Originally Posted By cmpaley >><<< the Church speaks with Christ's own authority. >>> Please address this in the context of the Church having been demonstratably wrong on so many things over the ages. I'll once again use my example of denying the heliocentric solar system. Presumably, Christ knows and has always known that the Earth revolves around the Sun. So how do we explain that people acting with His authority on Earth were excommunicating people for claiming what happened to be the truth, based on that authority? Or is it that the Church acts on His authority, but without His wisdom and knowledge? Regardless of the answers, I can't seem to come up with a situation that makes any sense. Does the Church have an answer to this? Maybe they do, or maybe it's something they'd just rather not talk about.<< Ah, the old Galileo affair. Galileo was not persecuted because of his heliocentric beliefs. Copernicus preceded Galileo in that belief and was not subject to the Inquisition. There is much more to it than that. Additionally, geocentrism has never been a matter of faith or morals. The Church is not the arbiter of scientific fact, her job is to preach the Word of God and to confect the Sacraments. Her authority is in those matters only. And before this is brought up, the Pope did (and does) exercise authority on earth as head of state because of the fact that the Vatican (and previously, the Papal States) has been its own country for a very long time. The Pope's authority as the Pastor of the Universal Church is not reliant on that temporal authority, however.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Yeah, Dave, your comments about your bro reminded me very much of my dealings with church "authorities" as a kid...I was definitely full of questions and they had ALL the "answers". Did you know that persons who commited suicide weren't allowed a church burial...well, until recently when they (er, God? I hope he filled out the heavenly paperwork on that one! maybe my Mom slid in on a technicality after all!), CHANGED THEIR MINDS on the matter.<< A matter of discipline, not of faith and morals. We don't know who is in hell. We can know who is in heaven (the saints), but never in hell. The Church teaches to pray for all the dead. Someone once asked, "how long should I pray for the dead?" Answer: Until you see them again. >>So much of this discussion stems from such rubbish.<< To those who don't see the big picture, sure. >>It just goes to prove that the church is seperate and ignorant of "god", if there really is one. after all, if this was all "divine truth", it wouldn't change would it?<< Once again, divine Truth never changes. How we act upon that truth can and does change from time to time. Liturgies and disciplines change all the time. That doesn't change the underlying truth of what they signify. For exmape, the Mass is the Mass is the Mass is the Mass. It doesn't matter if it's celebrated according to the Tridentine Rite (the Mass of Paul V, pre 1970) or the Novus Ordo Missae (the Mass of Paul VI, post 1970). The same doctrine undergirds and is celebrated in both, just in different ways. >>I have a couple of issues with the concept of the afterlife anyway. 1) Isn't spending eternity in awareness more akin to hell than heaven? Think about it...forever. So, you master all the arts, learn all the languages, explore the cosmos, chat with God about the meaning of everything, see all there is to see, hear all there is to hear, go back in time and experience everything there ever was... And, still, eternity lies before you. Boredom doesn't quite cover it. It truly sounds like hell.<< Actually, that's due to our concept of time. In heaven (and hell) there is no time, only the eternal NOW. Question 6 of the old Baltimore Catechism really lays it out: Q. Why did God make you? A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven. >>2) To go back to my old pal Strudel (noone has mentioned her...I'm bummed! just kidding, it's just a DOG right?). The concept of "hell" is impossible if you believe in a heaven which is a place of eternal comfort and bliss. Think about it. Some deserve one, others deserve the other. But some of the DESERVING in heaven have loved ones in hell.<< Ah, this is where things go off track. I think protestants and fundamentalists will agree with me here when I say: NO ONE DESERVES HEAVEN. Absolutely NO ONE. Everyone who makes heaven is there only by the grace and mercy of God. >>When you die, and find out that your lover, mother, child, best friend, cherished mentor...is in hell, how can you POSSIBLY be at peace, blissful, and happy in heaven? The answer is you CAN'T.<< Actually, in heaven, we will have the perfect perspective of God's justice and mercy. People in hell are there because they REJECTED God's love and mercy. No one is in hell on accident. >>Another reason why these concepts are utterly stupid.<< They seem so to our natural minds.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>But even more than the issues with the catholic church, I am scared about the fundamentalist christian movement in the US right now. I understand that many Americans are the decendents of Puritans, and also the remoteness of some of the communities in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries have evolved into this neo fundamentalism. But I amso shocked at the thoughts of so many of our fellow countrymen today.<< Actually, it's the Anglo/Germanic mindset at play. Notice that people from northern Europe tend to be more literary and literAL than those from Southern Europe. It's interesting, but notice where a lot of the great symphonies come from: Germany and Russia. Some of the most beautiful literature is out of England. On the other hand, visual art (such as sculpture and painting) mostly comes out of Italy. This is highly indicative of the mindsets at work. Northern Europe and England, where America's legacy was born, is also where the Protestant Reformation (or Protestant Revolt <G>) began. It stands to reason that America would also give birth to some of the more fundamentalist forms of Christianity.
