That Old Freemason Question...

[AlanFromWichita]

Hah! I guess we can’t even agree on whether we are agreeing,

We make a lovely couple, don’t we?

What is it that you believe the Church should be doing that she isn’t doing to ensure this?

In our particular diocese, I think they are doing a good job. My kids learn more Catholic teachings in grade school in one month, than I learned in eight years.

But I still think we need to find a better way to reach the “unwashed masses” who sit in the pew but don’t go to Catholic school. Or they’re old curmudgeons or whatever.

And that brings up an interesting segue: are you familiar with the document Ex Corde Ecclesiae?

This was the Church’s attempt to ensure “truth in advertising” among Catholic universities.

I’m just going out on a limb here, but I think that you would be opposed to this. (Forgive me if I have assumed too much). It mandates that theologians in Catholic universities who are teaching Catholic theology proclaim only that which is Catholic teaching.

You: good, or bad, this mandate?

I’ll take a look at it, but based on what you say I think that at a Catholic university no teacher should teach Catholic doctrine improperly. That said, I think it is imperative they also discuss other religions, because I think comparative religion is helpful – and a little study in other religions can help us understand why we need to be in the one we’re in. (And if it doesn’t then something’s amiss anyway.)

So if a teacher is “watering down” or “picking and choosing” Catholic teaching to fit an agenda, the teacher needs to be fired. Reprimanding isn’t good enough because that is like yeast that will scatter through the dough. If they are going to lie about what Catholicism is, then they are going to poison their students even if they do teach the right thing. All they need is a cynical attitude and it can make a mockery out of the subject while still ostensibly following the rules.

Nope, go to Catholic U, you should learn A) Catholic, and B) any others, and not a mixture of the two.

Alan.

 

[PRmerger]

We make a lovely couple, don’t we?

But I still think we need to find a better way to reach the “unwashed masses” who sit in the pew but don’t go to Catholic school. Or they’re old curmudgeons or whatever.

Right. So what should the Church be doing that she isn’t doing?

I’ll take a look at it, but based on what you say I think that at a Catholic university no teacher should teach Catholic doctrine improperly.

And that’s why I love you, Alan! :hug3: Just when I think you’re going to go all “We should let our conscience be our guide and if a Catholic professor feels in his heart that Jesus’ message of love and tolerance includes the very tolerant belief that Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead bodily, but only in the hearts and minds of his disciples…and not to mention that madate infringes on the professor’s academic freedom!”, you say something like the above that so very…well…dare I say it…

orthodox.

That said, I think it is imperative they also discuss other religions, because I think comparative religion is helpful – and a little study in other religions can help us understand why we need to be in the one we’re in. (And if it doesn’t then something’s amiss anyway.)

So if a teacher is “watering down” or “picking and choosing” Catholic teaching to fit an agenda, the teacher needs to be fired. Reprimanding isn’t good enough because that is like yeast that will scatter through the dough. If they are going to lie about what Catholicism is, then they are going to poison their students even if they do teach the right thing. All they need is a cynical attitude and it can make a mockery out of the subject while still ostensibly following the rules.

Nope, go to Catholic U, you should learn A) Catholic, and B) any others, and not a mixture of the two.

Alan.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Right. So what should the Church be doing that she isn’t doing?

All I’m asking for starters, is that priest doing the preaching spend at least one sermon a year, and preferably quite a few more, on actually “spiritual journey” type stuff. And not just how to vote, or the history behind the gospel. Actual union with God. The charismatics have nice motivation but I think even there sometimes we’re just replacing rigid religion-ism with loud religion-ism. So we either think that feeling enthusiastic or zealously following a moral code will get us into the kingdom, when neither will.

Here’s something: talk about the doctors of the Church from the pulpit. I can’t remember the last time I heard about any, except a little bit about Aquinas once, long ago. And of course it was cerebral and not “touchy-feely.”

Honestly, though, my view from the kingdom position has changed so much that I understand why she is that way she is. Her job, I now see, is not to “save sinners” as much as it is to carry on the Word, the Story, the mystery. Even now I’m seeing that the “quality control” problem I rail against is a part of the plan – that came to me during noon Mass yesterday. (Side topic sometime: why the mystery, unworthiness and groveling, etc.) I still get to whine and complain, but I just don’t get to be all heartfelt and discouraged about it anymore.

