Aramis
Guest
The bishop’s authority over laity not under vows or solemn promises is explicitly limited exclusively to matters of faith or morals.
Secular clerics have a higher standard of obedience: in all matters which affect the church, and the obligation to do what is best for the souls of the faithful entrusted to their care.
Religious have a higher standard still, obedience in all things not otherwise prohibited by higher authority.
And religious clergy have the highest obligation of all; obedience as religious, and doing what is best for the souls of those entrusted to their care…
B
bona_fides_1
Guest
I don’t generally respond to this kind of rhetoric and hyperbola. You are too emotional and just ranting and taking the thread down another rabbit hole. You are also way out of line in comparing me to a gun hating homophobe and sadly I have had to report you. I have never seen such cheeky hypocrisy and uncharitable rants here on CAF before.
If you have actually read any of my posts you would know that I am a gun advocate and a believer in the concept of a citizen soldier. So you are careless & cavalier and just shooting dumb-dumb bullets half cocked from the hip or else you are purposely trying to demonize me. Didn’t anyone tell you that its poor-form to the use demonizing process on another person and to jump all the way to charges of homophobic before calling someone a Nazi first? LOL!! Care to retract your ridiculous charges and save at least a little bit of your face here?
I will say this: you are one of the most entertaining persons I have ever encountered here on CAF. For the record there is not the slightest intended uncharitable tone in my post to you - it was pure unadulterated tounge-and-cheek humor intended to lampoon your complete lack of statistical data to back up your unsubstantiated claims. Also for the record your comment about Alaska being a smaller state and therefore the sample size is too small to draw statistical inferences is complete rubbish. Didn’t you take a college level statistics course and know that all it takes is about 36 samples to get a reasonable statistic and sigma from a normally distributed sample population randomly chosen? And where you out shooting grizzlies the day the stats teacher talked about what “per capita” means and how to standardize results to standard population sizes?
What is relevant statistically is the fact that Alaska has a greatly different demographic - and I stated that it was improper to make cross comparisons in some data with other states as you first attempted to do in your silly application of (still) unsubstantiated gun accident rates for Alaska to other states in general.
Here’s some profitable advise - Get on Topic. No one here cares about the grizzly population of Alaska and what that means to the need to carry a gun in Alaska. As a hunter myself it is actually interesting to me. But I already know that there are real needs to carry guns in the wild and in certain cities/populated areas that are encroaching on natural wildlife reserves that share space with potentially dangerous wildlife. I support the real need to carry in some of these cases - we have the same problem here in houses built right up on the wetlands. Ever walked up to a wild boar all of a sudden and not had a side arm as it charged with razor sharp tusks? Not fun - been there done that lost the t-shirt in the brush running straight up a tree to escape! But what does any of this have to do with carrying guns in church?? Please…
Your diatribe about my stats being faulty on four points are without merit since they were given as a lampoon of your complete lack of stats and your attempt to bully the thread with your opinion as if it was a settled matter. Until you give something factual to back up what you claim then you simply have no qualified voice in the matter.
Besides I didn’t intend that short exposition to be a thesis - what do you expect in a free forum with a posting limit of a few thousand text characters and with critics who can’t even be bothered to take the time to check out what a person actually believes and says before hurtling an insult at them at the same time you hypocritically call them uncharitable? But again, just how did you make the leap to homophobe from a short list of gun statistics?? Is it a sensitive topic to you personally?
Maybe open a new thread if you have some kind of personal problem you need help and advise on…At this point the discussion has moved past this detour of yours so its probably too late to make any positive impact to the balance of the discussion. Pity you had no hard data since I’d still be interested personally but would rather not bog down this topic further…
You are wrong about the first steps in a dictatorship. One of the most critical first steps in any dictatorship is to disarm the public with rhetoric, ignorance and demagoguery, promise free lunches that can’t be paid for then demonize one group over another when everyone sees that the emperor wears no clothes. Then create a have and have-not class tension - then call them one Nazis THEN homophobes. You almost got the formula down… LOL! But why no free lunch offers yet?
And finally I echo back your own words. Please be charitable or even more people will add you to their ignore list. Put up or remain silent but above all kindly drop the ad homonym and non-linear rants and get back on topic.
BF
1
1holycatholic
Guest
If disagreement with the bishop on matters that are not faith and morals is disobedience then St. Catherine of Siena was disobedient (and by your standard not eligible to be declared a saint) in urging the pope to return the papacy to Rome even though the pope was in his right for the papacy to be in Avignon.
J
JReducation
Guest
I know you will. I have been watching you for a very long time now. You’re a very good man. This was one of your “rant” moments.Don’t worry Brother I maybe half Polish but I’ll never leave the Catholic Church I’ll die a Catholic—what I did was a fire for effect!
So if someday I have to park my truck off Church property like I do at VA I’ll bite the bullet and do it—I just think this is just a silly rule to make somebody feel good.
May the Lord be with you—Stan. HOOAH!
You know, I don’t always agree with everything that I’m told to do or not to do either. Well God got even with me. You’ll love this. I was elected superior of my community. I had spent many years sitcking it to the man. Then I became the man. I had to make judgment calls that affected not only the lives of the brothers, but their souls too and the souls of the poeople they serve.
