Prove it!

[Leslie_Polley]

I believe you are a Christian sister. I certainly consider you a follower of His. I am troubled by the rejection of His Church as an institution but I do not look at you as an unbeliever because of it.

I believe His bride is the Church, the Catholic Church. In order to have full communion with Him you need to have relationship with His Church.

As far as the chubbies go, I was just following suit. Glad you liked them though.

no I really did like the chubbies… I am sorry we disagee with the matter of the church, but I would give my life if necessary for Him…It is harder to live for Him though and that is what He expects and wants from us all.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

Indeed. To the extent that a Christian, whom we view as our Brothers and Sisters in Christ if they’ve been baptized, rejects His Body is the extent that they reject Him.

We do not serve a decapitated Christ. He and His Body are One and the same!

PR, judgement is your middle name…

 

[Carlan]

PR, judgement is your middle name…

NO Leslie,their judge will be God Almighty. He will be the one to judge the intentions of the heart. We are allowed to admonish and judge that which is sinful ,disobedient and wrongful behavior.:sad_yes:Carlan

 

[PRmerger]

NO Leslie,their judge will be God Almighty. He will be the one to judge the intentions of the heart. We are allowed to admonish and judge that which is sinful ,disobedient and wrongful behavior.:sad_yes:Carlan

Indeed. In fact, we are commanded in Scripture to judge.

And, those who call others judgmental are, in fact, being judgmental, are they not?

 

[Dokimas]

What I have observed in my short time here is that there are many types of people. Some protestants come here with a good knowledge of Catholic teaching and have already decided it is wrong. THeir intent is to witness to us, to point out how wrong we are. When they are provide a Biblical basis for our beliefs they reject them outright, not even giving consideration to them. At first, these people appear fairly open minded but as time passes they are proved to be otherwise.

They tend to support hostile posts by other protestants and begin to preach their own version of Christianity. They begin telling us the rules of conversation and what we are allowed to say and not say to others. Their replies get shorter and shorter while getting ruder and ruder at the same time. THey eventual stop posting here, either by choice or by force from the mods.

I am seeing much of this behavior from you. Your answers are becoming shorter and your are unwilling to consider any view other than your own. YOu are getting ruder and more personal with your comments. YOu use “buzz words” that insinuate that we are deceptive and that you are superior. It is getting more and more pronounced as time goes on.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to address this issue. First, if I’ve been rude I am sorry. I have no excuse for being rude.​

If you are truely a Christian, I have no desire to ‘convert’ you. Is it your opinion I should be a Catholic? If so, are you trying to convert me?​

I am not trying to convert anyone. I do have a great respect for what the Bible teaches and when, in conversation, something is said that does not go according to what I believe the Bible teaches, I often make comment.​

You say I post fewer and fewer words in my posts. How many times and how many ways can I say the same things? We’ve gone round and round and round about the same things. I’ve run out of words, I guess.​

As for ‘sticking up’ for others here: if you can’t see they are the recipient of comments that seem to be as I’ve said, then nothing I say will change your opinion of why I stick up for them. However, take an honest look and you may see how you guys gang up on Leslie and Tweetymom and others. I dare say that’s not ‘sporting’ of you all.

 

[Dokimas]

Babies are cute but doesn’t Paul say something about growing up and putting childishness away?

 

[Dokimas]

What would your response be, Dokimas, to an advocate of “open marriages” who told you: Dokimas, if your church allowed “open marriages” there’s be a lot less sexual problems and much less adultery and less divorce?

In other words, this hypothetical person is saying that the reason so many men (and, I suppose, women) commit adultery is because monogamy is impossible.It causes sexual problems in the marriage and it causes adultery. If Christianity would just do away with this monogamy thing then there’d be a lot less problems.

How would you respond?

If I understand the question, it has a very easy answer. It’s similar to what I’ve said here; that teaching is not in the Bible so it is best to reject it. Then I’d add caution that the practice of open marriages is a very sinful lifestyle.

 

[Dokimas]

Help me understand then; how is correcting someones beliefs wrong? If a person claims to be a member of your church yet consistently contradicts the churches teachings should that person not be corrected? Once that correction has taken place and the individuals chooses to rebel against said corrections and continues to teach in opposition to your churches beliefs, what should be done? If this is occurring in a public forum where unknowledgeable people are being led astray, should they be corrected in public so as to not mislead the weaker brothers?

I’m not saying trying to correct someones belief is wrong. I do it here as well. I’m saying the way one does it is judging with an attitude, a superior attitude, a condescending attitude. I think that’s the type op Phariseeical attitude Jesus came against.​

After sharing your opinion, you must lovingly give the person into the care of the Holy Spirit. You should move on.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas, I know you don’t consider this a game. You are valid in what you say. PR is the one that likes to not only play silly games, but mock at the same time. God bless you brother

Thank you for your kind words. However, in support of PR, I thought she was kindly teasing WITH me so I tried to tease her right back.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you for your kind words. However, in support of PR, I thought she was kindly teasing WITH me so I tried to tease her right back.

Indeed, dear Dokimas, it was teasing.

