Vatican makes attempted ordination of Women a grave crime

[Via_Dolorosa]

You seem to be missing the POINT, m’dear.

You say, “look at the prayer”. WHERE are the sources and authentications of WHERE this came from? It is NOT the original Aramaic of the Scriptures. . .(which it claims had ‘excerpts only’). He said the Lord’s prayer is excerpted from to reading from the bible and he cited them That was the excerpt not the translation . .where are the primary source documents which support it, what are the credentials of the ‘scholars’ who translated it, what are the bona fides of the ‘documents’ from which they supposedly ‘translated’ it, etc.?
Thepoint he is making is that the bible has been translated from one language to another to another and again. Within these translations as he explained the original meaning may change since some languages have no word for another word (my thought)
And what of the credentials of the man posting this?

And you couldn’t find the same scholarly credentials on your OWN diocesean site? From your OWN textbook? From the C.V. of whoever in your parish gave the presentation? I didn’[t look, dear, But let me assure you the catechist mention it showed it to us, and we moved on.[/COLOR]

Come on, dear, give us credit for brains. We don’t just look at some words on the Internet and say, "it must be true, it’s right there in (cyber) print!’ We need a lot more ‘fact’ than you supplied.
sheez

 

[choy]

If he didn’t have a Y chromosome he wasn’t like us in all things except sin.

Jesus does certainly have everything every other human has
i think its besides the point to discuss if there was a sperm or God just fertilized Mary’s egg directly. God created the whole universe out of nothing, i’m sure getting a woman pregnant without a man or without sperm would be peanuts

besdies, are we going to waste our time debating something none of us can answer? since no one was there and there were no modern medical equipment to capture the process, how can we know for sure which opinion or theory is the right one?

 

[curlycool89]

If he didn’t have a Y chromosome he wasn’t like us in all things except sin.

So you don’t think that God is able to circumvent the rules He created? Why are you putting God in a box?

Of course – the writers were men!

Do you doubt the authenticity of the Bible? Do you think it’s not the Word of God, but of men?

More anger issues.

Ok, maybe I was on a bit of a rant (it was my lunch break, I don’t have a lot of time), but you don’t seem to be getting it. The way you dismissed everything I said by just saying “anger issues” proves to me that no interest in actually learning, but just prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and go “lah lah lah lah lah! I’m not listening”.

It’s probably been at least a couple of days since I last ranted on this, so let’s give it a go. It’s terrible debate. You haven’t attempted to answer any of the questions or discuss any of the points. What you’ve done is tried to dismiss your opponent and tried to make it like you’re taking the “high ground”. It’s a dirty tactic mostly used by politicians because it’s much easier to try to put your opponent down then to try to raise yourself up. It’s a tactic that people should grow out of by the time they’re potty trained, but with the last generation (mostly my generation unfortunately) of child-centered parenting and the culture of victimhood (especially in America) it has become unfortunately common. Being the “victim” is now “in”, so calling out anyone who disagrees with you as a “hater” seems to give you credibility and takes it away from your opponent.

I’ve been in enough debates to recognize it. The desired reaction is for your opponent to back down (because no one wants to be a “hater” or a “bully”), but don’t. I actually have a inspiration song for that, Get Over It by The Eagles. They should really making it a part of the curriculum in elementary school so that we don’t end up with another “me generation” ful of whiners.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

The all-male Trinity, is, of course, one model of God, but it is not the only one. You make an elementary theological mistake if you hypostatize one model and declare it to be the exclusively legitimate one.

StAnastasia

God is beyond gender. If referring to God as exclusively male is helpful to some people’s spirituality, fine. If referring to God as revealing both female and male qualities is helpful to some people’s spirituality, fine.

StAnastasia

If he didn’t have a Y chromosome he wasn’t like us in all things except sin.

