What was your biggest disagreement on CAF

  • Thread starter Thread starter commenter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
While He certainly initially shared the Eucharist with only men, Christ also said that unless you eat His flesh and drink his Blood that you have no life within you. Since we know clearly that He came to save all people, then He must have intended for both men and women to receive the Eucharist. He made no such proclamation with regard to the sacrament of holy orders. Besides, I’m no theologian, but I’m fairly certain that the theology of a male-only priesthood is a little deeper than that Jesus only selected males (though that it certainly a large part).
 
I’ve had a ton of disagreements over the course of the years. My favorites were always the civil debates back in the day when a ton of EO posted here. I’ve had some less civil debates with those with a liberal bent (although I was certainly guilty of some of that lack of civility), and even some pretty heated disagreements with conservatives and traditionalists, with whom I typically agree. My most heated argument, however, may have been with a particularly vile excuse for a human who insisted that decaf actually counted as coffee. What an uncultured savage :roll_eyes:…
 
Fuerza said:
I’m fairly certain that the theology of a male-only priesthood is a little deeper than that Jesus only selected males
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Not sure about this. I see this claim repeated every time the issue is raised.
Fuerza said:
Since we know clearly that He came to save all people, then He must have intended for both men and women to receive the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
And, since we know He came to save all people, then He must have intended for both men and women to receive all the sacraments.
 
That has always been one that boggles my mind. If interpreting Scripture, which is limited to a single bound book, for oneself is problematic, this free-for-all with anything in the Vatican archives is beyond my comprehension.
 
FiveLinden said:
And, since we know He came to save all people, then He must have intended for both men and women to receive all the sacraments.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how that follows. Not all sacraments are necessary for salvation. One can certainly be saved without being married or ordained.
 
I would say the disagreement that was most surprising to me (biggest seems ambiguous) was that very faithful Catholics did not think it was at all wrong to ask a person why they did not receive communion. Some thought such a question was perfectly normal with regards to spouses or children. I was truly shocked.
 
If those people who said she should leave her family were here in person, I would slap all their faces for suggesting such a thing. I have no hesitation in saying that they have denied the faith and are worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8). What’s wrong with living as brother and sister? That’s a legitimate option too. It is a wonderful thing to sacrifice one’s own needs for one’s children—in fact, that’s what good parents do.
 
She would be called to make that leap of faith and do what’s necessary. God should come first.
 
Biggest were probably with folks claiming that the Church supports the death penalty and that Catholics shouldn’t believe in evolution.
 
Your permissiveness with regard to divorce is shocking. This is the kind of BS Daddysgirl2 is complaining about with Catholics—that we don’t care about family despite claiming to care. Don’t prove her right.
 
Shocking? BS? I don’t think so.

If you read my profile, I am not what most here would consider a Catholic. I am far more agnostic.

What is shocking to me is the number of people here willing to prescribe advice on a marriage (hypothetical or otherwise) that they don’t have full knowledge of (which are all marriages. If you aren’t in it, you don’t know). It can be dangerous and/or harmful to stay in a marriage, sometimes. It takes two to tango. You can’t force an unwilling spouse to step up. This attitude of just staying together for the kids and making it work through sacrifice is often the way to go, if a couple can agree on terms. Often times, though, it isn’t.

The Church agrees with me on this, btw. Of course in the case of civil divorce, the Church still considers the couple married (yet separated). An annulment would have to be obtained before either party is considered “not married” by the Church. Obviously, I don’t agree with this but that is between the individuals and their church/ faith to work out. My concern is keeping people as safe and healthy (physically and emotionally) as possible. Sorry if you find that shocking, or BS.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I see.

All the world is becoming uncivil, and sadly even CAF.

Head over to the Lounge for a little peace and quiet. Jeeves has broken out ‘the good stuff’ from the cellar for one last feast.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top