And that’s why I love you, Alan! :hug3: Just when I think you’re going to go all “We should let our conscience be our guide and if a Catholic professor feels in his heart that Jesus’ message of love and tolerance includes the very tolerant belief that Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead bodily, but only in the hearts and minds of his disciples…and not to mention that madate infringes on the professor’s academic freedom!”, you say something like the above that so very…well…dare I say it…

That’s why I love you, too. When I see what your thoughts about my thoughts would lead to, including this, it reminds me of the wide range of how people think. The teachings themselves have to stay “pure,” even if I don’t agree with them. But I refuse to say that as a citizen of the world and a creature with a soul, I will “obey” everything Mother Church says for me to do. And I’ll take responsibility for it. And I’ll bash the way the Church does things. But if I have a disagreement, no way am I going to just go around saying the Church “really” thinks about it My Way when she doesn’t.

And I may question her teachings, but it comes down to duty and mission. If I hire a teacher to teach kids what I believe, the teacher is welcome to present alternate opinions, only if they are presented as alternate opinions. I don’t mind people thinking anything they want – as long as they are honest about it. And if somebody wants to attack the Church, particularly if they aren’t Catholic, then they at least need to have their facts straight before I can accept it as a valid attack. You see, I get to attack the Church, but I hold outsiders and annoying insiders to a higher standard.

Alan

 

[bobcrawford]

I have always thought that Jesus’ messages and teachings were pretty basic and to the point. Love thy neighbor, love God, don’t sin, etc.

What I have trouble with is all the rules the Church has instituted after His death. The teachings are very complicated and even Catholic schools cannot teach a singular message with its own people.

Sometimes I think trying to understand all the teachings of the Church is like trying to understand the United States Tax Code. It’s impossible. Not to mention it seems like it conflicts with the Bible at times. Jesus said whoever believes in me is saved (I’m simplifying Scripture).

I’m just not sure Jesus intended it to be so complicated. Maybe that’s one of the reasons so many people are leaving the Church today. It’s become like our government - complicated, hard to understand, hard to deal with.

 

[PRmerger]

All I’m asking for starters, is that priest doing the preaching spend at least one sermon a year, and preferably quite a few more, on actually “spiritual journey” type stuff. And not just how to vote, or the history behind the gospel. Actual union with God. The charismatics have nice motivation but I think even there sometimes we’re just replacing rigid religion-ism with loud religion-ism. So we either think that feeling enthusiastic or zealously following a moral code will get us into the kingdom, when neither will.

Here’s something: talk about the doctors of the Church from the pulpit. I can’t remember the last time I heard about any, except a little bit about Aquinas once, long ago. And of course it was cerebral and not “touchy-feely.”

No argument here.

But, frankly, I don’t see how any of that is going to stop a nun or Catholic school teacher or a priest from teaching something that isn’t actually Catholic.

Honestly, though, my view from the kingdom position has changed so much that I understand why she is that way she is. Her job, I now see, is not to “save sinners” as much as it is to carry on the Word, the Story, the mystery.

With all due respect, I think that the Catholic Church is big enough to do both.

Even now I’m seeing that the “quality control” problem I rail against is a part of the plan – that came to me during noon Mass yesterday. (Side topic sometime: why the mystery, unworthiness and groveling, etc.) I still get to whine and complain, but I just don’t get to be all heartfelt and discouraged about it anymore.

Well, IMHO, there’s never any reason to be heartfelt and discouraged about it because we have already won. Remember, we’re starting from the winner’s position already.

As Mother Teresa said (paraphrasing): never let anything get you so disheartened that the beauty of the Resurrection cannot renew you.

 

[PRmerger]

But I refuse to say that as a citizen of the world and a creature with a soul, I will “obey” everything Mother Church says for me to do.

Then, Alan, I charitably say, that you have created a church in your own image, rather than conforming your image to the Church, the Body of Christ.

If there’s nothing you can say that you have changed your position on simply because the Church teaches it, then I submit to you that you have created a false god.