 

[PRmerger]

If I understand the question, it has a very easy answer. It’s similar to what I’ve said here; that teaching is not in the Bible so it is best to reject it. Then I’d add caution that the practice of open marriages is a very sinful lifestyle.

I don’t think you’re understanding my analogy. You weren’t talking about Scripture when you made this claim:

Originally Posted by Dokimas
-Sure would solve a lot of problems for the CC if they’d let their priest be married: less sexual problems and more priest

You’re saying:
If you Catholics had priests who could have sex your Church would have “less sexual problems” (i.e. pedophilia)

The logical corollary is:
If you Christians had marriages in which you could have sex with anyone, your society would have “less sexual problems” (i.e. adultery)

Of course you see the absurdity of the corollary.

It shows that the original statement is illogical as well.

 

[Carlan]

If you are truely a Christian, I have no desire to ‘convert’ you. Is it your opinion I should be a Catholic? If so, are you trying to convert me?​

I am not trying to convert anyone. I do have a great respect for what the Bible teaches and when, in conversation, something is said that does not go according to what I believe the Bible teaches, I often make comment.​

You say I post fewer and fewer words in my posts. How many times and how many ways can I say the same things? We’ve gone round and round and round about the same things. I’ve run out of words, I guess.​

As for ‘sticking up’ for others here: if you can’t see they are the recipient of comments that seem to be as I’ve said, then nothing I say will change your opinion of why I stick up for them. However, take an honest look and you may see how you guys gang up on Leslie and Tweetymom and others. I dare say that’s not ‘sporting’ of you all.

Dokimas,Do you forget that this is a Catholic Answers forum?
we are here not to convert you, but rather to share the truth of our faith with you. You either accept what we tell you we believe or you don’t, debate is a good thing, when it becomes as you decribe it in the above post, you are quite free and welcome to move on. As far as the above mentioned ladies are concerned, I’ve yet to understand quite why miss leslie, as a non practicing Catholic, is visiting here. And Tweety, well it has been well observed that she stands in errorof Church teaching and we as Catholics here would be very wrong to confirm her in her error.Carlan

 

[Dokimas]

I don’t think you’re understanding my analogy. You weren’t talking about Scripture when you made this claim: Repost both my original and your response and we shall see.

You’re saying:
If you Catholics had priests who could have sex your Church would have “less sexual problems” (i.e. pedophilia) ** Is pedophilia the only sexual problems: Normal men have normal desires.**
The logical corollary is:
If you Christians had marriages in which you could have sex with anyone, your society would have “less sexual problems” (i.e. adultery)

Of course you see the absurdity of the corollary. **Forsed celebacy is not in the Bible; sex outside of marriage is condemned in Scripture. Apples with apples!! **

It shows that the original statement is illogical as well. When comparing apples with pears makes things seem illogical, I’d agree.

 

[Dokimas]

Indeed, dear Dokimas, it was teasing.

What does the Bible say about winking???

 

[PRmerger]

Forsed celebacy is not in the Bible; sex outside of marriage is condemned in Scripture. Apples with apples!!

Ok. I see what you’re saying.

Your argument is not that priests would not commit pedophilia if they could have sex. You’re opposed to the charism of celibacy because it’s not in the Bible.

But then we’re back to that old argument about your church believing non-Biblical traditions as well, right?

So why did you bring this statement up?

Originally Posted by Dokimas
-Sure would solve a lot of problems for the CC if they’d let their priest be married: less sexual problems and more priest

 

[guanophore]

Call it what you will, but a rose is a rose no matter what you call it: the CC demands priests, bishops, cardinals and popes to remain celebate to keep their statis in the church.

It seems that you do not understand the nature of religious vocation, Doki. As a result, you are looking at this from a secular perspective.

Serving God is not about “status”, in the church, or out of it. For those who have received the Apostolic faith, it is understood that Holy Orders is a calling, and a gift.

The Church cannot “demand” gifts from God. The HS gives Gifts according to His own will, for the building up of the Body. The Church’s duty is to recognize the gifts He has given, and to organize the connection between the needs of the flock, and the gifts of the called person.

You use convenient terms like ‘gift’ to justify a teaching that demands. Again, a rose by any other name is till a rose.

Again, the preference for choosing from among those called to celibacy to serve in the priesthood is not a doctrine, but a discipline. It is primarily practiced by the Latin Rite.

I am puzzled about how you see this as a “demand”. I can only assume that you do not understand the concept of religious vocation.

I believe I have read Guanapore’s posts. I have made comments on most or all of them. I have reminded him it doesn’t matter what words we use to describe something, it is what it is. For a man to become a priest, bishop, cardinal or pope, he must remain celebate to continue being in his position. That’s a command NOT in the Bible. In fact, what do you think about 1 Tim 4?

I guess you have read them, but you are still not understanding. Married persons are ordained in the Catholic Church.

The Latin Rite prefers to choose from among those called to celibacy to serve as priests, but there are occasions when married men are received also in the Latin Rite.

This is a discipline, not a doctrine.

