Quick! (Take 2)

[Offdoodykcrn]

this: not the irony part of your other post.
and no there was no anger invovled in my post to you.

What ‘this’? Tell me which post, because if it’s not the one about the irony, I have no idea why you would think I’m being hypocritical. I’m not trying to be obtuse - just trying to figure out what you mean.

I’m glad you weren’t angry.

I don’t expect anyone to prove the infallibility of the pope. I respect other people’s right to believe in that, but for myself - I don’t think that is going to happen. If that means I have no future in Catholicism, that’s OK - I’m just trying to figure all of this out. By bringing my questions & concerns to this forum, I am inviting others to challenge my beliefs and reasoning. In the past, I have found this method to be a good way to fully examine other issues - like politics. Maybe that is not the best example… I hate discussing politics, but it is in an open discussion that I learn other viewpoints and see things from a different perspective. It is often a painful process, not many people do it, but I believe the effort to be worthwhile.

Thanks fbl9

 

[fbl9]

What ‘this’? Tell me which post, because if it’s not the one about the irony, I have no idea why you would think I’m being hypocritical. I’m not trying to be obtuse - just trying to figure out what you mean.

I’m glad you weren’t angry.

I don’t expect anyone to prove the infallibility of the pope. I respect other people’s right to believe in that, but for myself - I don’t think that is going to happen. If that means I have no future in Catholicism, that’s OK - I’m just trying to figure all of this out. By bringing my questions & concerns to this forum, I am inviting others to challenge my beliefs and reasoning. In the past, I have found this method to be a good way to fully examine other issues - like politics. Maybe that is not the best example… I hate discussing politics, but it is in an open discussion that I learn other viewpoints and see things from a different perspective. It is often a painful process, not many people do it, but I believe the effort to be worthwhile.

Thanks fbl9

post #7 which should have been quoted in my reply to which you responded to with this post that i just quoted. clear as mud eh.

Why can the pope not be infalliable on matters of faith and morals in your opinion.?

Was not the destruction of Sodom and Gomrah(sic) done by God. As was the flood.
When God gave the promised land to the Jews was it a peaceful take over?
Perfect love=perfect wrath. For if God did not truly love He could not be truly justified in His wrath.

politics ugh.
welcome

 

[fbl9]

Offdoo…
i respect your opinion that it is ironic that umarried men are used by the Church.

What would be your opinion of a priest that had children, who were say, wild in their behavior. Would you consider the children’s behavior to be reflection on this priest’s ability to be a shepherd to yourself.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

What would be your opinion of a priest that had children, who were say, wild in their behavior. Would you consider the children’s behavior to be reflection on this priest’s ability to be a shepherd to yourself.

I would tend to associate the two. Of course things are often more complicated than they appear, but the people I respect who have kids, all have really nice kids.

Somewhere in the Bible I think it says bishops should be married because if they can’t run a household then they can’t run a church. Or something like that. Unless I imagined it; I can’t seem to find it right now or I’d quote it.

Alan

 

[fbl9]

I would tend to associate the two. Of course things are often more complicated than they appear, but the people I respect who have kids, all have really nice kids.

Somewhere in the Bible I think it says bishops should be married because if they can’t run a household then they can’t run a church. Or something like that. Unless I imagined it; I can’t seem to find it right now or I’d quote it.

Alan

yes i know of the quote which you speak…rather it is not that the bishop ought to be married rather he ought to be married only once. and i think it goes on in that the kids should be a reflection of the faith as well.
Written by that St.Paul guy too i bet and most likely in his Epistle’s to the Corithians too.
found it 1Timothy3:1-7…married but once…i am mistaken about the kids being a reflection, rather it says that they should be under control and perfectly respectful. for if he can not rule his own household , how is he to take care of a house of God.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

post #7 which should have been quoted in my reply to which you responded to with this post that i just quoted. clear as mud eh.

Why can the pope not be infalliable on matters of faith and morals in your opinion.?

Was not the destruction of Sodom and Gomrah(sic) done by God. As was the flood.
When God gave the promised land to the Jews was it a peaceful take over?
Perfect love=perfect wrath. For if God did not truly love He could not be truly justified in His wrath.

politics ugh.
welcome

Where in #7 did I talk about not following sinners? I talked about how all 3 major religions had told their followers that God wanted them to kill other people…

The pope (in my ever so humble and most likely wrong opinion) was born a human being. Human beings can, and often are horribly, horribly wrong - for a variety of reasons. I submit that even though someone (like the pope) is well respected, highly educated and hopes that what they say is correct - can be wrong. I know the position is that he is only infallible about faith and morals, but that is one reason why I don’t believe it. If the pope can be fallible about other things, he can be fallible about anything.

What does any of that have to do with the Old Testament?

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Offdoo…
i respect your opinion that it is ironic that umarried men are used by the Church.