Did you read my response to you in post 176 that applies to your first quote #1? Your quotes #1,#2 and #3 don’t appear to be in agreement with the current Pope, BENEDICT XVI. ( I noticed your religion is Catholic.) You can also read it from the Vatican website. I have provided you the link as you can see below.

"BENEDICT XVI
ANGELUS
Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity
Saint Peter’s Square
Sunday, 7 June 2009
Dear Brothers and Sisters,

"After the Easter Season which culminated in the Feast of Pentecost, the liturgy provides for these three Solemnities of the Lord: today, Trinity Sunday; next Thursday, Corpus Christi which in many countries, including Italy, will be celebrated next Sunday; and finally, on the following Friday, the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Each one of these liturgical events highlights a perspective by which the whole mystery of the Christian faith is embraced: and that is, respectively the reality of the Triune God, the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the divine and human centre of the Person of Christ. These are truly aspects of the one mystery of salvation which, in a certain sense, sum up the whole itinerary of the revelation of Jesus, from his Incarnation to his death and Resurrection and, finally, to his Ascension and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

"Today we contemplate the Most Holy Trinity as Jesus introduced us to it. He revealed to us that God is love “not in the oneness of a single Person, but in the Trinity of one substance” (Preface). He is the Creator and merciful Father; he is the Only-Begotten Son, eternal Wisdom incarnate, who died and rose for us; he is the Holy Spirit who moves all things, cosmos and history, toward their final, full recapitulation. Three Persons who are one God because the Father is love, the Son is love, the Spirit is love. God is wholly and only love, the purest, infinite and eternal love. He does not live in splendid solitude but rather is an inexhaustible source of life that is ceaselessly given and communicated. To a certain extent we can perceive this by observing both the macro-universe: our earth, the planets, the stars, the galaxies; and the micro-universe: cells, atoms, elementary particles. The “name” of the Blessed Trinity is, in a certain sense, imprinted upon all things because all that exists, down to the last particle, is in relation; in this way we catch a glimpse of God as relationship and ultimately, Creator Love. All things derive from love, aspire to love and move impelled by love, though naturally with varying degrees of awareness and freedom. “O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!” (Ps 8: 1) the Psalmist exclaims. In speaking of the “name”, the Bible refers to God himself, his truest identity. It is an identity that shines upon the whole of Creation, in which all beings for the very fact that they exist and because of the “fabric” of which they are made point to a transcendent Principle, to eternal and infinite Life which is given, in a word, to Love. “In him we live and move and have our being”, St Paul said at the Areopagus of Athens (Acts 17: 28). The strongest proof that we are made in the image of the Trinity is this: love alone makes us happy because we live in a relationship, and we live to love and to be loved. Borrowing an analogy from biology, we could say that imprinted upon his “genome”, the human being bears a profound mark of the Trinity, of God as Love.

“The Virgin Mary, in her docile humility, became the handmaid of divine Love: she accepted the Father’s will and conceived the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit. In her the Almighty built a temple worthy of him and made her the model and image of the Church, mystery and house of communion for all human beings. May Mary, mirror of the Blessed Trinity, help us to grow in faith in the Trinitarian mystery.”
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20090607_en.html

 

[Tantum_ergo]

sheez

Pithy.

Who is the ‘he’ presenting this? What was the rest of the ‘presentation’ that you moved on to? What was this all ‘about’? What are ‘his’ credentials?

I mean, I’m not attacking the man (or you). With the best will in the world, you might have not exactly gotten the gist of what was being taught. . .you might have gotten a wrong impression. It happens. . .but without knowing more than that you think he was talking about some prayer and using it (heaven knows why but as I said, maybe you’ll remember more and in the context it will start to make sense) to ‘explain’ not only that we don’t take the Bible ‘literally’ (which is not EXACTLY what Catholics teach in that it is an ‘unfinished’ sentence; we don’t take every single ‘word-for-word’ in the Bible as NECESSARILY literal, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t take anything at ALL literally), but why you used this to try to say that Catholics did not teach in the Our Father (colloquially speaking) that God was Father!