For does it not make sense that God’s going to obligate you to believe something that is just not what you’d prefer?

I think we’ve had this conversation before, but I will re-visit.

And I will share my own struggle. I personally, if I had my druthers, would love to tell my friends who have been divorced, “You deserve a second chance! I love your new honey! He’s a doll! Much better than that jerk you married the first time!”

Sadly, I cannot.

Because I have to take what God has said: if you divorce and re-marry you commit adultery…

whether I like it or not.

Though I’d much prefer to be able to dance at my friends’ second weddings.

The Church, as philosopher Peter Kreeft says, is simply God’s messenger. She cannot edit the message to make it more palatable.

What God has said, God has said.

And I obey.

What hubris to tell God: YOU need to change your position, God! It’s not really that loving to say you can’t start over with another man!**



**NB: not that I believe anyone on this thread has suggested God do this.

Just sayin’…that it does seem to be the logical consequence of not changing any of our beliefs because that is what God has decreed.

 

[PRmerger]

I have always thought that Jesus’ messages and teachings were pretty basic and to the point. Love thy neighbor, love God, don’t sin, etc.

Why do you take only some of Jesus’ message and edit out the rest?

What about what Jesus said to his apostles about binding and loosing on earth?

Does that not seem important to you?

What I have trouble with is all the rules the Church has instituted after His death. The teachings are very complicated and even Catholic schools cannot teach a singular message with its own people.

The Church’s teachings are simple enough for an uneducated peasant to be able to embrace but deep and profound enough for a Thomas Aquinas or Augustine to proclaim that they haven’t even understood a drop of the sublime understanding of the ocean of God’s revelation.

I’m just not sure Jesus intended it to be so complicated.

How do you know this?

Maybe that’s one of the reasons so many people are leaving the Church today. It’s become like our government - complicated, hard to understand, hard to deal with.

Sometimes people leave the Church, like they left Christ 2000 years ago, when He says those “hard sayings”. See John 6: 60-69

 

[bobcrawford]

Then again you can get a Church divorce or annulment.

Annulments are sometimes actually based on there not being a valid marriage to begin with. Then there are others granted on who you know in the Church or how much you can donate (like the Kennedy family). I am always amazed at the annulments granted but money and the good ol’ boy network is alive and well in the Church.

I have a friend who is connected with the Archbishop, well actually the previous Archbishop. He has received THREE annulments and on his forth marriage. Really, three previous marriages were not valid? He just laughs at it all when I bring it up.

Then there was the guy at our church with four kids, mostly teens, gets a divorce and annulment and remarries, has another baby and comes to Church with the new wife.

Then you have the situation where a husband beats the living daylights out of a spouse and she cannot get an annulment. Really, a husband who beats his wife to near death somehow is still a valid marriage? Then again, the abused woman does not have the cash to “donate” in most cases.

Oh, but we’re supposed to obey - right?

 

[bobcrawford]

Why do you take only some of Jesus’ message and edit out the rest?

What about what Jesus said to his apostles about binding and loosing on earth?

Does that not seem important to you?

The Church’s teachings are simple enough for an uneducated peasant to be able to embrace but deep and profound enough for a Thomas Aquinas or Augustine to proclaim that they haven’t even understood a drop of the sublime understanding of the ocean of God’s revelation.

How do you know this?

Sometimes people leave the Church, like they left Christ 2000 years ago, when He says those “hard sayings”. See John 6: 60-69

Well, because I did not want to type it all.

True enough that Jesus told the Apostles what they bind on Earth is bound in Heaven…etc. The question is did Jesus intend for the successors of the Apostles to write something akin to the tax code of the United States. I have my doubts that an uneducated peasant can comprehend the vast teachings and rules of the Church. The more I study it, the more complex and complicated it becomes and how the Ten Commandments have been stretched to cover all sorts of things to the point that living day in and day out is bound to have a person commit multiple sins a day.

God also told His people to be fruitful and multiply. Was that message only meant for some people and not others? So when we prohibit our priests from marrying and having children are we not violating God’s wishes? Even the Apostles were married and Jesus did not tell them to divorce the wives and follow Him. Nor did Jesus seek out unmarried men. Seems the Church as a problem with marriage, not the Lord.

