Quick! (Take 2)

[aemcpa]

The current position of The Catholic Church, unless it has changed without my knowledge, is that men who are impotent should not marry.

The teaching of the Church is that men who are impotent CAN not marry; that is, they are incapable of contracting marriage. Yes, marriage is more than just a sexual relationship, but the sexual nature of marriage is absolutely essential, so that without it, a relationship, however loving and romantic, is not marriage.

Either you believe that God endowed the Church with infallibility or you don’t. It is certainly reasonable that if God willed that a body of men should be given the authority to teach “all that I have commanded you” so that “whoever hears you, hears Me” and that “whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven”, then he would grant that body of men the supernatural gift of infallibility so that the deposit of faith would be protected from all evils within and without the Church. But if you choose to reject the authority of the Church (which leaves you only with your own fallible self as an authority), then of course you will define marriage in any way you choose and say that the Church treats people unfairly who happen to fall in the group that falls inside your definition but outside hers. But the witness of the martyrs and of the perseverance of the Church and her doctrine tell me that she is what she claims to be, and therefore her teaching should be accepted on the divine authority that she claims to have. If that means changing our lives, even with a degree of pain and suffering, to conform to her teachings, then that is exactly what the saints have always done.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The teaching of the Church is that men who are impotent CAN not marry; that is, they are incapable of contracting marriage. Yes, marriage is more than just a sexual relationship, but the sexual nature of marriage is absolutely essential, so that without it, a relationship, however loving and romantic, is not marriage.

Seems like a person would have to get married before they would know for sure they have this problem. How else could we know for sure? I’d hate to think we have to “prove our point” in one way or another, before we can get married in the Church. :bigyikes:

Alan

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I laughed at your "clubbing me over the head with dogma: You gotta believe in what we say because The Church says so - otherwise you are a heathen and you are not welcome here - go away and burn by yourself.’ " …because it is a problem we Catholics sometimes have and the visual of what we sound like “in the name of Love” is not so loving.

I hope, anyway, there was a bit of “artistic liberty” in your painting of how we sometimes “over extend” our ideas to others. I’m sorry we sometimes sound like that.

Thank you so much for your contribution in this thread - I will certainly read the material you suggested. I’m constantly reminded that God’s love is all around me, and within each person I meet lies an opportunity to learn more about the nature of life and love - and my place in the world. I’m also really happy I read your (2:31pm) post before I got to aemcpa’s post at 2:44pm. It seemed as if there were a Devine influence at work there.

To AlanFromWitchita: you crack me up - thanks for the much needed levity. Do you think you could coordinate with RoseMary131 and disarm aemcpa? They are running around with a club, and they are likely to hit someone.

All joking aside, thanks to everyone for their kindness and (name removed by moderator)ut. I’m sorry to have frustrated some of you, and happy to have frustrated others.

Peace to you all.

 

[aemcpa]

I’m sorry to have frustrated some of you, and happy to have frustrated others.

Where do I go to place bets as to which camp I’m in?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

To AlanFromWitchita: you crack me up - thanks for the much needed levity. Do you think you could coordinate with RoseMary131 and disarm aemcpa? They are running around with a club, and they are likely to hit someone.

I would love to, but honestly I don’t know what the Church actually teaches. As an engineer, I never really made decisions, but if the Boss says “thou shall not get married if impotent” then I begin to design a way to identify those candidates who are eligible so the screening may be timely and reliable.

Alan

 

[fbl9]

Thank you for your kindness and response. I do not want to offend anyone, nor make them question their faith. It is historical fact, from a variety of sources that what was done during the crusades was not solely defensive.

Not all Muslims believe in war, many are deeply opposed to any type of violence, just as Jewish and Christians alike.

I am just as skeptical about historians as I am about religious leaders. Both topics require study and leave room for interpretation. I am unable to go back in time to witness history for myself, and I know that much of history is written by the victors. I give more credence to facts that are consistent with both sides of an argument or battle. Even then, it is still recorded by human beings - fallible and corruptible people with unique motives and viewpoints. It is my opinion that this is how conspiracy theorists get as much traction as they do. One need only look at the Kennedy assassination to see how varied viewpoints and motives can affect a persons interpretation of the truth.