And I won’t call you ‘dear’ since you don’t like it.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Via, your profile says you’re somewhere around Chicago (indeed a most excellent diocese). With all the excellent schools and programs there you mean to tell me you have no better ‘link’ to a prayer than the one you gave? I don’t mean to pry, but is this as part of a teaching program for adult RCIA? For a Master’s? For a ‘seminar’? Is this the ONLY thing you were taught? If it was part of a course, surely there was more to the C.V. than that prayer, and you’d want to show me that Dr. So-and-so presenting course X as part of program Y was demonstrating through this ‘prayer’ and through these other scholarly works (names) a particular POV which has the diocesean seal of approval from Bishop X. . .

Ok, let me be more clear since it seems to have caused uproar. I teach in aCatholic school. We are required to have a certain amount of hours in order to make sure we know what we are talking about. I was at a Level II class meaning , at this point I would be finishing 24 hours of instruction. One 2 hour class was on the Our Father. We studied it and our teacher who has a doctorate in theology for the diocese finished it up by reading a paper he had in his hand. I believe he put it on the overhead. We discussed the translation and I asked if I may have a copy. He said he only had one copy with his notes on it and the ovehead. He gave me his copy to copy. Since it was not a clean copy he said I could find the prayer on the internet which I did. I thought the translation was more profound in the Aramaic translation than in English. I show it to the kids when we study the Our Father and make my point about not taking the bible literally because of the language difficulty.
In reading through this thread I was reminded of the prayer. I looked for a translation on line and the rest is a sad history.

 

[catharina]

How can you possibly be coming to an understanding that I just created my own church? You just copied most of what I said and made this declaritive statement. What did you read specifically that indicated I created another protestant church? Waht is that central fact? The church can teach truth. I have some questions on the actions of our church. Our church has done some wrong things. Christ left us his church but he also expects us to care for it and nuture it. Since Vatican II we are all church, all one body. Is that brand new or was that Christs intention all along?

From your earlier post, wherein you invented NEW beliefs, at odds with Church Teachings:

*1. The men who wrote the the Old and New Testament used their ability to TRY to understand and decided that the correct pronoun was “he”. Remember that there is one Godhead and three distinct persons in the trinity all in one with the Godhead. The trinity does not say there are three persons of the same sex with beards and blue eyes.

1. I believe Jesus used “Father” because to continually say “I am who am” is difficult. And back in a wholly male dominated world-not just Hebrews, nearly EVERYONE else, it would be the most understandable. It makes sense to me that when you speak to your audience you try to relate well with them.
2. But it helps me to think of them as God the Family…God the Father, God the Son and God the Mother (Holy Spirit). I understand a family. It makes it simple for me to think of the three of them in relationship in this way. That’s not written anywhere. I just happen to like it.
3. I believe them (female priests) to be courageous and not scared by pronouns; it’s ok with them if men are called to be priests.
4. If I decide to go to a women priest to hear my confession and I am truly sorry and she forgives me I think God will accept that. A human being in the Catholic organization may be incapable of that but I think God can easily get over that hurdle.
5. And transubstaniation is a matter of total faith. But I have no faith that if a pedaphile priest blesses the host with, the same hands and blessed fingers that were also used to abuse children, that anything happens at all. My belief and I don’t care who says I’m wrong about this. This is as grave as it gets. A mortal sin-unquestionably. Can it be forgiven-sure.
6. But if continues to occur-even venial sins don’t get forgiven in this case.
7. Laicization? I had to look it up. I don’t know all the terms. So now we both know its a process. So now we know that a member of the clergy who sexually abuses our children gets to go through a process and in the end might not get to be a priest anymore.
8. But excommunication is out of the question for them? Not only can they continue to recieve the sacrements in prison, if the laicization process isn’t done, there can adminster the sacraments. How in the world would this be the will of God.

