T
TheMortenBay
Guest
“Real life”. It’s also often written IRL, “In real life”. I.e. someone you know outside this forum
The mentality of "you can never go wrong with a priest"
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
Oh, OK. I thought maybe you meant “Reformed Lutheran” or something like that.
I look to my young hipster son(tween on the cusp of becoming a teenager) to keep me up to speed on all of these text acronyms.
Last edited:
T
TheMortenBay
Guest
Maybe you’re right. It wasn’t my comment in the first place, so maybe I was too hasty to interject my help. RL and IRL are fairly common abbreviations on the internet however… I guess we’ll have to wait for Scarlett for clarification.
P
PJH_74
Guest
It depends what you are calling “Protestant” there the older “Mainline” ones like the Lutherans for whom I can speak to, my spouse is a Pastor and one of cousins married one also. These churches are basically entities unto themselves. So what you have is churches, that often weren’t that large to start with, with members avoiding closing until the bitter end. This starts to become a colossal waste of resources whereas the Catholic Diocese will close churches like this if necessary. What you aren’t seeing is that the members either merge with another church or just find another one. Honestly too the only real thing that has been staving off part of Catholic attendance decline are Mexican immigrants.
“Evangelical” Protestants have really been the ones experiencing any growth and are probably ones you are equating with Televangelists. Televangelists generally teach “Prosperity Gospel”; one might argue they are Christian only in the words they use. My deeply Catholic and manic depressive Aunt fell under the spell of one in the few years before she died. These are the type of people often preyed on by these “churches”. Incidentally a Pastor our President identified as a religious leader of this teaches Prosperity Gospel and did part of the invocation at his Inauguration.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
G
GladTidings
Guest
I do think there was more obedience and reverence of priests among those born well before the Second Vatican Council. I remember seeing a show, possibly 20/20 or something like that, wherein a man described telling his mom that a priest had abused him. His mom slapped him very hard and said he was lying because a priest would never do that. The mom would have been from that age group.
I also think people get infallibility confused, as well as what In Persona Christi means.
People used to revere priests more because of respect for the sacraments. I think people had more faith then as well. Priests were the ones who could make things better. Instead of going to the authorities, people would go the priest. The Father, the one who had been called and ordained as one among those who are part of an unbroken, successive line which goes all the way back to the time of Jesus and the apostles.
This was good unless the priest was using his position in a bad way.
I also think people get infallibility confused, as well as what In Persona Christi means.
People used to revere priests more because of respect for the sacraments. I think people had more faith then as well. Priests were the ones who could make things better. Instead of going to the authorities, people would go the priest. The Father, the one who had been called and ordained as one among those who are part of an unbroken, successive line which goes all the way back to the time of Jesus and the apostles.
This was good unless the priest was using his position in a bad way.
Indeed. I tried as well to explain to someone in this parish, of my own age cohort, what was wrong with what this priest (and others) were teaching — we had both finished high school a year or two prior. I used the term “error” and she simply, absolutely, could not get her head around the concept of a priest teaching pertinacious error. She said something like “well, if the priest is teaching error, couldn’t you just point this out to him, and then he would repudiate this error and follow the magisterium?”. She equated “error” with something as simple as not having been in theology class that day and failing to learn what had been taught in today’s lesson.
Last edited:
D
Divine3
Guest
No Way! Don’t worry that was not typical. Anyone who acted and reacted the way that man did to you was no follower of Christs and his Church. I had a sister do the same thing with me, she was in her late 50’s or early 60’s and taught at a Catholic High School, (religion most likely) . I was a teenager and she took me out for lunch. A discussion came up about women being priests and I very, simply said in a gentle manner, that I was totally against women being priest. She almost hit the ceiling. I was so taken back — just shut my mouth and decided not to ever seek guidance from that little old, sweet, sister. Reactions like that as I look back on life–don’t come from a good spirit. That man’s advice to you was far from the Holy Spirit. Because no holy priest would tell someone to go ahead and sin. No priest who is a follower of Christ.
G
GladTidings
Guest
Yes, deliberate, pertinacious error is evil, compared to misunderstanding something because of being gone that day in Canon 101 class.
I’m reminded of old cathedrals that have statues of demons peeking around corners as a reminder that evil lurks everywhere.
The idea of talking to a priest to correct them is daunting to some people, including me, I understand that. Some people would not dare take the priest to the church and talk to the bishop if the priest would not listen to them.
P
PJH_74
Guest
I’d know, I have mixed feelings on this topic. My Grandmother went to my Aunt’s marriage at a Lutheran church because a Priest to told her to go at time went still wasn’t looked on well. The could have missed her own daughter’s wedding. As I said, my spouse is an ordained Lutheran who consecrates bread and wine just about every weekend using virtually the same words and believes in Real Presence; the bread and wine contain Jesus but just doesn’t change into him. A Priest offered communion to my spouse, who likely knows more than most Catholics, accepted.