What would be your opinion of a priest that had children, who were say, wild in their behavior. Would you consider the children’s behavior to be reflection on this priest’s ability to be a shepherd to yourself.

You realize the real irony here: you are asking a preacher’s kid how she would judge priest’s kids… PKs (preachers kids and police kids) have our own issues… people in general - expect PKs to be ‘perfect’, and when PKs get to high school, many of us go out of our way to prove how wrong they are. There are some adults that already know that, so we get the worst of both worlds: most expect us to be perfect, the rest think we’re trying to earn our Hells Angels badges. Imagine the angst of adolescence, then mix in those general public expectations - and then add a healthy dollop of ‘don’t do anything that will embarrass your parent’… and you might begin to understand the wonderful world of PKness.

To answer your question: no, I would not judge the value of a priest based on the behavior of his children - or his wife, for that matter. Talking to a celibate priest for marriage counciling makes about as much sense to me as someone taking their car to bike repair shop, but that’s just me.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

it says that they should be under control and perfectly respectful. for if he can not rule his own household , how is he to take care of a house of God.

No wonder the church decided not to let its priests marry…

 

[aemcpa]

Where in #7 did I talk about not following sinners? I talked about how all 3 major religions had told their followers that God wanted them to kill other people…

The pope (in my ever so humble and most likely wrong opinion) was born a human being. Human beings can, and often are horribly, horribly wrong - for a variety of reasons. I submit that even though someone (like the pope) is well respected, highly educated and hopes that what they say is correct - can be wrong. I know the position is that he is only infallible about faith and morals, but that is one reason why I don’t believe it. If the pope can be fallible about other things, he can be fallible about anything.

What does any of that have to do with the Old Testament?

facepalm The Pope isn’t infallible because he’s the Pope. He’s infallible because GOD PROTECTS HIM FROM TEACHING ERROR. And it’s not for the Pope’s sake, but for ours. This isn’t about human error. It’s about God’s Divine promise to His Church. Period. If you don’t believe God to be a Father that keeps His promises, then I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[aemcpa]

Talking to a celibate priest for marriage counciling makes about as much sense to me as someone taking their car to bike repair shop, but that’s just me.

Does a psychologist need to be mentally ill to be effective? Of course not. This is a red herring.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Does a psychologist need to be mentally ill to be effective? Of course not. This is a red herring.

That is not a relevant comparison. I would accept the analogy of a mechanic that wasn’t allowed to own or drive a car, and only allowed to read a manual before attempting to fix a car.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

facepalm The Pope isn’t infallible because he’s the Pope. He’s infallible because GOD PROTECTS HIM FROM TEACHING ERROR.

OK - for the sake of sanity - lets take God and the Pope out of the equation. Yes, I realize that’s a touch ironic, given the nature of this forum - but hear me out.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for two or more people to argue (unless you’re arguing with yourself - which is a different problem all together) or debate an issue, the validity of an argument can be weighed with logic. Philosophers have been using this tool for a long time. There is deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning - and a bunch of tests to prove an arguments validity.

Let us test your statement in a theoretical way: let’s say that archeologists have discovered the remains of a society deep in an ice cavern in Antarctica. Their buildings, homes, and tools have been frozen for thousands of years. None of the people are alive, but they left behind a written record of their history and religious beliefs. It is no doubt, an advanced society. The buildings are huge, complex and beautiful. The artwork is awe-inspiring. We discover through their writings that their religion is monotheistic. The church is lead by a single leader - who is elected by a group of the highest officials in the church. They believe that their deity guides the selection of their supreme leader, and once elected - the deity prevents the supreme leader from making mistakes, but only in areas of faith and morals. There seems to be an error in logic: if a member of that society is proven to be capable of committing an error, how can the election to a specific post keep that person from committing an error in just certain areas? Not only that - but there is a record going back two thousand years of every elected leader, and indeed - errors by previous leaders were made. Does this mean the people of that society were wrong? What if we discover the deity they worshiped was a duck? Their whole religion is inundated with pictures and statues of ducks. They don’t just worship any duck - it is a supreme duck that created the world and universe. They believe that their duck deity did take on a physical form once - a white duck with a blue beak, whom the society reveres as the son of the supreme duck.

So, in this very theoretical story - as outside observers, do we think it is possible this society could be right? Why - or why not? Is it because their deity looks like a duck, or is it because their logic is flawed?

I am not saying that the teachings and beliefs of Catholicism are wrong. It is not my intent to challenge anyone’s belief system. I am here to challenge my own beliefs. I’m not saying your statement of, “The Pope isn’t infallible because he’s the Pope. He’s infallible because GOD PROTECTS HIM FROM TEACHING ERROR.” is incorrect - I am simply pointing out an error in logic -aka- ‘logical fallacy’.