All points above (and more) are your own inventions -
every one of them, contradicting Teachings of the Church.

1. I’m new on this forum and I read the rules and I’m not supposed to make these posts long. I’l try to get better at brevity. *

**Re this point, # 10, While working on brevity, please decide to make use of paragraphs too. It would be such a help to these older failing eyes in being able to read what you’re saying.

For your convenience, I’ll remind you and others that your post in this matter was #132.**

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Pithy.

Who is the ‘he’ presenting this? What was the rest of the ‘presentation’ that you moved on to? What was this all ‘about’? What are ‘his’ credentials?

I mean, I’m not attacking the man (or you). With the best will in the world, you might have not exactly gotten the gist of what was being taught. . .you might have gotten a wrong impression. It happens. . .but without knowing more than that you think he was talking about some prayer and using it (heaven knows why but as I said, maybe you’ll remember more and in the context it will start to make sense) to ‘explain’ not only that we don’t take the Bible ‘literally’ (which is not EXACTLY what Catholics teach in that it is an ‘unfinished’ sentence; we don’t take every single ‘word-for-word’ in the Bible as NECESSARILY literal, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t take anything at ALL literally), but why you used this to try to say that Catholics did not teach in the Our Father (colloquially speaking) that God was Father!

And I won’t call you ‘dear’ since you don’t like it.

If my explanation does not satisfy you, let me know

 

[philiswilling]

Thank you for your words. I easily agree with you.

I have never chat roomed or forumed before this on any site; until a few days ago here. I thought this would be a good place to dialogue and I picked this string believing at the time, that I would find other like minded people. I’ve been catholic all my life and I don’t think I was ever once taught that you could not question the church. And yet many responses to me and others basically suggest this as a serious sin even heresy. There seems to be little tolerance of a new point of view but a great desire to use very well schooled specific church teachings to back away anyone with a discenting thought.
It really seems to me that if a question of behavior came up and the answers came from both Christ and the Curia, that the Curia would be the final word. I don’t know what I’ve learned so far but I have observed many responses I never would have imagined.
Women priests teaching Gods word and administering the sacramants just as serious a sin as abuse of children by an all male clergy.
I went to an all mens Catholic High School and although it has been more than a few years this statement would have been answered, “Women priests-sure if that’s what they want to do. But good luck cause Rome will say no.” Pediphiles-preist or secular-well being in high school the answer was very very simple. Today my alumni would agree to just call the police immediately.

The first situation wasn’t considered by us to even be close to a sin, just an attempt at the futile. The second is repulsive to everyone as an act against god and society. There is no leeway for this behavior in our society but to our church it is not quite that simple.

It wasn’t my intention to use your comments to vent a little of the frustration of the last few days. The comments you make I find encouraging and yet you have such a better way than I for speaking it. Hopefully I can learn from your example as I continue to be a part of this web site. Peace and Joy

God is beyond gender. If referring to God as exclusively male is helpful to some people’s spirituality, fine. If referring to God as revealing both female and male qualities is helpful to some people’s spirituality, fine.

I don’t tend to think of God as gendered – the enormous, bearded, white-haired Republican-in-the-sky. But gendering God can help some people, and that is fine. Several of our pirests refer to “God our mother and father.”

StAnastasia

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If my explanation does not satisfy you, let me know

Much clearer, thank you.

See, what concerns me (not that I am trying to ‘pick’ at you) is that the understanding I got from the above is that you presented this to people (I did not know at the time to your own students) in a way that (as I understood it) seemed slightly problematic.

The way I understood it was that you were using a prayer which you said at first was an Aramaic translation of the Our Father which ‘proved’ that the ‘original’ did not refer to God as "Father’.

That does not jibe though with Catholic teaching. While certainly we know that the Father does not have a human ‘gender’ we do know that the Son is male (human) and 'consubstantial" with the Father, who is very particularly addressed in the Creed as “Father.”