Yes, certainly the Communion was heretical, but at what real harm? This is certainly pushing the edge, but sometimes strict enforcement is less important than personal relationship or ecumenicism. Just my thoughts.
Yes, certainly the Communion was heretical, but at what real harm? This is certainly pushing the edge, but sometimes strict enforcement is less important than personal relationship or ecumenicism. Just my thoughts.
She received an invalid, heretical Eucharist. I will not judge her soul, but what she did is objectively a mortal sin.
Adherence to and acceptance of everything the Catholic Church teaches is the only thing that matters. Personal relationships and ecumenical activity can be fostered by many other means that do not involve a sinful act.
T
twf
Guest
I would argue Jansenism was a big part of the problem, especially in places like Ireland and Quebec where I understand its influence was strong. The hierarchy was poisoned by this heresy and, in many cases, oppressed the faithful leading to a full scale revolt in the wake of mid-to-late 20th century social upheaval.
O
otjm
Guest
Yes, there are plenty of people who think this way, and it is not simply the province of Catholics.
As a point, the priest was not a modernist, as that issue related to scriptural scholarship; it is far more likely he wss engaged (wittingly or unwittingly) in relativism.
Sadly, he was partly right; but left out a critical corollary: one must act on one’s conscience (CCC 1790); and one must always strive to have a correctly formed conscience (CCC 1783, et alia). I would suggest you read the CCC Article 6, paragraphs 1776 -1802.
People have a tendency to simplify issues of conscience as well as assume that their interpretation of a matter is correct, ignoring that there are mroe ramifications than simple, short answers give.
Coupled with the issue of “follow your conscience” is the problem of at least 2 generations who suffered from poor to almost non-existent catechesis, starting in the early 1970’s. When you have parents with little formation, what will they give their children? And when those children have little, what will they give to their next generation? It is easy to sit back in the chair of self righteousness and harrumpf loudly when one has been taught correctly; but we are charged not to judge the status of another’s soul.
And no, I don’t blame the priests; we had all too many bishops who appear to have reacted as “mid level managers” rather than shepherds, and failed to see that the solution to replacing the Baltimore Catechism was not adequately addressed.
My parents grew up in a Catholic farm community well removed from the “big city”, and pretty much had the opinion that “Father knows best”. That was not particularly unusual, as priests had not only a college degree, but also a theology degree, and likely somewhere between the majority and the great majority of people didn’t go beyond high school. And most of the priests I knew by the time I entered high school (1960) appeared rather uniform in following the Church.
As a point, the priest was not a modernist, as that issue related to scriptural scholarship; it is far more likely he wss engaged (wittingly or unwittingly) in relativism.
Sadly, he was partly right; but left out a critical corollary: one must act on one’s conscience (CCC 1790); and one must always strive to have a correctly formed conscience (CCC 1783, et alia). I would suggest you read the CCC Article 6, paragraphs 1776 -1802.
People have a tendency to simplify issues of conscience as well as assume that their interpretation of a matter is correct, ignoring that there are mroe ramifications than simple, short answers give.
Coupled with the issue of “follow your conscience” is the problem of at least 2 generations who suffered from poor to almost non-existent catechesis, starting in the early 1970’s. When you have parents with little formation, what will they give their children? And when those children have little, what will they give to their next generation? It is easy to sit back in the chair of self righteousness and harrumpf loudly when one has been taught correctly; but we are charged not to judge the status of another’s soul.
And no, I don’t blame the priests; we had all too many bishops who appear to have reacted as “mid level managers” rather than shepherds, and failed to see that the solution to replacing the Baltimore Catechism was not adequately addressed.
My parents grew up in a Catholic farm community well removed from the “big city”, and pretty much had the opinion that “Father knows best”. That was not particularly unusual, as priests had not only a college degree, but also a theology degree, and likely somewhere between the majority and the great majority of people didn’t go beyond high school. And most of the priests I knew by the time I entered high school (1960) appeared rather uniform in following the Church.
I am not “harrumpfing loudly” from a “chair of self-righteousness”, not that you suggested I was. I was not “taught correctly”. When I was coming into the Church, my priest-catechist dissented from Humanae vitae, his exact words were “the Prince of Rome is wrong”. He did not speak explicitly of “conscience”. I thought “it makes absolutely no sense to have an authoritative teaching Church, only to be able to disagree with it”, but I was very young, this was all new to me, so I just thought “you’re the priest, you know better than I do, whatever”.
But I was still vaguely uncomfortable. It made no sense. In our Catholic high school, one of our courses was on sexual morality. When it came time to study birth control, the priest — a different one, the one I cited in the original post, the “rock star” — had us to read Humanae vitae in full and write a report to show that we understood it. So far, so good. Then he announced to us “now, I’m going to show you a way around this”. Those were his exact words. He then launched into a specious discussion in which he told us that just as there is a magisterium (the teaching office of the Church), the word “magisterium” implies that there are “magisteria” (a completely bogus logical fallacy), and among these alternate “magisteria” exists the “magisterium of the laity”.
