R
Rence
Guest
When I have time, and if I can find it, yes.
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Ok, here’s the thing.
Suppose that Pope Boniface, say, was facing heresy in the year 1440. Now remember, in 1440 there are:
Suppose that Pope Boniface, say, was facing heresy in the year 1440. Now remember, in 1440 there are:
- No Protestants per se. And certainly no ‘tolerance’ as we know it. The teaching is the ‘same’ today. . .one must be a member of Christ’s Church. However, one huge effect of the Protestants is that, while they ‘protested’ and broke away in various ways, they are still part of the Church. They still believe in Christ. The heretics of the 15th century that Pope Boniface fought against weren’t Christians. In fact, they had once been Christian, but in denying various teachings of Christ, they totally rejected Him. So their souls were indeed in deadly danger. And their heresies were deadly to other souls who they dragged with them. Again, there were no protestants per se and no ‘tolerance’ history. In fact, history had shown that any time that there were heretics who were **not **treated with the fullest possible punishment (excommunication and even civil death penalties from the government and remember the governments then were Catholic too. That’s very important to remember). . .that these people ‘damned’ thousands of others by their example.
- Thus. . .the Popes of that time were, like the barber surgeons of 200 years ago, forced to use ‘extreme’ measures. A man who today would be ‘saved’ with penicillin would have, 200 years ago, had to have his leg or arm amputated lest the blood poisoning spread and kill his whole body. The Popes and the **governments **of those times acted in ways that to us–with 500 years of ‘tolerance’, seem harsh. But if the situation were reversed, and all we had known was the horror of knowing that our loved ones were in danger of damnation, we might have understood better.
- We cannot–cannot-make the unfortunate and prevalent error of assigning 21st century ‘thought’ to other than 21st century people. It’s as ridiculous as expecting us to have the ‘manners and customs’ of a 9th century Saxon thane as it is to expect the **thane **to have the understanding of the average man on the street in AD 2010. Today if we faced ‘terrorists’ threatening to cut off Jerusalem from pilgrims we would negotiate, we would bargain, we would offer all sorts of concessions and safeguards etc., because we’ve had 500 years of experience. But 1000 years ago, the only experience that people had had was vastly different.
- With the Protestants, after (this is important) the first generation when both Catholics and Protestants had faced each other, fought both with words and with ‘swords’, it was obvious that neither group could ‘destroy’ the other. Thus–the only possible course was ‘tolerance’ which did not then (and should not now) equal’ agreement. One tolerates an evil, because to get rid of the evil is either impossible, or would involve an even greater evil. One tolerates but one does not **like, approve, or accept as good **what one tolerates.
- With ‘toleration’, it became obvious that while the Protestants of the later generations were still ‘incomplete’, they were not the heretics of the original protestant caliber. Being years, and later generations away, from the original ‘split’, they were far less ‘culpable’ for the split. If you have 500 years worth of teaching that Luther was a saint and the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon, that’s a far cry from being the one who actually started the lies about either (I’m not saying that Luther was ‘evil incarnate, either --he was a very complicated man and think he could have **been **a saint if he had stayed the course as a Catholic. But certainly the Church is not the Whore of Babylon!) While it was right and proper to try to stamp out heresy, these later day Protestants are not truly guilty as they were never baptized Catholic to begin with, unlike the first "protestants’. Thus, we know them as Christians, separated brethren, unfortunate victims of the sins of many (and I’m not saying individual Catholics didn’t have a hand in some of them as well as Protestants). And that is reflected.
- The **teaching **of the Church does not change, but the understanding of certain things has deepened. The heretics of the 16th century who personally rejected Catholicism are **not the same **as today’s protestants who have years of ‘tradition’ of their own which materially lessen any culpability they might–might!- have. And many Protestants are personally fine Christian people who in fact follow Catholic teaching more faithfully than some Catholics.
A
ac_claire
Guest
It’s not from malice, at least it’s not from my end. Your position is simply contradictory to many faithful Catholics here, (although I just speak for myself). Don’t get defensive…try believing that we sincerely think this. I would love for my next post to be, “oh ok Rence, now I see and I understand where you’re coming from!” But I can’t do that as long as it still isn’t making sense. Unless you’d rather I lie to you?