Peace

i did put the** first crusades** not all of the crusades for the later ones where more political in nature.I do know that some of the crusades were particularly violent beyond what was needed. But how does one control the actions of all that fought?

You do hold to the Tritrian beleif? There are many that love God as much as you do yet do not beleive that Jesus is not the Father or Holy Spirit but he, Jesus Christ, is the Father and the Holy Spirit. Is this beleif equal to yours as a true path to God?

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Where do I go to place bets as to which camp I’m in?

You’ll get 1:1 odds.

Know that you are in good company, I have frustrated both parents, many teachers, professors, priests, nuns and many many friends at one time or another. I have learned that most people object to persistent challenges when the subject matter is something they feel passionate about. I respect anyone that speaks out about their beliefs and will stand ‘toe to toe’ with me, and I’m happy to report I haven’t resorted to name-calling or hair pulling since I was 10 yrs old. If everyone agreed with my side of an argument, I would never learn anything new. If I agreed with everyone else, life might be easier, but it wouldn’t really be my life.

I wish you peace and prosperity.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

i did put the** first crusades** not all of the crusades for the later ones where more political in nature.I do know that some of the crusades were particularly violent beyond what was needed. But how does one control the actions of all that fought?

I think the only person one can control is themselves. People in power, be it in the form of economics, politics, religion, or simply the influence found in friendship - is limited to what the person who is governed or influenced will allow. It is not the history of the church that I am trying to figure out, but how it guides and what it teaches today. My faith in God is easy, it’s my faith in people that is difficult. I will not follow people blindly because I have seen what can happen: slavery and civil rights, Nazis and the holocaust, Jim Jones and Jonestown. I want to understand where I’m going, how I’m going to get there and if anyone is going to be hurt or left behind along the way.

You do hold to the Tritrian beleif? There are many that love God as much as you do yet do not beleive that Jesus is not the Father or Holy Spirit but he, Jesus Christ, is the Father and the Holy Spirit. Is this beleif equal to yours as a true path to God?

I don’t think I understand this question. How other people find their way to God, what their understanding of God is - is their choice. I respect each persons right to decide this for themselves, as long as it doesn’t oppress or take away another’s liberty.

 

[fbl9]

I think the only person one can control is themselves. People in power, be it in the form of economics, politics, religion, or simply the influence found in friendship - is limited to what the person who is governed or influenced will allow. It is not the history of the church that I am trying to figure out, but how it guides and what it teaches today. My faith in God is easy, it’s my faith in people that is difficult. I will not follow people blindly because I have seen what can happen: slavery and civil rights, Nazis and the holocaust, Jim Jones and Jonestown. I want to understand where I’m going, how I’m going to get there and if anyone is going to be hurt or left behind along the way.

I don’t think I understand this question. How other people find their way to God, what their understanding of God is - is their choice. I respect each persons right to decide this for themselves, as long as it doesn’t oppress or take away another’s liberty.

Now how does the crusades tie into the infallibity of the pope?
The crusades were not dogma or doctrine, which are the only things in which the pope is infalliable.
What/who is the source of this infallablity? The Holy Spirit. Now it is not a matter of trusting man rather trusting the Holy Spirit guiding the man.

You may have not understood my question, however your answer gives your “postion” to my intented direction. ie. i know more about you.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Now how does the crusades tie into the infallibity of the pope?
The crusades were not dogma or doctrine, which are the only things in which the pope is infalliable.
What/who is the source of this infallablity? The Holy Spirit. Now it is not a matter of trusting man rather trusting the Holy Spirit guiding the man.

You may have not understood my question, however your answer gives your “postion” to my intented direction. ie. i know more about you.

I trust the Holy Spirit that guides men, but I don’t necessarily trust that men who are claim to be perfectly guided by and acting in accordance with that Spirit, in fact are.

So if a man claims to be acting under the guidance of the Spirit, it’s still about trusting the man. And if we have men that are willing to go to war, burn heretics at the stake, operate the Spanish Inquisition, just to mention a couple modes of killing, which is clearly not of God but are of selfish and evil interests, then why should we believe the same men when they claim to be speaking infallibly for God? We are to overlook the sins committed in the line of duty, because they are infallible spokespeople for God during other times in the line of duty?