He then told us that ultimately you must “follow your conscience”, then took a raised-hand poll to see if anyone believed contraception was sinful. One student raised her hand. The rest did not. I was among the rest. I was a coward. I did not want to say “your ‘magisterium of the laity’ proposal doesn’t make a lick of sense — this is what the Church teaches, we have to follow the Church, and that’s that”. I foresaw that the whole class would mock me. Human respect. The lack of courage to stand up and be different.
Now I was more troubled than ever. I studied the matter for another year or so, then I could come to no other conclusion — the Church is right, and the Church has the authority to teach and to bind the consciences of the faithful. I tried to reason with the priest. He told me, yes, it would be wrong for you, but that is because your conscience tells you so. If people do not believe it is wrong, then they can follow their own consciences.
Again, he came to a bad end.
P
PJH_74
Guest
I know this is one of those things the Pope has said that I’m sure makes you cringe, but the question posed to him was exactly our situation, I’m a confirmed Catholic. Mulling on the fact that Catholicism recognizes many other Baptisms as valid, of which Lutheran ones are certainly one:
My spouse obviously believes Jesus to be present as a Lutheran Pastor. He’s clearly talking about Ecumenicism with people who believe in Real Presence. I’m not trying to challenge you, it was just to my point. Is he truly opening up Communion to non-Catholics? I quite doubt it. He’s also said more recently those in Mortal Sin should not receive unless they’ve been to confession, clearly a traditional answer.
He can be a bit of an enigma at times. If I had to take a guess of where he’s coming from, I’d say this.
He seems to be saying, in this specific situation, the growth of a couple, through the tight bonds of marriage (which he had talked about just prior), almost form a sort of First Communion through a shared belief in the presence of Jesus in the host and wine. It seems he’d rather see Communion used to help a couple in this situation to grow closer than dwell on strict theology . Make of it what you will.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
I was not referring to you in my comment about “harrumpfing”; it is more generic. I am all for a correctly formed conscience and following the Magisterium. And that is how I teach RCIA.
However, the issue about a correctly formed conscience is not as simple as some make it out to be, and I have come across a few too many judgmental individuals who are exceedingly quick to pass on others’ struggles and/or lack of knowledge. When confronted with what the Church actually teaches, they give off with a “YABUT” as if it means nothing.
And sexual ethics is not the only area in which there can be questions of morality; I am a Vietnam vet.
However, the issue about a correctly formed conscience is not as simple as some make it out to be, and I have come across a few too many judgmental individuals who are exceedingly quick to pass on others’ struggles and/or lack of knowledge. When confronted with what the Church actually teaches, they give off with a “YABUT” as if it means nothing.
And sexual ethics is not the only area in which there can be questions of morality; I am a Vietnam vet.
I didn’t think so. It’s all good.
I realize that consciences can and do differ. For instance, I am convinced that it is wrong to have oneself tattooed. I think it is a permanent and willful disfigurement of the body that God has given us. I do not think God gave us our bodies to decorate with corporeal wallpaper.
I do not have a problem with tattooing for medical reasons (the German military once tattooed blood type onto the soldier’s body, and I think that was a very good idea), to obscure a disfigurement, or some similar reason. I do not even have a problem if someone uses it modestly to honor a loved one — I once worked with a young lady, unmarried mother, and she had a small tattoo on her ankle with her daughter’s name and a rose by it. I was actually somewhat inspired by this — she was unwed, she chose life, and she was struggling to support her child on a small salary. But I do have a difficulty with using tattoos to decorate one’s body, much more so when one’s body becomes a virtual canvas for art.
However, I cannot assert that it is evil, because the Church doesn’t make that assertion. It is culturally conditioned. Right now our culture is speedily embracing tattooing as almost the norm. I don’t like it, I don’t understand why people do it, but I cannot condemn it, and I cannot and do not feel badly towards those who do accept it.
If the magisterium were ever authoritatively to condemn tattooing as evil, though, I would accept this, and so should everyone else.
No, but it is the area (i.e., marriage and sexuality in general) where many if not most people have their gravest difficulties in following the teachings of the Church, and where the sins are objectively mortal in nature — not only contraception, but sins such as adultery, fornication, premarital cohabitation, homosexual acts, masturbation, living in invalid marriages, and so on. As I have said elsewhere, Our Lady of Fatima warned us that sins of the flesh are the sins that send more people to hell than any other kinds of sins.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
Yeah - there is nothing like seeing a pretty young lady or nice looking guy with tats; one wonders what they might think 20 years from now…
For some that will indeed be a problem, sin or no sin. And I speak humbly as one whose best lifetime physique is in the past.
- Status