 

[guanophore]

Doesn’t the verses in Romans 14 have any meaning for you? I tells us that NO ONE had the right to judge someone elses servant, especially God’s servant. God’s servants stand or fall before Him alone and it says there that God is able to make His servants stand. IT IS NONE of your BUSINESS; it IS God’s business. Please tell you friends to but out!!

Certainly all scripture has meaning. It is the duty of the Church to discern where and how the verses apply to our current situation. No one here has made a judgement about Tweety’s soul. As you have correctly noted, this is between the individual, and God.

What we are called to judge is behavior, especially those of our own household. Tweety has made the claim that she is Catholic. As long as she continues to do this, she will be criticized for her hypocritical representation. She has expressed Protestant faith, yet purports that she is Catholic. This is disingenuous, and creates a public scandal here on CAF. I have met several forum members who have fallen for the ruse, and believe that someone is Catholic who claims they are, or that a Catholic can deny the teachings of the Church and still be Catholic. These things are not true.

We love Tweety, and we receive her as our sister in Christ. Many of us on here are praying for you every day.

 

[guanophore]

Matthew 19:12 “For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”​

Is this about church leaders? Is it a command by Jesus? The problem I have is with a church demanding celebacy for its church leaders. Why not see what Paul says on the issue in 1 Timothy 4:1-4 about forbidding to marry?

No, it is not necessarily about church leaders. There are many leaders that are married.

Yes, I would consider it a command. He directs those who can accept the gift to do so (don’t run from it).

The Church does not “demand” the Gifts of God. The Church attempts to discern those who have been so gifted, and respond to the gift.

1Co 12:4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;
1Co 12:5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord;
1Co 12:6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
1Co 12:7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
1Co 12:8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,
1Co 12:9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
1Co 12:10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
1Co 12:11 **All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. **

It is the HS who provides the gift of celibacy to people. Jesus directs that those who can receive it should do so.

The Church prefers to choose from among those who have responded to this gift. Such persons are more available to the Body, as they do not have concerns of this life (wife and children) to distract them from service.

I’ll try to be more specific: I’ll use the term priest or bishop or cardinal or pope when I am speaking of the CC demand celebacy of their church leaders.

All are priests first, so that term is inclusive in this case.

However, you are confusing the service of a priest with leadership. A great deal of leadership is provided by laypersons most of them married.

The primary duty of the priest is to cathect the sacraments. Some excellent priests are not very good leaders. Each one has his own gift.

Then why did the man (I think he was in FL) that was a priest, who fell in love with a women, have to stop being a priest?​

The Apostles taught that ordination is a permanent mark/state. Therefore, it is not possible for a person to “stop being a priest”. They are grafted into the the priesthood of Christ, who is a priest after the order of Melchizedek (eternal). A person who forsakes his vows can be ordered to refrain from ministering as a priest.

• Are you saying that any priest at any time can get married with he so chooses AND remain a priest?

Once one accepts Holy Orders (priesthood), one is considered espoused to the Church. He has entered into the priesthood of Christ, the bridegroom, and takes vows to love and serve the Church as his Holy Bride.​

If not, the CC demands celebacy of its priests, bishops, cardinals and popes

No, Doki. It is not possible to demand marriage of anyone. It would not be a valid marriage - like a shotgun wedding is not valid. In order for such vows to be valid, they must be freely chosen by the individual. During preparation, persons preparing for the priesthood spend many years discerning whether they are called to enter into a spousal relationship with the Body in the person of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Your understanding is very convenient. It rules out any of my understandings (or any other non-catholic Christian) that differs from yours, doesn’t it? Very, very convenient!!!​

Actually, it is not “my understanding”, but the Teaching of the Church.

And no, I have not found it “convenient” at all. In fact, I can confess that it has caused me marked “inconvenience” all my life! It is much more convenient for me to believe that I am infallible, and that my understanding is correct. In this way, I have led myself into many serious sins.

My own “understanding”, therefore, is also irrelevant. The standard is what the Apostles believed and taught, and it applies equally to all.

Sexual relations betwee husbands and wives are NOT daily (profane) use. It is a WONDERFUL gift from God so is sacred. Again, you have very convenient understandings that help justify specific beliefs.

Perhaps I have not expressed myself well. Yes, of course the marital embrace if a wonderful gift from God, and is sacred. However, when a person has consecrated themselves as a sacred vessel to the Lord, it is not proper to return again to the natural human relation. Again this concept is related to the religious vocation, of which I think you have no expereince?

An example is John the Baptist, who was consecrated to the work of God, and had special disciplines he followed as part of that vocation. It does not mean that the marital embrace is not sacred, it just means that for some, their expression of sacredness is found in the celibate life.

 

[guanophore]

Well I guess the Holy Spirit is not being heard properly is He…?

Yes, Leslie, I think you guess is right on here. We are in agreement that the HS does not lead the faithful in opposite directions. Therefore, when we are led opposite, it is because we are not hearing properly. Each of use hears through his own filters and shortcomings. Although we all strive to press our ears to His lips, we are fallible.

This is why He appointed an infallible Church, and promised to lead them into “all Truth”. To the extent that we are each in union with that Church, we can benefit from the gift of infallibility.