I have yet to hear a description of “infallibility” that adequately deals with the human element of both making infallible proclamations, and for that matter our ability to interpret when we even believe such are infallible. That’s another thing; when theologians argue about whether a certain teaching is infallible. We don’t know even know when the men are claiming to be infallible.

Sorry. I’m not there yet. :nope:

Alan

 

[aemcpa]

I have yet to hear a description of “infallibility” that adequately deals with the human element of both making infallible proclamations, and for that matter our ability to interpret when we even believe such are infallible. That’s another thing; when theologians argue about whether a certain teaching is infallible. We don’t know even know when the men are claiming to be infallible.

What do you mean by “the human element”? Infallible means “incapable of error”. It is a supernatural gift that is bestowed upon the Pope for the protection of the billion souls under his care. Whether the rest of us understand or accept when it has been exercised is not the point; the fact is that when the Pope teaches something as true under the certain limited conditions laid out (conditions that are drawn from Scripture), then the Church accepts the promise of Christ as true that He is with us always.

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

 

[RoseMary131]

I wasn’t trying to be difficult - I just had trouble with a few issues: the infallibility of the pope conflicting with the history of various people who held the post - usually around the crusades,

I don’t know much about this part of history and the Church. I don’t know if these articles will be helpful to you or if you have already read the information.

However, you might be interested in reading these articles on Pope JP’s apology for sins against people.

guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion

pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june00/apology_3-13.html

“He looked frail but determined as he led the church through a heavy program of soul-searching events during the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, fulfilling a dream of his pontificate. His long-awaited pilgrimage to the Holy Land that year took him to the roots of the faith and dramatically illustrated the church’s improved relations with Jews. He also presided over an unprecedented public apology for the sins of Christians during darker chapters of church history, such as the Inquisition and the Crusades.” americancatholic.org/Features/johnpaulii/obit.asp

“John Paul greeted the year 2000, which he proclaimed the year of the Great Jubilee, with a series of epoch-making activities calling for dialogue and brotherhood among the faiths. In February of that year, John Paul was the first pope to travel to Egypt, where he celebrated a mass in Cairo, touching on discrimination against Christians (see Coptic Church) in Egypt and other countries of Africa. In March, on Ash Wednesday and on the first Sunday of Lent, at Saint Peter’s Basilica, John Paul emphasized the millennial theme of “purification of memory” by offering apologies for sins committed in the service of truth and sins committed against Jews, women, indigenous peoples, the unborn, and other groups.” http://www.helpfellowship.org/pope_john_paul_ii.htm

Peace.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

What do you mean by “the human element”? Infallible means “incapable of error”. It is a supernatural gift that is bestowed upon the Pope for the protection of the billion souls under his care. Whether the rest of us understand or accept when it has been exercised is not the point; the fact is that when the Pope teaches something as true under the certain limited conditions laid out (conditions that are drawn from Scripture), then the Church accepts the promise of Christ as true that He is with us always.

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

Thank you for the link. I read a good part of the tract, and it doesn’t address what I’m talking about. It focuses on the difference between infallibility and impeccability, which I am not calling into question.

What are you talking about it doesn’t matter what the rest of us think, when any given teaching from the Church can be argued for weeks on end here on CAF with no definitive answer, on whether any given teaching even reaching ex cathedra status. So instead we give some vague technical description, “teaching solemnly on issues of faith and morals” and except Joe Pew Sitter to know what’s infallibly taught and not when scholars can’t agree? That’s just passing down the uncertainty to the person least equipped to understand. The attached tract even gave answers of what may look like a case of ex cathedra but isn’t. So even with a team of professional apologists, we have to analyze case by case to determine what are the chances something is ex cathedra, how is anybody else to know?

And my cynical side says that’s nice and convenient because if they don’t know what they are allowed to question, then maybe they’ll go along with everything, and consider everything pronounced by the Pope as ex cathedra, and be thus controlled by behaving in accordance and defending the Church well on that basis – treating teachings of men as the very word of God. IOW they sit down, shut up, and do what they’re told – asking for clarification or understanding is tantamount to disobedience. How many people may have died by defending a teaching they thought was “infallibly pronounced” but was not?