What are you referring to, exactly? There’s not anything that I’m saying that you need to believe. I have no authority. It’s not about what I think, we’re talking about teachings of the Church.
G
Guardian_Wolf
Guest
Do note (while possibly not during this time, not sure…) St. Jeanne d’Arc was tried by the Church and burned at the stake for being a heretic.
I’m pretty sure -that- was a mistake.
R
Rence
Guest
Of course you sincerely think this
That’s not the problem, the problem is, I don’t, which isn’t YOUR problem is it? Don’t you see? I don’t care whether or not you agree with me, nor do I care if you understand why I believe what I believe. In the end, it all doesn’t matter. Does it? In the end, there will be just God and me and no one else’s opinion is going to matter. In the end, there will be just God and you, and no one else’s opinion is going to amtter.Of course you don’t understand where I am coming from. It’s not required for us to have a civil discussion either.
This whole thing started out by someone asking about how to explain to someone that women can’t be priests. I responded that I wish women could be priests and it would make very very happy. And if I recall, I wasn’t the only one. That’s my opinion and it shouldn’t matter to anyone but me. When you participate in a public forum, even a catholic one, you’re going to get all kinds of opinions. If you only want to hear from people who live, think and breathe the way you do, then have membership requirements that reflect it as such, and reject applicants who don’t answer in the affirmative to all of your beliefs in a quesionaire, so that you don’t have to be disturbed so by someone else’s opinion.
I didn’t state my opinion to change anyone’s mind. I don’t care what you believe or think. You’re reponsible for your own thoughts and actions. And I am responsible for mine.
I don’t consider myself any closer to God than anyone else here, or otherwise more enlightened, and I certainly don’t think I’m further from God merely because I don’t agree with some of you here. But what I am NOT going to do, is give you lip service by telling you want you want to hear. I can’t tell you I understand or accept something that I don’t. That’s between me and God.
The fact that you belief are a reflection of what most of you here believe is irrelevent. You’re still telling me what I believe or what I don’t believe, and that’s the problem. I have faith in God, but I see the human element of the Church for what it is: human. To constantly tell me that I don’t have faith in God is false. You ask me why, and I tell you why, and you insist I am wrong for my answer with nothing to back it up except “but you must believe it because that’s what they tell us”. Further you keep telling me that my disbelief in the human element of the Church equates to a disbelief in God. The two are not the same, not matter how you put them together. God is God, people are people, including Popes and Priests. They make mistakes like everyone else. According to the teaching of the Church about the Church, they have the Gift of the Holy Spirit that helps them never to err in matters of faith and morals. But that’s not what happened over time is it? Therefore if they could be impervious to influence of God during those times regarding the bad things they did (which were immoral), they can err in this matter as well.
And YES, their mistakes, both past and present reflect on them today. No, I don’t condemn or judge them for it, but I consider it when I am supposed to believe something just because they say I should. What if they’re making a mistake again? Well praying about it certainly doesn’t sound like an unwise decision without merit to me.
BTW, I read the article by Mary DeTurris, and it did not help. I still don’t see how the conclusion was drawn as it was. Telling me how wrong I am isn’t going to help me see your perspective.
A
ac_claire
Guest
Respectfully, I think you’re injecting a personal element here that isn’t relevant. This conversation isn’t personal. I’m just trying to make sense out of an inconsistent position. You don’t have to care that I think it’s inconsistent. I’m not asking you to care about what I think. I have no judgement about your relationship with God. That’s not the point. My interest really and truly doesn’t go any deeper than the surface of my initial questions. I’m not judging you.Of course you sincerely think this
Of course you don’t understand where I am coming from. It’s not required for us to have a civil discussion either.