When people leave the Church it usually means going to another Christian Church, not abandoning Christ. Some Churches have a much simpler message that attracts people instead of the tax code-like situation Catholics have to navigate.

 

[PRmerger]

Then again you can get a Church divorce or annulment.

Annulments are sometimes actually based on there not being a valid marriage to begin with. Then there are others granted on who you know in the Church or how much you can donate (like the Kennedy family). I am always amazed at the annulments granted but money and the good ol’ boy network is alive and well in the Church.

Is there some special information you have that you know that the Kennedy union was actually a sacramental, valid, forever-until-death-do-they-part marriage but because they paid a lot of money the Church gave them an annulment?

Or are you just going by the same knowledge that the rest of us have and gossiping?

 

[PRmerger]

True enough that Jesus told the Apostles what they bind on Earth is bound in Heaven…etc. The question is did Jesus intend for the successors of the Apostles to write something akin to the tax code of the United States.

What you may find cumbersome others may find enlightening, thrilling, and captivating.

Don’t project your inability to contemplate the Numinous with all Catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

I have a friend who is connected with the Archbishop, well actually the previous Archbishop. He has received THREE annulments and on his forth marriage. Really, three previous marriages were not valid? He just laughs at it all when I bring it up.

Well, I think that this shows, IMHO, that he has an inability to offer himself as a husband sacramentally.

Doesn’t that appear that way to you?

Then there was the guy at our church with four kids, mostly teens, gets a divorce and annulment and remarries, has another baby and comes to Church with the new wife.

Again, are you privy in to this person’s relationship with the first woman that you happen to know that they were validly, sacramentally married and the Church, because of his donation, overlooked this?

(Also, do you have some sort of insight into his bank account so you can tell us that he paid more for this process to ensure his wishes were met?)

Then you have the situation where a husband beats the living daylights out of a spouse and she cannot get an annulment. Really, a husband who beats his wife to near death somehow is still a valid marriage? Then again, the abused woman does not have the cash to “donate” in most cases.

Oh, but we’re supposed to obey - right?

I wouldn’t know–and neither do you–what the details are about this.

Unless you are proposing that you are somehow intimately involved with this situation?

 

[GEddie]

Well, because I did not want to type it all.

True enough that Jesus told the Apostles what they bind on Earth is bound in Heaven…etc. The question is did Jesus intend for the successors of the Apostles to write something akin to the tax code of the United States. I have my doubts that an uneducated peasant can comprehend the vast teachings and rules of the Church. The more I study it, the more complex and complicated it becomes and how the Ten Commandments have been stretched to cover all sorts of things to the point that living day in and day out is bound to have a person commit multiple sins a day.

God also told His people to be fruitful and multiply. Was that message only meant for some people and not others? So when we prohibit our priests from marrying and having children are we not violating God’s wishes? Even the Apostles were married and Jesus did not tell them to divorce the wives and follow Him. Nor did Jesus seek out unmarried men. Seems the Church as a problem with marriage, not the Lord.

When people leave the Church it usually means going to another Christian Church, not abandoning Christ. Some Churches have a much simpler message that attracts people instead of the tax code-like situation Catholics have to navigate.

If someone falls into sin, it is most likely NOT because “they do not understand”. It’s not that hard, mind-wise. Not when extremely simple souls like Bernadette of Lourdes have become saints.

If you truly did not understand, that would be a mitigating factor.

As to the unmarried thing: God never intended that everybody have children! If He had, neither our LORD, nor the BVM would have remained virgins!

The limitation of priesthood in the Roman Church is not a doctrine, anyhow, but a discipline. The Church could change it at any time, but has chosen not to.

In any case, why is Church practice regarding ordination such a difficulty to accept?

ICXC NIKA

 

[Elizium23]

I’m unsubscribing from this thread because it hasn’t discussed anything remotely connected to Freemasonry and I was only watching it for the topic of the OP, not a general discussion of Church teaching and heresy.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Then, Alan, I charitably say, that you have created a church in your own image, rather than conforming your image to the Church, the Body of Christ.