Originally Posted By jonvn This really shows that people will believe anything they are told. Anything.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>Father asked everyone to please receive on the tongue (but he can't require it right now. <<< Why did they change that in the first place, hygene or something? I liked my old Church (it has since burned to the ground...sad cause it was a beautiful old Church), where they still had the railings in front of the alter so you would go up and kneel and take communion. I just liked the whole ceremony of it there.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>This really shows that people will believe anything they are told. Anything.<< And your post really shows that atheists can be just as hateful and bigoted as they say Christians are. You will note that I am not talking about anyone. I am merely explaining that I believe. There's no need to spout hatred and rank bigotry like you have been throughout this discussion.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>>Father asked everyone to please receive on the tongue (but he can't require it right now. <<< Why did they change that in the first place, hygene or something? I liked my old Church (it has since burned to the ground...sad cause it was a beautiful old Church), where they still had the railings in front of the alter so you would go up and kneel and take communion. I just liked the whole ceremony of it there.<< Communion in the hand is actually not "legal" under Canon Law. It's done mostly in the United States under what is called an "indult" (like a special permission). There are many opinions as to why it was even started but word is that the Bishop's Conference may decide to give the indult back and return to communion on the tongue only. Actually, a priest who knows what he's doing can lay a host on one's tongue, and unless the communicant moves, he won't actually touch the person's tongue at all. And I agree with receiving kneeling and on the tongue. I go to a private Mass twice a month and always receive this way at this Mass. Of course, when I avail myself of the Traditional Latin Mass, everyone receives this way. It just seems more reverent and respectful.
Originally Posted By jonvn "And your post really shows that atheists can be just as hateful and bigoted as they say Christians are." I'm neither hateful nor bigoted. I don't hate you. And I base my statement on the utter nonsense of your beliefs on what you have stated here. Not on unfounded or false ideas. The explanations you are giving make absolutely not one shred of sense. People believe these things because they were told to believe them. People do what they are told, and believe what they are told. That's the sad fact. Neither am I an atheist. If you can provide me some evidence of God, I'll believe. There simply is none.
Originally Posted By friendofdd A priest, a Pentecostal preacher and a rabbi all served as chaplains to the students of Northern Michigan University in Marquette. They would get together two or three times a week for coffee and to talk shop. One day, someone made the comment that preaching to people isn't really all that difficult. A more significant challenge would be to preach to a bear. One thing led to another and they decided to do an experiment. They would each go out into the woods, find a bear, preach to it, and attempt to convert it. Seven days later, they're all together to discuss the experience. Father Flannery, who has his arm in a sling, is on crutches, and has various bandages, goes first. "Well," he says, "I went into the woods to find me a bear. And when I found him I began to read to him from the Catechism. Well, that bear wanted nothing to do with me and began to slap me around. So I quickly grabbed my holy water, sprinkled him and, Holy Mary Mother of God, he became as gentle a lamb. The bishop is coming out next week to give him first communion and confirmation." Reverend Billy Bob spoke next. He was in a wheelchair, with an arm and both legs in casts, and an IV drip. In his best fire and brimstone oratory he claimed, "WELL brothers, you KNOW that we don't sprinkle! I went out and I FOUND me a bear. And then I began to read to my bear from God's HOLY WORD! But that bear wanted nothing to do with me. So I took HOLD of him and we began to wrestle. We wrestled down one hill, UP another, and DOWN another until we came to a creek. So, I quick DUNKED him and BAPTIZED his hairy soul. And just like your bear, he became as gentle as a lamb. We spent the rest of the day praising Jesus." They both looked down at the rabbi, who was lying in a hospital bed. He was in a body cast and traction with IV's, and monitors running in and out of him. He was desperate shape and just holding on to life. The rabbi looks up and says, "You know, looking back on it, circumcision may not have been the best place to start..."
Originally Posted By jdub I ran that story on through the snopes.com, & it came back as "unverified, but possible."