This whole thing started out by someone asking about how to explain to someone that women can’t be priests. I responded that I wish women could be priests and it would make very very happy. And if I recall, I wasn’t the only one. That’s my opinion and it shouldn’t matter to anyone but me. When you participate in a public forum, even a catholic one, you’re going to get all kinds of opinions. If you only want to hear from people who live, think and breathe the way you do, then have membership requirements that reflect it as such, and reject applicants who don’t answer in the affirmative to all of your beliefs in a quesionaire, so that you don’t have to be disturbed so by someone else’s opinion.
I didn’t state my opinion to change anyone’s mind. I don’t care what you believe or think. You’re reponsible for your own thoughts and actions. And I am responsible for mine.
I don’t consider myself any closer to God than anyone else here, or otherwise more enlightened, and I certainly don’t think I’m further from God merely because I don’t agree with some of you here. But what I am NOT going to do, is give you lip service by telling you want you want to hear. I can’t tell you I understand or accept something that I don’t. That’s between me and God.
The fact that you belief are a reflection of what most of you here believe is irrelevent. You’re still telling me what I believe or what I don’t believe, and that’s the problem. I have faith in God, but I see the human element of the Church for what it is: human. To constantly tell me that I don’t have faith in God is false. You ask me why, and I tell you why, and you insist I am wrong for my answer with nothing to back it up except “but you must believe it because that’s what they tell us”. Further you keep telling me that my disbelief in the human element of the Church equates to a disbelief in God. The two are not the same, not matter how you put them together. God is God, people are people, including Popes and Priests. They make mistakes like everyone else. According to the teaching of the Church about the Church, they have the Gift of the Holy Spirit that helps them never to err in matters of faith and morals. But that’s not what happened over time is it? Therefore if they could be impervious to influence of God during those times regarding the bad things they did (which were immoral), they can err in this matter as well.
And YES, their mistakes, both past and present reflect on them today. No, I don’t condemn or judge them for it, but I consider it when I am supposed to believe something just because they say I should. What if they’re making a mistake again? Well praying about it certainly doesn’t sound like an unwise decision without merit to me.
BTW, I read the article by Mary DeTurris, and it did not help. I still don’t see how the conclusion was drawn as it was. Telling me how wrong I am isn’t going to help me see your perspective.
I simply don’t understand how on one hand a person can consider themselves a faithful Catholic, and on the other hand not believe that the Church is what she says she is: the Pillar and bulwark of truth, inspired and protected from all error by the Holy Spirit. That’s not my opinion about the Church. That is the FACT of what the Church says that the Church is. Are you going to say that you still just don’t understand why I might find this inconsistent…?
R
Rence
Guest
“Catholics have always insisted that the ordained ministry has its origin in Jesus’ own
choice of the Twelve [Apostles] and that they are the foundation of the Church,” she
explained in a recent interview.
Following Jesus’ example of choosing 12 males to be His apostles, the Church from the
earliest days has reserved the priesthood to males.
**I’m sorry but just I don’t see the rationale for that interpretation. I don’t understand. Granted, I don’t pretend to know more than anyone else, but I don’t see it. The fact that the 12 Apostles were men doesn’t mean that women were purposely omitted, it means that he chose 12 men at that time to follow him. I would have been improper for that woman, in that time period, to follow around men. They would have been considered whores. No women followed around men at that time period. Only wives following their husands. In addition, no one would have listened to them. Only women rulers enjoyed the benefit of having a voice in a "man’s world’. **
Sister Butler acknowledges that this requirement is not spelled out directly in the
Bible, "as if Scripture, as if Jesus, said, ‘I don’t want any women to be priests.’ "
History, however, shows that the first Christians believed that Christ intended a male-
only priesthood.
“We know it is so because early in even the second and third centuries some people
went ahead and admitted women to at least priestly functions, if not to ordination, and
those people were considered heretics,” she explained. “The response was that this was
not what Christ willed, and it’s against apostolic teaching.”
, a 1976 declaration by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, details the early Church’s response to the Gnostics and other radical
Christian sects that supported women priestly roles. The Fathers of the Church, the
Vatican said, “immediately censured this step, judging it a novelty which should on no
account be accepted into the Church.”