Now, either the translators (a mere 300 years later) got it wrong and the ‘error’ has been perpetuated through now --which again doesn’t jibe with Catholic teaching–

OR the original Aramaic is a ‘limited’ (because human) way of trying to give an understanding that God, while Creator and Father in the First Person specifically, is not ‘the same as’ a male human being. . .with the understanding being that He is, however, in no way to be considered a ‘female’ human being either, and He is not some kind of ‘androgenous’ hybrid of ‘male-female’. . .

OR the translation, though it might have some esoteric value as a finding of a non-inerrant piece of work which may or may not be original, is simply a translation, which has, for whatever reason, itself become corrupt and its meaning distorted.

The other ‘troubled feeling’ I had was when you ‘truncated’ a statement that "We teach the kids not to take the Bible literally’. Um, say what now? The fact is, that is an incomplete statement and as it stands, it’s a wrong statement if it implies that this is ALL we do.

We should be teaching the children that a given word or passage may not be meant literally (in the context), but that (conversely) it certainly MAY be meant literally.

John 6 and “Eat my Flesh” is most certainly literal–it’s why the Jewish people walked away finding this ‘teaching is too hard.’

If you’re telling your students, "you don’t need to take the Bible literally’, are you making sure that you’re telling them, “except where it IS literal?” That they may think of the creation 7 day narrative as not 7 literal 24-hour days (though it may have been, but it is not absolutely dogmatic that it was, it could be a literary device). . .but that Moses DID receive the Law from God, that Moses’ wasn’t just some ‘literary device’ himself? That’s what I’m asking you.

And “Our Father” (and the word “Father” in reference to the First Person of the Trinity, whom Jesus addressed as such many times) is not “our male human parent Father” but He is also not some ‘mixed bag’ male-female either.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

How does one utilize the multiple quote feature?

 

[catharina]

… I’ve been catholic all my life and I don’t think I was ever once taught that you could not question the church. And yet many responses to me and others basically suggest this as a serious sin even heresy. There seems to be little tolerance of a new point of view but a great desire to use very well schooled specific church teachings to back away anyone with a discenting thought.

It really seems to me that if a question of behavior came up and the answers came from both Christ and the Curia, that the Curia would be the final word. I don’t know what I’ve learned so far but I have observed many responses I never would have imagined.
Women priests teaching Gods word and administering the sacramants just as serious a sin as abuse of children by an all male clergy.

I went to an all mens Catholic High School and although it has been more than a few years this statement would have been answered, “Women priests-sure if that’s what they want to do. But good luck cause Rome will say no.” Pediphiles-preist or secular-well being in high school the answer was very very simple. Today my alumni would agree to just call the police immediately.

The first situation wasn’t considered by us to even be close to a sin, just an attempt at the futile. The second is repulsive to everyone as an act against god and society. There is no leeway for this behavior in our society but to our church it is not quite that simple.

Questioning the Church and its teaching can be very normal behavior.
One might do this with the goal of better understanding a teaching.

Rejecting the teachings of the Church - as you choose to do - is another matter.
Rejecting the teachings of the Church is not allowed, much less “encouraged.”

For example, YOUR theory that women priests can forgive your sin (previous post 132)?
Untrue, unacceptable, full rejection of a teaching of the Catholic faith.
How can you allow yourself to accept such a thing in such a circumstance?

“Liking” your habit of imagining God as the Father, Son, the Mother?
Off the wall if you imagine that speaks to you of Divine Truth!

YOUR decision that a repeat-molester of children is stuck in ALL future sin, even venial?
Preposterous thing to suggest, much less believe and spread around.

Yes.
We can question teachings.
Yet we can NOT reject those teachings -
even if you imagine your version of truth is “better” than God’s teaching in the Church.

Please, take a step back to pray and THINK.
It’s likely that your former teachers allowed questioning - but NOT DISSENT.

 

[catharina]

Much clearer, thank you.