One day a brother came to me and asked if I was sure that I wanted X to be done instead of Y. I said yes. He asked me again. I knew that he wanted to disagree. But a brother never expresses disagreement. We do not have opinions, feelings, wishes or aspirations. A brother is a man of discipline who does what the rule says, end of story. So knowing that he could not say what he was thinking and knowing that he really thought that Y was a better choice than X, I turned to him and said, “Look at it this way. You can do X now and live with the pain for a while. It beats hell for all eternity.” The brother looked at me and said, “Ah, good point. Thank you Father.” That was the end of that. As it turned out, he was right and I was wrong. But we both earned some points in heaven. I earned some points for trying to do what was best. He earned points for his obedience.
There is always something to be gained in every difficult situation. As your patron saint. Who is also the patron saint of our community.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
If St. Catherine had acted as we’re acting here, no she would not have been a candidate for canonization.
Catherine did two things. First, she was on very intimate terms with the hierarchy. She communnicated with them very directly, not in public. It was usually by writing. No one knew what was being said.
Second, she alwasy concluded her letters, “Your obedient servant.” She made it very clear that she was willing to obey and accept what they decided. They did not always agree with her and often did not yield her advice. Actually, she was never disobedient, because she was always willing to conceed the point to them. When she was told to be quiet, she was quiet.
Everything that we know about Catherine’s exchanges with the hierarchy we found out after her death, because her letters were released by the Dominicans. Until those letters were realesed, no one knew. Catherine did not make her concerns known to the public.
She single handedly castigated anyone who spoke about the clergy and religious in the manner that we do here… She had no tolerance for public displays against the clergy or religious. They were unacceptable and nothing more than fuel for the fire of the heretics and insubordination that she did not telerate calmly.
We need to learn a little more about this woman, not just the part that says that she told the pope to go home. There was a great deal of humility to her. Even her suggestion to go home was closed with a please, thank you and I will obey. Had the pope decided to ignore her, she would have been OK with that too. She was told more than once to drop an issue and she did and she never brought it up again, even though she believed that she was right.
Two men presented themselves before Pope Innocent III. Both had a mandate from God to start a new religious family, St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi. St. Dominic presented his rule to Pope Innocent and the request was denied. He could found his order, but it had to live by the Rule of St. Augustine, even though Dominic believed that his rule was given to him by the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Mother. St. Francis presented his rule and it was approved. He too said that his rule had been dictated by Christ. Pope Innocent read it and concurred. St. Dominic went home a very happy man. Today, the Dominicans and Franciscans celebrate St. Dominic as one of our two Holy Fathers. There is a moral here about obedience.
The same opinion was shared by other saints who had their own private discussions with the hierarchy: St. Francis of Assisi, St. Clare of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Vincent de Paul, St. Alphonsus Ligoouri, Ven. John Paul II, Bl. Teresa of Calcutta, Dorothy Day, Catherine de Hueck Doherty, St. Padre Pio.
Discretion is a virtue. We seem to have lost that with the birth of forums and other mass media communications.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Discretion applies to private information. Is there something being discussed in this thread that was not made publicly known?
1
1holycatholic
Guest
St. Catherine (obviously) didn’t have access to the internet, but those around her knew her opinions. - they had to, she couldn’t write. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that the pope returned to Rome in January 17, 1377. St. Catherine didn’t learn how to write until 1377, “though she still seems to have chiefly relied upon her secretaries for her correspondence.”
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Were you living in Rome, you wouldn’t be allowed to carry a concealed weapon - period. Pope or no Pope.
Only Italian citizens may carry a concealed firearm, and the conditions for obtaining the permit are very stringent. (A salesman of very valuable goods such as diamonds, for example.)
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
One doesn’t argue from the specific to the general, but from the general to the specific. The example of a single saint isn’t justification for believing that anyone can disregard the bishop on matters other than faith and morals.
S
Stylites
Guest
I believe I read where 1holycatholic tried to claim that a Bishop’s lawful and canonical ban on concealed weapons in his churches was not a matter of faith and morals, and therefore a person would be free to be disobedient to the Bishop and still merit grace.
If a Bishop asked the congregation to not wear golf shoes to Church, and to not carry golf clubs up the Communion line, should the impatient golfers simply ignore what the Bishop asks for? Is disobedience and its resulting scandal to the faithful an issue of morality? Yes.
Edit: I apoligize to 1holycatholic, for the paraphrase was from someone else whom you identified below . . .
1
1holycatholic
Guest
I posted the general definition from the U.S. bishop’s web site and noted St. Catherine of Siena as a specific example as hers does not involve faith and morals.
Aramis’ post about obedience is exactly how it was taught to me in RCIA.
Your quarrel is with the bishops.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
I didn’t say that. Your conclusion is wrong. I said it’s not a matter of faith and morals, which it isn’t. That doesn’t mean I don’t have to obey the legitimate request of the bishop, only that I don’t have to agree with it. If it were a matter of faith and morals I would have to obey and agree.
You are making weapons at mass a matter of doctrine which it is not.
A canonical ban? The bishops in Louisiana don’t have the authority to alter canon law in their diocese.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Nobody said that you had to agree with the bishop. Even JReducation told of how he obeyed his superiors even while sometimes disagreeing in his mind with their orders.
The point is simply this: the bishop gave a legitimate order regarding what may not be brought into churches in his diocese. His flock may disagree with him, but they are required to obey him.
If they think his order is entirely out of line, they may appeal to Rome. As simple as that.
- Status