So according to this article, in the early Church some women were ordained. Which means that there were those in the CC who ordained them because they felt it was acceptable. So then those people were considered heretics in response. How is that proof that women were not meant to be priests? All this proves is that those who had the upper hand in that politcal climate said it was so. Many people were labeled as heretics, mostly because they disagreed with the upper authorities of the Church, not by their own merit. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for being a heretic (thanks Guardian_wolf), and surely she was not a heretic. Many women were burned at the stake for being witches or heretics. Many scientists were put under house arrest, punished, imprisoned or executed because they taught things (that were true) that the governing body of the Church didn’t understand or agree with. So how is this any different?
The declaration, which was approved by Pope Paul VI and remains the Church’s most
explicit explanation of its teaching on women’s ordination, recounts that beginning
with early Church leaders such as St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and St. John
Chrysostom, and extending through the Middle Ages down to the current popes, the
male-only priesthood was an unquestioned tradition.
**However, the fact is, other people in the Church did agree with women’s ordination. Unfortunately, they didn’t make as much noise or have as much influence as the ones who opposed it. That’s all this proves. **
As Sister Butler said, “The reason is we don’t think Jesus intended this for the Church,
and this judgment has been made repeatedly and definitively by the Church of our
own ancestors. It’s a universal, unbroken tradition.”
Because it was snuffed out early on. Women’s rights were different then. In fact, they were little more than chattel. Why would they be accepted at that time? However, as the rights of women has entered into the equation, and they are no longer regarded as chattel, why shouldn’t the old rationales be revisited in earnest? and they were when girls were allowed to serve as alter girls. Before that, it was forbidden. But the Church made that change, so how evil is it to think that maybe women may be ordained in the future? I don’t see how that is a bad thing, I’m very sorry.
“The fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church,
received neither the mission proper to the apostles nor the ministerial priesthood
clearly shows that the nonadmission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that
women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as a discrimination against them,”
the Pope wrote. “Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be
ascribed to the Wisdom of the Lord of the Universe.”
I’m sorry, again I just don’t see it. Not every woman wants to be a priest. So why should the fact that the BVM wasn’t an Apostle point to the notion that therefore no other woman should too. She was the Mother of God, wasn’t that a big enough job as it was? I don’t understand why the fact that she wasn’t an apostle means that women can’t be priests? I just don’t understand how that conclusion was drawn.
R
Rence
Guest
No I understand why you might find this inconsistent but I’ve tried to answer your question many times, and apparently my answer isn’t sufficient.Respectfully, I think you’re injecting a personal element here that isn’t relevant. This conversation isn’t personal. I’m just trying to make sense out of an inconsistent position. You don’t have to care that I think it’s inconsistent. I’m not asking you to care about what I think. I have no judgement about your relationship with God. That’s not the point. My interest really and truly doesn’t go any deeper than the surface of my initial questions. I’m not judging you.
I simply don’t understand how on one hand a person can consider themselves a faithful Catholic, and on the other hand not believe that the Church is what she says she is: the Pillar and bulwark of truth, inspired and protected from all error by the Holy Spirit. That’s not my opinion about the Church. That is the FACT of what the Church says that the Church is. Are you going to say that you still just don’t understand why I might find this inconsistent…?
Again, the reason is simply beause they have erred. How can you on the one hand say that they are unable to err on matters of faith and morals, and on the other hand, look at the errors that were blatanly immoral? And I am a faithful Catholic, despite this, because that’s part of it. You don’t just run away screaming because you disagree with something, or don’t understand something. You stick it out. That’s faith. Why is it considered a big leap of faith when you’re believing something you understand? That’s not a leap of faith, that’s understanding. I believe they can correct this error, if it is an error, just like the others were corrected. There is no other answer. That’s my answer
E
Eddie_Mac
Guest
All of these examples of decrees, burnings at the stakes, torture, denouncing someone as a heretic, and other examples of bad behavior or behavior that we may not agree with do not fall under the umbrella of infallibility.