I reject that the RCC is “the Body of Christ.” That’s idolatrous. If you’re saying I’m not conforming myself to the mystical Church, that doesn’t make any sense because the mystical Church includes even those who are not Catholic at all.

If there’s nothing you can say that you have changed your position on simply because the Church teaches it, then I submit to you that you have created a false god.

I have avoided making the Church into my graven image of God. You are very attached to the test of “well did I ever admit I was wrong and the Church right?” I’m sorry but you’re just going to have to guess on that one. If I don’t give you an example it doesn’t demonstrate anything.

For does it not make sense that God’s going to obligate you to believe something that is just not what you’d prefer?

It doesn’t make sense that God would “obligate” me to believe anything. I don’t see God as an aggressive, controlling, judgmental God. If I’m wrong then I’ll take my chances with my soul. But I know I’m not wrong.

Believe Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Light. Love one another; nothing else amounts to anything.

It boggles my mind how many times we hear 1 Cor 13 and still think it’s all about amassing knowledge.

I think we’ve had this conversation before, but I will re-visit.

Yeah, slow news day so I re-answered.

And I will share my own struggle. I personally, if I had my druthers, would love to tell my friends who have been divorced, “You deserve a second chance! I love your new honey! He’s a doll! Much better than that jerk you married the first time!”

Sadly, I cannot.

Because I have to take what God has said: if you divorce and re-marry you commit adultery…

whether I like it or not.

Though I’d much prefer to be able to dance at my friends’ second weddings.

I take no position on divorce. Never did it, never will. I think if I were out of a marriage for reasons totally out of my control, and the Church said I could not remarry, I would not remarry in the Church.

The Church, as philosopher Peter Kreeft says, is simply God’s messenger. She cannot edit the message to make it more palatable.

We’re clearly on different planets.

What God has said, God has said.

And I obey.

What hubris to tell God: YOU need to change your position, God! It’s not really that loving to say you can’t start over with another man!**

**NB: not that I believe anyone on this thread has suggested God do this.

Just sayin’…that it does seem to be the logical consequence of not changing any of our beliefs because that is what God has decreed.

I don’t think there are any words that will converge our thinking on this. I am concerned about the precise thought processes within our “obedience” to the Church, and observing that some are more likely to lead to spiritual stalemate than others. If we look at the Church with fear and trepidation like she were God, it will retard our spiritual growth – which is bad because so few who haven’t dropped out of the Church entirely seem to make it past that point so few people know there is anything further available, which gets back to our original problem of poorly taught pew sitters.

From you I get this very rigid, intellectual structure. Things I say don’t make sense unless you can fit them into an intellectual framework that you cling to that doesn’t challenge you to make any real change. It’s easy to say “I’ll choose door number 2 instead of 1 because that the Right Way to choose,” but not so easy to say, “today I will not become angry with anyone.” That’s real transformation, and without it, to me the rest is pomp and circumstance.

I don’t think we’ll ever see eye to eye. You see, I’ve been a “prickly person” and being logical and trying to see the world as a rigid structure, drove me nuts. So then I became a “gooey” person and now I’m somewhere in the middle. You seem to be squarely on the “prickles” side, the side I was on before my own world totally broke down and I had to look at things differently. So wherever we each are, we each say what we say and the world goes around.

My comments are based on Alan Watts’s “Prickles and Goo” (Warning: you won’t like Watts, so don’t listen to anything of his other videos; I just think you might like his prickles and goo.)

Alan

 

[bobcrawford]

Is there some special information you have that you know that the Kennedy union was actually a sacramental, valid, forever-until-death-do-they-part marriage but because they paid a lot of money the Church gave them an annulment?

Or are you just going by the same knowledge that the rest of us have and gossiping?

Seriously? If you cannot see this, then you are just turning a blind eye. Ted Kennedy gets marriage annulled. Ted Kennedy kills woman and is never arrested. Ted Kennedy was a huge backer of abortion - you know the killing of children - Catholic Church apparently does nothing but can sure give him last rights. The Kennedy’s can always buy themselves out of anything. You can call it gossip, I call it obvious.