See, what concerns me (not that I am trying to ‘pick’ at you) is that the understanding I got from the above is that you presented this to people (I did not know at the time to your own students) in a way that (as I understood it) seemed slightly problematic.

The way I understood it was that you were using a prayer which you said at first was an Aramaic translation of the Our Father which ‘proved’ that the ‘original’ did not refer to God as "Father’.

That does not jibe though with Catholic teaching. While certainly we know that the Father does not have a human ‘gender’ we do know that the Son is male (human) and 'consubstantial" with the Father, who is very particularly addressed in the Creed as “Father.”

Now, either the translators (a mere 300 years later) got it wrong and the ‘error’ has been perpetuated through now --which again doesn’t jibe with Catholic teaching–

OR the original Aramaic is a ‘limited’ (because human) way of trying to give an understanding that God, while Creator and Father in the First Person specifically, is not ‘the same as’ a male human being. . .with the understanding being that He is, however, in no way to be considered a ‘female’ human being either, and He is not some kind of ‘androgenous’ hybrid of ‘male-female’. . .

OR the translation, though it might have some esoteric value as a finding of a non-inerrant piece of work which may or may not be original, is simply a translation, which has, for whatever reason, itself become corrupt and its meaning distorted.

**The other ‘troubled feeling’ I had was when you ‘truncated’ a statement that "We teach the kids not to take the Bible literally’. **

Um, say what now? The fact is, that is an incomplete statement and as it stands, it’s a wrong statement if it implies that this is ALL we do.

We should be teaching the children that a given word or passage may not be meant literally (in the context), but that (conversely) it certainly MAY be meant literally.

John 6 and “Eat my Flesh” is most certainly literal–it’s why the Jewish people walked away finding this ‘teaching is too hard.’

If you’re telling your students, "you don’t need to take the Bible literally’, are you making sure that you’re telling them, “except where it IS literal?” That they may think of the creation 7 day narrative as not 7 literal 24-hour days (though it may have been, but it is not absolutely dogmatic that it was, it could be a literary device). . .but that Moses DID receive the Law from God, that Moses’ wasn’t just some ‘literary device’ himself? That’s what I’m asking you.

And “Our Father” (and the word “Father” in reference to the First Person of the Trinity, whom Jesus addressed as such many times) is not “our male human parent Father” but He is also not some ‘mixed bag’ male-female either.

Agree with you. That statement by Via was of great concern to me too.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Here’s what I’ m saying. Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors. We get the gist of his teaching with the literal translations. How many of us have to pull an *** out of a well on the sabbath?
Just like in English, one word may have several meanings use the word 'down" for example and it can be a noun, a verb and a prepositon. If you want a the most bizarre example lookup the f word in the dictionary and the explanation is longer than “is”. This is just English. Ancient aramaic had the same problem but even more so. Than it went Latin and Greek and so on. You know where I am going. This does not take into acount the idioms and colloquialisms of any given language in any given period of time. The Catholic Church has recognized this.
It appears that the readers here are very literal. Therein lies the problem. Life is not always literal, but many times metaphorical. I’ll try to remember that if I post again. Didn’t mean to cause this much distress.

 

[Linda_Marie]

The Church cannot change Her Teachings. This is what we have from the Apostles who got it from Christ. The Church was never given the authority to ordain women, therefore She can’t.

As a convert, I had to address this within myself. It bothered me, at first, not being able to be a priest because of an accident of birth, something over which I have no control nor can change. It was not that I wanted to be a priest, it was just that it was forbidden to me (never mind that I was already married). Well, a priest can never be a mother. By an accident of birth which he cannot change, he has no chance ever of being a mother. There are other things, like aptitudes with which we are born, or our IQ. Not all of us can be gifted brain surgeons, for instance. Some things are forbidden to us from the get-go. That’s life.

We are, however, each of us, singularly, uniquely and individually gifted by God with certain talents. Although women may be excluded from that particular way to serve God, there are many other ways available to us.