If infallibility is a stumbling block, this website and many others can give examples of when the Popes and the Magisterium of the Church have spoken infallibly. It is not just the Pope but the Magisterium as well who speak infallibly on matters of Faith, Morals, and Dogma. If you deny infallibility you are denying the Holy Spirit, plain and simple. If you deny the Spirit, how can you receive any of the Sacraments or even acknowledge anything Catholic? If you reject infallibility and the Holy Spirit you are rejecting the very Love the emanates from the Father and the Son.
You keep speaking of not understanding some things Catholic. I do not understand rejecting the Holy Spirit.
If individuals reject the concept of infallibility, be absolutely certain you understand exactly what you are rejecting. Once you understand what you are rejecting for certain, then you can turn in your Catholic card and pick up your protestant, JW, LDS, or other denomination application form on the way out because you are not Catholic.
I am certain that if you search dilligently enough you can find plenty of women priests, but the host they elevate is not the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
Eddie Mac
If infallibility is a stumbling block, this website and many others can give examples of when the Popes and the Magisterium of the Church have spoken infallibly. It is not just the Pope but the Magisterium as well who speak infallibly on matters of Faith, Morals, and Dogma. If you deny infallibility you are denying the Holy Spirit, plain and simple. If you deny the Spirit, how can you receive any of the Sacraments or even acknowledge anything Catholic? If you reject infallibility and the Holy Spirit you are rejecting the very Love the emanates from the Father and the Son.
You keep speaking of not understanding some things Catholic. I do not understand rejecting the Holy Spirit.
If individuals reject the concept of infallibility, be absolutely certain you understand exactly what you are rejecting. Once you understand what you are rejecting for certain, then you can turn in your Catholic card and pick up your protestant, JW, LDS, or other denomination application form on the way out because you are not Catholic.
I am certain that if you search dilligently enough you can find plenty of women priests, but the host they elevate is not the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
Eddie Mac
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Well said, Eddie Mac.
Yes, it is sad that so many really do seem to have a cognitive ‘disconnect’. (No offense intended).
Nobody is saying that individuals in the Church haven’t erred at times. . .
But the Church itself has never, never, never taught error in Faith and Morals.
Despite the individual actions of some (even some Popes) that were personal error/sin, those individuals never, ever, infallibly presented any teachings on Faith or Morals that was wrong.
Ever.
So St. Joan was burned (and NOT by “the Vatican’”) Certainly a tragic action. . .but was it ‘taught’ as good? Well, hardly.
So various Popes were guilty of personal sin. Did they ever climb up onto the throne of St. Peter and say, “OK, people, fornication is now OK! Murder is OK! The Trinity is now a Quartet!” No.
Heck, St. Peter (even after Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension) was still personally able to sin (peccable, from the Latin) as an individual man. But did he actually proclaim, as leader of The Way, that his actions were ‘not sin’? Did he advocate doing any wrong actions as being ‘right?’ No, he did not.
So all the people who have their knickers in a twist, "mercy me, what if I listen to the Church and it’s ‘wrong again’’ are off the beam.
The Church has not been ‘wrong’. It has not ‘changed the teaching.’
Abortion was never ‘okay’ at one point. It was always wrong. Christ–the Didache–St. Thomas Aquinas–they all were consistent. Abortion was always wrong. But the Church knows that while abortion is always wrong, that each individual needs to have his/her case judged as an individual. Because one person who, under extreme stress, swallowed an herbal ‘brew’ which she only thought “might” cause her to lose her child, and who then immediately sought help, tried to vomit out the drink, but lost the child anyway, is a far different case from another person who, having carried a child to term, but being ‘angry’ at her husband, smothered the infant in a fit of rage and spite. The Church looked at many, **many factors like this in considering civil /criminal penalties for abortion in the past centuries. **To ‘cherry pick’ St. Thomas’ or St. Augustine’s notations on ‘quickening’ and to falsely claim that, "because the penalties for abortion were heavier after quickening means the Church didn’t always look on abortion as wrong like it does today is a false, misleading, and erroneous attempt to claim the Church ‘changed’ when it did not.
Hey, we don’t ‘hang’ people for murder any more like we did back in the Wild West 19th century. Does that mean we have 'changed our minds" about the nature of murder?
Yes, it is sad that so many really do seem to have a cognitive ‘disconnect’. (No offense intended).