In this country the rich and powerful so-called Catholics (in name only) have never been adequately challenged by the Church. Pelosi, Kennedy, Biden, all spew out support for abortion, have taken part in the elimination of conscience and religious rights and the Church rants and raves, then does nothing. They should be excommunicated.

Money talks, and the Church walks whether it be divorce, abortion or religious rights.

 

[bobcrawford]

If someone falls into sin, it is most likely NOT because “they do not understand”. It’s not that hard, mind-wise. Not when extremely simple souls like Bernadette of Lourdes have become saints.

If you truly did not understand, that would be a mitigating factor.

As to the unmarried thing: God never intended that everybody have children! If He had, neither our LORD, nor the BVM would have remained virgins!

The limitation of priesthood in the Roman Church is not a doctrine, anyhow, but a discipline. The Church could change it at any time, but has chosen not to.

In any case, why is Church practice regarding ordination such a difficulty to accept?

ICXC NIKA

No, most Catholics understand that thinking bad thoughts about someone is a sin. Of course that is what I was taught by nuns and priests. I am sure someone will find a way out of that one, but in any case, you cannot watch or read the news each day without having those thoughts about the murderers, child molesters, wife abusers, abortionists, and politicians who support and promote abortion like Pelosi, Biden and Obama to name a few.

As for children, I do not know what God intended. The BVM did give birth so she did have a child. When God said “be fruitful and multiply” I did not read any qualifiers so it appears to me He meant everyone. I have searched the Bible and I cannot find anywhere where God, or His Son, said that religious should not marry. In fact, the Eastern Rite thinks that it is sinful that the Roman Rite does not allow its priest to marry.

It is also one thing to choose to not have children or marry as an individual. It’s another thing to mandate it just to be able to serve as a priest or even nun for that matter. The Lord did not marry, but the Apostles He choose were married.

Why is the Church’s position so difficult to accept? Well because we do not have many priests. We do not have enough priests. In my younger days I considered becoming a priest but wanted to have a family. I know many men who say the same thing. Allowing married men to be priests would help us have more priests. We need more priests. In most Churches in our area, the parishioners have no real relationship with the priest because he is too busy. In some parishes now they have to share a priests. How can you guide the flock if you are never around except for mass on Sundays?

I know priests who are now married (they left the priesthood) who would come back if the Church allowed priests. They were very good men. It’s shameful that they cannot.

 

[bobcrawford]

I’m unsubscribing from this thread because it hasn’t discussed anything remotely connected to Freemasonry and I was only watching it for the topic of the OP, not a general discussion of Church teaching and heresy.

Sorry I think how we got way off topic is that the discussion was around the Church’s position on membership in a fraternal organization such as the masons and how that position may be wrong, then it got onto discussions about other things the Church may be wrong on and went way off topic from there.

I will refrain from any other posts not related to masons on this thread. Period.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I have searched the Bible and I cannot find anywhere where God, or His Son, said that religious should not marry. In fact, the Eastern Rite thinks that it is sinful that the Roman Rite does not allow its priest to marry.

It is also one thing to choose to not have children or marry as an individual. It’s another thing to mandate it just to be able to serve as a priest or even nun for that matter. The Lord did not marry, but the Apostles He choose were married.

Why is the Church’s position so difficult to accept?

Did you notice 1 Tim 3 or Titus 1?

Example:
1 Tim 3:1-5:

This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?

“How can he take care of the church of God?”

I have no horse in this race, except curiosity how Church teachings v. Bible can be so contradictory?

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

Seriously? If you cannot see this, then you are just turning a blind eye. Ted Kennedy gets marriage annulled. Ted Kennedy kills woman and is never arrested. Ted Kennedy was a huge backer of abortion - you know the killing of children - Catholic Church apparently does nothing but can sure give him last rights. The Kennedy’s can always buy themselves out of anything. You can call it gossip, I call it obvious

I am truly mystified by the sanctification that has been given to the Kennedys here–as if, just by virtue of the fact that they are Kennedys–that if they attempt to be married…it must be a sacramental marriage.

Just because they’re, you know, Kennedys.

As if it would be simply impossible for a Kennedy to make a vow at a church but not really mean it.

That attribute of holiness given to Kennedys is, frankly, absurd.