As Catholics, we are free to think about the various mysteries of our faith, not only free, but encouraged. However, we are also cautioned that if our conclusion varies from what has been taught, it is not Tradition which is in error, but ourselves. When we are confronted by one of these conflicts, we are beholden to learn why the Church teaches as She does and to accept Her word over our own conclusions. We humbly submit to the God-given Authority of the Church. Humility pleases God, and humble obedience is a virtue to be cultivated. The first Sin was disobedience. Disobedience is extremely displeasing to God.

Christ gave the Church the Authority to Teach and promised to send the Holy Spirit to protect Her from ever Teaching error. No single person has the Promise, only His Church.

Here is a link to the Catechism

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

The Church cannot change Her Teachings. This is what we have from the Apostles who got it from Christ. The Church was never given the authority to ordain women, therefore She can’t.

As a convert, I had to address this within myself. It bothered me, at first, not being able to be a priest because of an accident of birth, something over which I have no control nor can change. It was not that I wanted to be a priest, it was just that it was forbidden to me (never mind that I was already married). Well, a priest can never be a mother. By an accident of birth which he cannot change, he has no chance ever of being a mother. There are other things, like aptitudes with which we are born, or our IQ. Not all of us can be gifted brain surgeons, for instance. Some things are forbidden to us from the get-go. That’s life.

We are, however, each of us, singularly, uniquely and individually gifted by God with certain talents. Although women may be excluded from that particular way to serve God, there are many other ways available to us.

As Catholics, we are free to think about the various mysteries of our faith, not only free, but encouraged. However, we are also cautioned that if our conclusion varies from what has been taught, it is not Tradition which is in error, but ourselves. When we are confronted by one of these conflicts, we are beholden to learn why the Church teaches as She does and to accept Her word over our own conclusions. We humbly submit to the God-given Authority of the Church. Humility pleases God, and humble obedience is a virtue to be cultivated. The first Sin was disobedience. Disobedience is extremely displeasing to God.

Christ gave the Church the Authority to Teach and promised to send the Holy Spirit to protect Her from ever Teaching error. No single person has the Promise, only His Church.

Here is a link to the Catechism

Yes, but if you have a question you have to take it to the logical conclusion. you have to “get” the answer.
The inquisitive human mind demands this. The Church is based on Truth and that never changes. Truth is Truth. some people take differnet routes to arrive at the truth…think St. Monica and St. Augustine.
There is a tendency to mock people who are searching for the truth a this site.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

We can’t use the word *** as it applies to the gospels?

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

OK I get it. When was the last time any of us pulled a donkey out of a well on the sabbath. so ridiculous a censor.

 

[catharina]

OK I get it. When was the last time any of us pulled a donkey out of a well on the sabbath. so ridiculous a censor.

What “you don’t seem to get” is this.

If you are teaching the Faith to children, you teach The FAITH.
You don’t teach the variety of linguistic appraoches and meanings
“needed” for a fuller understanding.
No such things are needed for understanding by children.
Children are children.

St Paul reminds all that new Christians (for example) are given milk - simple truth.

Later, MUCH later, they are able to receive and digest meant - complications /nuances regarding the study of Scriptures and Theology.

Hope you can “get it” REGARDING THESE TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES.

 

[curlycool89]

Yes, but if you have a question you have to take it to the logical conclusion. you have to “get” the answer.
The inquisitive human mind demands this. The Church is based on Truth and that never changes. Truth is Truth. some people take differnet routes to arrive at the truth…think St. Monica and St. Augustine.
There is a tendency to mock people who are searching for the truth a this site.

I think you’re confusing mocking with correcting (it’s that whole victim culture again).

Yes, there are areas in theology that are open to questioning, but a lot of the time here it’s about settled matters. The idea of women priests has been settled (John Paul II himself said so in an encyclical that the CDF has declared to be under the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium). When a matter is settled, that means that there’s no more discussion.