Nobody is saying that individuals in the Church haven’t erred at times. . .
But the Church itself has never, never, never taught error in Faith and Morals.
Despite the individual actions of some (even some Popes) that were personal error/sin, those individuals never, ever, infallibly presented any teachings on Faith or Morals that was wrong.
Ever.
So St. Joan was burned (and NOT by “the Vatican’”) Certainly a tragic action. . .but was it ‘taught’ as good? Well, hardly.
So various Popes were guilty of personal sin. Did they ever climb up onto the throne of St. Peter and say, “OK, people, fornication is now OK! Murder is OK! The Trinity is now a Quartet!” No.
Heck, St. Peter (even after Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension) was still personally able to sin (peccable, from the Latin) as an individual man. But did he actually proclaim, as leader of The Way, that his actions were ‘not sin’? Did he advocate doing any wrong actions as being ‘right?’ No, he did not.
So all the people who have their knickers in a twist, "mercy me, what if I listen to the Church and it’s ‘wrong again’’ are off the beam.
The Church has not been ‘wrong’. It has not ‘changed the teaching.’
Abortion was never ‘okay’ at one point. It was always wrong. Christ–the Didache–St. Thomas Aquinas–they all were consistent. Abortion was always wrong. But the Church knows that while abortion is always wrong, that each individual needs to have his/her case judged as an individual. Because one person who, under extreme stress, swallowed an herbal ‘brew’ which she only thought “might” cause her to lose her child, and who then immediately sought help, tried to vomit out the drink, but lost the child anyway, is a far different case from another person who, having carried a child to term, but being ‘angry’ at her husband, smothered the infant in a fit of rage and spite. The Church looked at many, **many factors like this in considering civil /criminal penalties for abortion in the past centuries. **To ‘cherry pick’ St. Thomas’ or St. Augustine’s notations on ‘quickening’ and to falsely claim that, "because the penalties for abortion were heavier after quickening means the Church didn’t always look on abortion as wrong like it does today is a false, misleading, and erroneous attempt to claim the Church ‘changed’ when it did not.
Hey, we don’t ‘hang’ people for murder any more like we did back in the Wild West 19th century. Does that mean we have 'changed our minds" about the nature of murder?
A
ac_claire
Guest
But the Church *hasn’t *erred on matters of faith and morals. You can’t find one example. I think you must be confusing objective teachings about morality with certain actions that you personally find immoral. Actions, by the way, of infallible men and not “of the Church”.
Either I haven’t been clear enough, or you haven’t read my previous posts closely enough.
Who said faith is about believing things you understand? I said the opposite. Understanding can, sometimes (but not all the time), come later as a gift from God. And of course some things we just don’t have trouble either accepting or understanding from the get-go. But yeah, we’re talking about the more difficult teachings here.And that’s the inconsistency. If you believe the Church is in error about the priesthood, that in itself is a heresy. The priesthood is one of the most fundamental tenants of our religion. You can’t, by definition, be faithful to the Church and believe in a heresy about the Church. Do you see how that’s a contradiction? If a person embraces heresy, they’ve left the Church. (Not my opinion-- this is what the Church has decreed.) That person can call themselves a faithful Catholic and claim to be “sticking it out” till the cows come home but, the reality of the situation is that the Church says different. Don’t take my word for it, like I said it has nothing to do with what I think or what I believe.I believe they can correct this error, if it is an error, just like the others were corrected. There is no other answer. That’s my answer
The cool thing is though, in order to make things right you don’t have to suddenly believe these things that you find so hard to believe in. If you can ever come to a place where you decide you want to believe-- because you believe that the Church is what she says she is and you recognize that maybe your own understanding isn’t the final word on whether a teaching is true or not-- you’re pretty much on your way back.
I’m pretty sure God will take it from there.
E
Eris_Discordia
Guest
It’s OK :aok: I wasn’t always Discordian, and it is a very difficult faith to really understand. If you want to learn more about it, I can PM you if you would like, since this isn’t exactly the thread to talk about my faith.