 

[aemcpa]

OK - for the sake of sanity - lets take God and the Pope out of the equation. Yes, I realize that’s a touch ironic, given the nature of this forum - but hear me out.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for two or more people to argue (unless you’re arguing with yourself - which is a different problem all together) or debate an issue, the validity of an argument can be weighed with logic. Philosophers have been using this tool for a long time. There is deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning - and a bunch of tests to prove an arguments validity.

Let us test your statement in a theoretical way: let’s say that archeologists have discovered the remains of a society deep in an ice cavern in Antarctica. Their buildings, homes, and tools have been frozen for thousands of years. None of the people are alive, but they left behind a written record of their history and religious beliefs. It is no doubt, an advanced society. The buildings are huge, complex and beautiful. The artwork is awe-inspiring. We discover through their writings that their religion is monotheistic. The church is lead by a single leader - who is elected by a group of the highest officials in the church. They believe that their deity guides the selection of their supreme leader, and once elected - the deity prevents the supreme leader from making mistakes, but only in areas of faith and morals. There seems to be an error in logic: if a member of that society is proven to be capable of committing an error, how can the election to a specific post keep that person from committing an error in just certain areas? Not only that - but there is a record going back two thousand years of every elected leader, and indeed - errors by previous leaders were made. Does this mean the people of that society were wrong? What if we discover the deity they worshiped was a duck? Their whole religion is inundated with pictures and statues of ducks. They don’t just worship any duck - it is a supreme duck that created the world and universe. They believe that their duck deity did take on a physical form once - a white duck with a blue beak, whom the society reveres as the son of the supreme duck.

So, in this very theoretical story - as outside observers, do we think it is possible this society could be right? Why - or why not? Is it because their deity looks like a duck, or is it because their logic is flawed?

I am not saying that the teachings and beliefs of Catholicism are wrong. It is not my intent to challenge anyone’s belief system. I am here to challenge my own beliefs. I’m not saying your statement of, “The Pope isn’t infallible because he’s the Pope. He’s infallible because GOD PROTECTS HIM FROM TEACHING ERROR.” is incorrect - I am simply pointing out an error in logic -aka- ‘logical fallacy’.

There is no error in logic in taking something to be true as a matter of faith. Faith and reason are not opposed to each other; rather, they are two different methods of determining truth. Revealed truth cannot be known to be true or false by the use of reason.

 

[RoseMary131]

Offdoody, you have been in my thoughts and prayers. I have never read anything from the Church in regards to marriage for those who suffer as a paraplegic like your dear Doug.

I saw this writings from Fr. Joe (although I don’t know anything about him) who seems to write with love. I don’t know if it will bring you any peace. I do not want to bring you any sorrow.

I am sorry you and Doug had this cross to bear from his accident. You both sound like very loving people who made the most of life despite his earlier accident.

fatherjoe.wordpress.com/instructions/catechesis/questions/impotence-marriage/

This article below was very hard for me to follow. It does look as if the Church does not take this matter lightly, but with much concern for those who suffer. I’m not sure what it really says, accept this jumped off the page at me: “As a decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this becomes normative for the whole Church and is of considerable doctrinal authority, although it is, of course, neither infallible nor irreformable.”

ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/IMPOSTER.HTM

Finally, on 13 May 1977, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now clearly exercising its doctrinal competence, stated, with the explicit approval of the Roman Pontiff, that the authentic current teaching of the Church is that while impotence is indeed an impediment to marriage, the concept of canonical potency does not necessarily require anything in the ejaculate that has been produced in the testicles. As a decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this becomes normative for the whole Church and is of considerable doctrinal authority, although it is, of course, neither infallible nor irreformable.

I’m sure a lot of your pain and difficulty in seeing the Catholic Church as True comes from the love you have for Doug and the cross you two carried together, a cross you embraced together, a cross you carried daily together, and a cross you both embraced with love. I also think Doug has a big part in leading you on this “walk” towards the Catholic Church.

Here is a link to meditate on the Stations of the Cross, the walk Jesus took from Pilate to being laid in the tomb. During Lent we usually attend Stations of the Cross each Friday evening at church. Its a physical reminder walking through the church praying or reflecting on the cross Jesus carried and the crosses we carry in our lives.

catholic.org/clife/prayers/station.php?id=1

You and Doug carried the cross of suffering from his accident. I think you also carry a cross in your journey to find God’s Church. Maybe reflecting on the Stations of the Cross will be something you find peace in doing.

There are many different reflections booklets all used to walk those 14 stations but with different ways to focus. I invite you to step inside one of the Kansas City Churches on Friday evening during Lent to walk the stations with them. You might find it a nice step this Lent. Your son may enjoy the meditation, too. Sometimes we begin with a feeling of peace, before we understand everything with our mind.