If I’m wrong, then please explain to me, in 200 words or fewer, how to accurately determine, on any given issue, whether any given article produced by the Pope is theologically an ex cathedra pronouncement. If you can’t do that, I rest my case.

And as far as Jesus handing over the keys and saying the Church would not prevail, I think we’ve taken those passages and extrapolated so much out of them not even a mystic could untangle it. Nor do I believe that the Pope is the only one who’s guided by the Holy Spirit. If that isn’t a heresy it should be.

Alan

 

[aemcpa]

By “it doesn’t matter”, I meant that a decree either is or is not infallibly taught by the Pope, irrespective of whether you or I understand it to be so or not to be so. But the virtue of faith leads us not to seek out a reason to accept only what we absolutely must and gleefully dissent from the rest, but rather to submit to the teaching authority of the Church in general, even when something is not defined infallibly as dogma.

ewtn.com/library/scriptur/4levels.txt

 

[AlanFromWichita]

By “it doesn’t matter”, I meant that a decree either is or is not infallibly taught by the Pope, irrespective of whether you or I understand it to be so or not to be so. But the virtue of faith leads us not to seek out a reason to accept only what we absolutely must and gleefully dissent from the rest, but rather to submit to the teaching authority of the Church in general, even when something is not defined infallibly as dogma.

ewtn.com/library/scriptur/4levels.txt

The original issue was about the crusades. The answer was offered that they were not ex cathedra. So we should just go along with it even though we haven’t established whether we absolutely must? What have we always been told about blind obedience to obviously immoral orders?

How is the average crusader to know he’s fighting for the Church but the Church is not in line with God on what she is doing? I guess he doesn’t. It’s best to keep him in the dark? Kind of like keeping a wife barefoot and pregnant – quit trying to be more than a serf or a robot? Jesus said He calls us friends, not slaves, because we know the business of His father. Apparently He was just placating?

The problem with this mindset is it despises “distributed control,” which is what would happen if people were to become spirit filled and move into the second have of their spiritual life, being born of the spirit and being free from the law of sin and death. The Church was put in charge of the law of sin and death and speaks amply on them, but has largely kept the law of Spirit and Life a secret mystery among the mystics. Paul clearly exercised flexibility on whether various parts of the law were to be followed, based on his situation. He showed us that he evangelizes by adapting to the morality of those he’s around, rather than sticking by his own, because he was free from the law of sin and death like anyone else who has been born of the spirit. As some would say, he practiced and preached moral relativism – an idea repugnant to those who don’t grasp what he was doing, which is why he told us these things and didn’t leave them up in the air. But “central control” people cannot deal with that, because the whole idea of us making decisions on our own – whether or not we claim we are spirit led – is dangerous to the plans of the leadership.

Don’t take my word for Paul and his “moral relativism” though:

[BIBLEDRB]1 cor 9:19-23[/BIBLEDRB]

For another example of Paul’s “moral relativism” see this passage where Paul actually describes himself as a people pleaser:

[BIBLEDRB]1 cor 10:23-33[/BIBLEDRB]

Alan

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I trust the Holy Spirit that guides men, but I don’t necessarily trust that men who are claim to be perfectly guided by and acting in accordance with that Spirit, in fact are.

So if a man claims to be acting under the guidance of the Spirit, it’s still about trusting the man. And if we have men that are willing to go to war, burn heretics at the stake, operate the Spanish Inquisition, just to mention a couple modes of killing, which is clearly not of God but are of selfish and evil interests, then why should we believe the same men when they claim to be speaking infallibly for God? We are to overlook the sins committed in the line of duty, because they are infallible spokespeople for God during other times in the line of duty?

I have yet to hear a description of “infallibility” that adequately deals with the human element of both making infallible proclamations, and for that matter our ability to interpret when we even believe such are infallible. That’s another thing; when theologians argue about whether a certain teaching is infallible. We don’t know even know when the men are claiming to be infallible.