I was raised Catholic, and became apostate, but I came to realize there is a lot I didn’t understand about the Church, and it is important for me to make an informed decision about things of this nature.
R
Rence
Guest
R
Rence
Guest
But the Church *hasn’t *erred on matters of faith and morals. You can’t find one example. I think you must be confusing objective teachings about morality with certain actions that you personally find immoral. Actions, by the way, of infallible men and not “of the Church”.
**I can probably find more examples that would fit the criteria you are looking for if I had more time to spend on it. But I’m beginning to think this is merely a waste of my time (no disrespect intended) because no matter what I come up with, an excuse will be made for it as to why it doesn’t fit the criteria.
Since moving to the Bible Belt, I don’t know ONE Catholic nearby, and I wanted to connect with Catholics again, which is why I joined this forum over Christmas Break. I’ve learned and remembered a lot since I’ve been here. However, for the past few days I’ve wasted a lot of study time trying to communicate with fellow catholics and it’s just been a negative experience for me and frankly I have more appropriate things to research at this time (like reading ECG strips
Did any of you think for maybe a second that if you presented your material in less confrontational hateful way, it might have been received better? I already attempted to read one of the articles one of you referred me to, and when I pointed out what I had problems with, I was “evicted” by someone who had no business doing so, instead of having a meaningful discussion about it.
However, you’re right, I am confused about objective teachings about morality with certain actions that I personally find immoral. I don’t know how to better teach morality than by actions and deeds. They’re way more important that the things one can say. So when leaders of the Church act immorally, I kinda don’t understand how that’s not a teaching. When an instructor teaches something, but then does the opposite in example, it makes the students question the verbal or written teaching. The Church leaders are also our teachers…so if they say something, but do something else, is that not a conflict in instruction?**
Either I haven’t been clear enough, or you haven’t read my previous posts closely enough.
**Well, maybe that’s part of my problem: I find many many teachings of the Church very easy to understand and accept. There are very few things I disagree with. Sooooo, if it’s a more difficult teaching, and may “come later as a gift from God” why am I being pushed so hard to accept something right now (by some people who evidently think they have some authority over me), that I don’t understand? What does the Church teach about those of us who have a hard time understanding and/accepting Church teachings? **
And that’s the inconsistency. If you believe the Church is in error about the priesthood, that in itself is a heresy. The priesthood is one of the most fundamental tenants of our religion. You can’t, by definition, be faithful to the Church and believe in a heresy about the Church. Do you see how that’s a contradiction?
No, I don’t, especially looking back to your previous paragraph. Learning is a step by step process. You can’t pound teachings into someone.
If a person embraces heresy, they’ve left the Church. (Not my opinion-- this is what the Church has decreed.) That person can call themselves a faithful Catholic and claim to be “sticking it out” till the cows come home but, the reality of the situation is that the Church says different. Don’t take my word for it, like I said it has nothing to do with what I think or what I believe.
**I can’t take your word for it. That’s what Priests are for, right? If they don’t tell me that I don’t belong, then certainly a “beat the disbeliever into submission” club on a Catholic forum can’t. On the contrary, I’m always invited back by my parish priests, even the ones I’ve left behind up north. **
The cool thing is though, in order to make things right you don’t have to suddenly believe these things that you find so hard to believe in. If you can ever come to a place where you decide you want to believe-- because you believe that the Church is what she says she is and you recognize that maybe your own understanding isn’t the final word on whether a teaching is true or not-- you’re pretty much on your way back.
Only time will tell. And He aleady did, many times, of that I am VERY VERY certain
R
Rence
Guest
I finally had a chance to call my priest this morning and give him the details about this thread. He told me that I was absolutely not sinning by disagreeing and/or not understanding this teaching. And that I was doing nothing wrong by praying, because praying to God is never wrong. He said that the reason why some of you said I was sinnning and not a Catholic anymore is because you are ultra ultra conservative Catholics and a true Catholic would never turn anyone away from the Church in word or deed. He told me to stop listening to you all because you don’t know what you’re talking about. So you all can say whatever you want, my original thoughts on the matter were reinforced by my priest and that’s what I’m going by. I’ll still take the time to read the encylicals and writings on the matter, but in the end, I either understand it or I wont.