God Bless.

 

[fbl9]

You realize the real irony here: you are asking a preacher’s kid how she would judge priest’s kids… PKs (preachers kids and police kids) have our own issues… people in general - expect PKs to be ‘perfect’, and when PKs get to high school, many of us go out of our way to prove how wrong they are. There are some adults that already know that, so we get the worst of both worlds: most expect us to be perfect, the rest think we’re trying to earn our Hells Angels badges. Imagine the angst of adolescence, then mix in those general public expectations - and then add a healthy dollop of ‘don’t do anything that will embarrass your parent’… and you might begin to understand the wonderful world of PKness.

To answer your question: no, I would not judge the value of a priest based on the behavior of his children - or his wife, for that matter. Talking to a celibate priest for marriage counciling makes about as much sense to me as someone taking their car to bike repair shop, but that’s just me.

yeah i realized that afterwards:blush:
okay.

 

[fbl9]

Where in #7 did I talk about not following sinners? I talked about how all 3 major religions had told their followers that God wanted them to kill other people…

The pope (in my ever so humble and most likely wrong opinion) was born a human being. Human beings can, and often are horribly, horribly wrong - for a variety of reasons. I submit that even though someone (like the pope) is well respected, highly educated and hopes that what they say is correct - can be wrong. I know the position is that he is only infallible about faith and morals, but that is one reason why I don’t believe it. If the pope can be fallible about other things, he can be fallible about anything.

What does any of that have to do with the Old Testament?

:newidea: now i see where you are coming from.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Offdoody, you have been in my thoughts and prayers. I have never read anything from the Church in regards to marriage for those who suffer as a paraplegic like your dear Doug.

I saw this writings from Fr. Joe (although I don’t know anything about him) who seems to write with love. I don’t know if it will bring you any peace. I do not want to bring you any sorrow.

fatherjoe.wordpress.com/instructions/catechesis/questions/impotence-marriage/

God Bless.

Thank you so much for your continued support and prayers - it has been very helpful. I read with interest the article by Father Joe - he has an interesting take on a variety of subjects!

The puzzle of the church is still rolling around in my mind. There are so many aspects of my life and marriage to Doug that seem in conflict with church doctrine, it is easy to get lost in the minutiae. Regardless of any outside opinion, I am certain, with every fiber of my being - that Doug and I were meant to find each other. Our love, our marriage brought me closer to God, renewed my faith, and gives me the strength to face each day - sadly, without him beside me, but still with me in my heart.

There are times when my grief overwhelms me and I try to ‘turn off’ my emotions and think about facts and possibilities in a purely logical mindset. That tactic seems to be a built-in coping mechanism for me, and while it allows me to function… sometimes. Since it is such a limited mindset, I wonder what I might be missing - what element of Truth might allude me because I am unable to see the entire picture - which is why I find this forum to be a challenging and compelling exercise.

Someday I will figure this out…

Peace to you - and much gratitude.

 

[fbl9]

What does any of that have to do with the Old Testament?

also see your post #7 " for i beleive God is neither disvisive or destructive"
Yet it was God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha.
Was not God the author of the flood as well.
What of Annais and Sapphira of Acts5:1-10.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

also see your post #7 " for i beleive God is neither disvisive or destructive"
Yet it was God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha.
Was not God the author of the flood as well.
What of Annais and Sapphira of Acts5:1-10.

That is a fair critique! Very well done, fbl9 - you are awarded 2 sloppy German Shepherd kisses from Dakota.

My response - and brace yourself because you may not like it…

I don’t believe (most) of the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. I think that the Old Testament is part history, part explanation of mysterious or unexplainable (at that time) events, part fable - as a way to explain why rules governing Hebrew society were put in place. One example of why I believe this: every major society has a ‘great flood’ story - from North and South America, Australia, Asia - parts of the world the Hebrew people probably didn’t visit in ancient history.

I stand by my original statement - I do not believe that God is divisive or destructive. I know that people can be both - a LOT. I believe that God is Love.

 

[aemcpa]

That is a fair critique! Very well done, fbl9 - you are awarded 2 sloppy German Shepherd kisses from Dakota.

My response - and brace yourself because you may not like it…

I don’t believe (most) of the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. I think that the Old Testament is part history, part explanation of mysterious or unexplainable (at that time) events, part fable - as a way to explain why rules governing Hebrew society were put in place. One example of why I believe this: every major society has a ‘great flood’ story - from North and South America, Australia, Asia - parts of the world the Hebrew people probably didn’t visit in ancient history.

I stand by my original statement - I do not believe that God is divisive or destructive. I know that people can be both - a LOT. I believe that God is Love.

Do you believe that Jesus said, “I have not come to bring peace but the sword”? Love does not tolerate evil, and therefore it is divisive. It separates the sheep from the goats.