Sorry. I’m not there yet. :nope:

Alan

In the bible it says “a child shall lead them”, but here in the forum, I say an engineer might light the way…

I’ve always liked engineers, there have been a few in my family. They seem to look at everything a bit different than most people. To illustrate, I will share my favorite engineer joke:

A pessimist looks at a glass half empty.
An optimist sees it as half full.
An engineer, looking at the same thing as the other two and proclaims, “This glass is twice the size that is needed.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

In the bible it says “a child shall lead them”, but here in the forum, I say an engineer might light the way…

I’ve always liked engineers, there have been a few in my family. They seem to look at everything a bit different than most people. To illustrate, I will share my favorite engineer joke:

A pessimist looks at a glass half empty.
An optimist sees it as half full.
An engineer, looking at the same thing as the other two and proclaims, “This glass is twice the size that is needed.”

That’s pretty good. Here’s another one:

 

[fbl9]

The problem with this mindset is it despises “distributed control,” which is what would happen if people were to become spirit filled and move into the second have of their spiritual life, being born of the spirit and being free from the law of sin and death. The Church was put in charge of the law of sin and death and speaks amply on them,** but has largely kept the law of Spirit and Life a secret mystery among the mystics. **Paul clearly exercised flexibility on whether various parts of the law were to be followed, based on his situation. He showed us that he evangelizes by adapting to the morality of those he’s around, rather than sticking by his own, because he was free from the law of sin and death like anyone else who has been born of the spirit. As some would say, he practiced and preached moral relativism – an idea repugnant to those who don’t grasp what he was doing, which is why he told us these things and didn’t leave them up in the air. But “central control” people cannot deal with that, because the whole idea of us making decisions on our own – whether or not we claim we are spirit led – is dangerous to the plans of the leadership.

Alan

i really have to disagree with the bolded section Alan. The Church does not keep us from growing in the spirit as you suggest. Otherwise she would not offer us the scarements at all.

When the priest hand you the consecrated host saying" the body of Christ" you take it with the word “amen”. Are you trusting the man handing you the host or the Holy Spirit?

umm no St.Paul didn’t teach moral relavitism. For St.Paul often condemned many immoral things that people around him were doing.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Now how does the crusades tie into the infallibity of the pope?

I never said the crusades were proof that the pope can be infallible. I used it as an example of when church leaders (of any religion) have directed their followers to harm other people. The Jews have been fighting various people of the Middle East, a few radical Muslims were directed to attack anyone that doesn’t believe or worship in the same way. All 3 of those major religions agree killing is a sin, and yet all three - at some time in history have used their religious beliefs to justify violence (among other crimes). It’s not just Catholicism - Martin Luther would have loved to have dinner with Adolph Hitler and talk about how Jews have been responsible for most of the world’s woes. I don’t know if he personally tried to exterminate the Jews, but he was in favor of making local Jews abandon their homes and property, force them out of their country while he took what was left behind for his church.

I respect any Catholic who chooses to believe the Pope is infallible regarding faith and morals. My understanding of world history has made that particular issue difficult to get past. Will I ever get past it? Maybe. I’m here, talking to people who love the church - each with their own perspective. If I were here just trying to stir up trouble, my approach and actions would have been very different. I know how to wreck havoc - it’s an innate talent in me, you can ask almost anyone.

Peace

 

[AlanFromWichita]

i really have to disagree with the bolded section Alan. The Church does not keep us from growing in the spirit as you suggest. Otherwise she would not offer us the scarements at all.

When the priest hand you the consecrated host saying" the body of Christ" you take it with the word “amen”. Are you trusting the man handing you the host or the Holy Spirit?

You don’t seem to know what I mean. Only in this last generation have the laity even been given the societal nod that it’s OK to even read our own scriptures. I was a 42 year old practicing cradle Catholic, active in parish leadership, before I even heard of an SD, the spiritual journey, contemplative prayer, self-mortification, nor Transforming Union, nor Divine Union. Every Catholic should be made aware of these things, or we are really not offering them what we have.

umm no St.Paul didn’t teach moral relavitism. For St.Paul often condemned many immoral things that people around him were doing.

Did you read 1 Cor 9 and 10 passages I quoted? If you don’t consider a) claiming freedom from any law of sin and death, and b) behaving according to the consciences of those he’s around, rather than himself, and c) acting like whoever he is around, moral relativism, then please tell my what you consider moral relativism.

Alan