Thank you for your responses to my posts. I know some of you meant well.
Thank you for your responses to my posts. I know some of you meant well.
A
ac_claire
Guest
Wow. I gotta say Rence, either you really misrepresented what has been said in this thread or your priest has just given you bad advice. Sorry. It does happen. If he actually qualified “conservative Catholics” as being a bad thing, that kind of says it all. To say that holding to actual Church teaching = “ultra, ultra conservative Catholics” who don’t know what we’re talking about…wow. I’m really sad to hear that.
A
ac_claire
Guest
One last thing, I hope you do take the time to read the encyclicals and the resources that were recommended to you here. And I really hope that you don’t decide whether or not you’re going to accept them based on whether you “understand” them or not.
Your own personal understanding isn’t so important that it stands as the barameter for what is true or not. You *have *to know that already.
Your own personal understanding isn’t so important that it stands as the barameter for what is true or not. You *have *to know that already.
A
Advocatus_Fidei
Guest
A priest is not above the Pope Rense, who is your priest and what did he tell you about ordaining women?
R
Rence
Guest
I’m not, I’m pretty happy about it myselfWow. I gotta say Rence, either you really misrepresented what has been said in this thread or your priest has just given you bad advice. Sorry. It does happen. If he actually qualified “conservative Catholics” as being a bad thing, that kind of says it all. To say that holding to actual Church teaching = “ultra, ultra conservative Catholics” who don’t know what we’re talking about…wow. I’m really sad to hear that.
I gotta say, I’m not sure if you misunderstood what I had posted, but my priest in no way implied or said that being an ultra ultra concervative Catholic as being bad. Not in the least. I’m not sure how you would have read that in a post where I clearly didn’t say that.
Let’s do it again:
I finally had a chance to call my priest this morning and give him the details about this thread. He told me that I was absolutely not sinning by disagreeing and/or not understanding this teaching. And that I was doing nothing wrong by praying, because praying to God is never wrong. He said that the reason why some of you said I was sinnning and not a Catholic anymore is because you are ultra ultra conservative Catholics and a true Catholic would never turn anyone away from the Church in word or deed. He told me to stop listening to you all because you don’t know what you’re talking about. So you all can say whatever you want, my original thoughts on the matter were reinforced by my priest and that’s what I’m going by. I’ll still take the time to read the encylicals and writings on the matter, but in the end, I either understand it or I wont.
Thank you for your responses to my posts. I know some of you meant well
He said: I was not sinning by disagreeing and/or no understanding this teaching.
He said I was doing nothing wrong by praying.
He said the reason why some of you said I was sinning and not a Cathlolic anymore is because you are ultra ultra conservative
(now, I took him to mean, and since I was there having a conversation with him): the ultra ultra conservative people on this forum stick to the very traditional view that we can’t hold our own opininons and/or have trouble understanding teachings without risking hellfire and damnation…or worse). Which is true, is it not? Was this not the whole point of trying to convince me that I was so wrong and you were so right?
He said a true Catholic would never turn anyone away from the Church in word or deed. I think that’s true too.
As to the part about you all not knowing what you were talking about. Well, that must be true, since what you told me was false. And I totally believe and trust him. He has more credibility than a few people on an online forum. I’m sure you can understand that.
I hope that clears up any miscommunication, I wouldn’t want you think that I (or the priest I spoke to) would look on any of you in a negative light. We’re just different is all. Our perpective is different.
Thank you for your reply
R
Rence
Guest
He said that women are not allowed to be priests, which of course I acknowledged from the very very beginning. He said he doesn’t even discuss it with people. He said I am not sinning by not understanding it, or that I think it might change in the future. He said that I follow the rules of the Church and that I was doing nothing wrong by praying about it. He said to stop listening to folks online and just practice the faith.
And why do you need to know who my priest is? so you can beat him down like you tried to beat me down? uh-uh. Go harass someone else
As to being above the Pope, you all aren’t either. But I’m sure I don’t have to remind you of that…
- Status