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle (lol Fodd!!) Now onto the serious stuff. >>The same holds true for not going to Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation<< I’m Catholic, and even though I’ve lived a good life without committing mortal sins or breaking the ten commandments, I’m going to Hell because I don’t go to Church every Sunday? Even the head of religion at my Catholic school told us that we didn’t need to go to Church each and every week to be good Christians. Actually many of the most judgemental Catholics I know are the ones who are in the front row at Sunday morning mass each week. I don’t agree with a lot of the Church’s teachings. I think it’s CRAZY that women and married men aren’t allowed to be Priests. I also think some of the things the Church did in the past (such as Dave and Mr X’s experiences) were horrible. I can’t excuse it, but I think of my religion as being about God, not being about the people in the Church, such as Priests or Nuns. I work with a girl (who is an atheist) who continually tries to ‘trick’ me into admitting that the Church’s teachings don’t make sense. I try to explain to her that truly, if I try to look at it “logicallyâ€, I would say there’s no real answer to a lot of the sorts of questions that are being asked here. For me, I take it on faith, because I find it comforting. I have lost loved ones and it comforts me to think that they’re in Heaven. I know that won’t be good enough for a lot of people, but the point is I’m not asking anyone else to believe in God or Heaven or what have you. I’m just stating what I believe, and why I’m not going to try to answer the questions that have been asked here (for instance, >> Please address this in the context of the Church having been demonstratably wrong on so many things over the ages.<<) I’m not going to answer because I don’t know and I’m sure I can’t convince anyone, even if I somehow did know. Live and let live.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>The same holds true for not going to Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation<< I’m Catholic, and even though I’ve lived a good life without committing mortal sins or breaking the ten commandments, I’m going to Hell because I don’t go to Church every Sunday?<< Um, actually, by not going to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, you are committing a mortal sin. >>Even the head of religion at my Catholic school told us that we didn’t need to go to Church each and every week to be good Christians.<< Then your "head of religion" is wrong and is placing souls in jeopardy. The official teaching of the Church is thus: 2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass." "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day." 2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin. >>Actually many of the most judgemental Catholics I know are the ones who are in the front row at Sunday morning mass each week. << I'm sure they are. Then again, it is not judgement or an act of charity to not warn people that they are in danger of mortal sin. One of the spiritual works of mercy is to "admonish the sinner" and to "instruct the ignorant (ignorant meaning a person who doesn't know a thing)." >>I don’t agree with a lot of the Church’s teachings. I think it’s CRAZY that women and married men aren’t allowed to be Priests.<< On what basis do you make this statement? Seriously. There is a REASON women aren't ordained. The ordained ministry is an imaging of Christ, who came to us as a man. Deacons, priests and bishops act as "alter Christus" (another Christ) when acting in their office. A woman cannot image Christ. Also, married men are admitted to the priest hood in non-Latin Catholic Rites. The Latin Rite does not admit married men because, one again, the imaging of Christ. Christ commends consegrated celibacy as does St. Paul. Oh, as an aside, while Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox both have married priests, they do not have married bishops and a priest cannot marry once he's received orders. >>I also think some of the things the Church did in the past (such as Dave and Mr X’s experiences) were horrible.<< I agree. The MEN who did those things were WRONG. That doesn't detract from truth of the Church's teachings. >>I can’t excuse it, but I think of my religion as being about God, not being about the people in the Church, such as Priests or Nuns.<< You can't excuse the inexcusable. The Church is about getting people to heaven. The Clergy and Religious (Men and Women) are there to make that possible. Priests act to confect the Sacraments (espcially confession and communion) to the faithful so as to help them on their way to heaven. Religious act to pray and intercede for the Church and the world. >>I work with a girl (who is an atheist) who continually tries to ‘trick’ me into admitting that the Church’s teachings don’t make sense. I try to explain to her that truly, if I try to look at it “logicallyâ€, I would say there’s no real answer to a lot of the sorts of questions that are being asked here. For me, I take it on faith, because I find it comforting. I have lost loved ones and it comforts me to think that they’re in Heaven. I know that won’t be good enough for a lot of people, but the point is I’m not asking anyone else to believe in God or Heaven or what have you. I’m just stating what I believe, and why I’m not going to try to answer the questions that have been asked here (for instance, >> Please address this in the context of the Church having been demonstratably wrong on so many things over the ages.<<) I’m not going to answer because I don’t know and I’m sure I can’t convince anyone, even if I somehow did know. Live and let live.<< Some of those questions are asked out of a lack of understanding or knowledge of what the Church actually teaches and does. Our job, as Catholics, is to ensure that people DO know what's up and be able to answer such challenges.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle >>On what basis do you make this statement? Seriously<< I base it on the fact that anyone who lives by God's word and wants to spread this word should be able to. Don't forget that there's NO proof God wasn't a woman. I'm not saying that's what I believe at all, but the image of God was created by men, unless I'm mistaken and you've actually seen and conversed with God. So the whole 'image of God' thing is a weak, outdated excuse. And by your reasoning, deacons, priests and bishops act as "images" of Christ, but not nuns. Why is that? Women shouldn't be allowed to be nuns, really, should they? Seriously. How many young priests do you see nowadays? Maybe your church is different, but the last time we had a young (mid-30s) priest in my area was 1990. My current priest is about 55. People (I'm sorry, men) are not, as a rule, choosing to become priests. Therefore, if a woman wants to become a priest and is willing to live by the same rules as a man, WHY should she not be allowed to do it? And you don't think more young men (who want to follow the word of God but also want to have a family of their own) would become priests if they were able to be married? >>Um, actually, by not going to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, you are committing a mortal sin<< I have NEVER been so insulted by anything I've read on these boards. You don't have a clue of the kind of person I am, I don't think you've ever even spoken to me on these boards before. And now you're going to tell me I'm committing a Mortal Sin and I'm going to Hell? I do live a good life. I give to charity, I don't deliberately hurt people, I don't get drunk or do drugs, I nursed my Grandmother for 2 years through Alzheimers and pneumonia until her death. Shame that doesn't count as much as what I do on a Sunday morning. I guess the good news is Heaven's obviously not going to be too over-crowded.
Originally Posted By avromark <<Seriously. How many young priests do you see nowadays? Maybe your church is different, but the last time we had a young (mid-30s) priest in my area was 1990. My current priest is about 55>> Well I think RC may not have the fervent members it does now in the Western Hemisphere, but I am part SE Asian and in that country they have MANY priests, including one of my cousins who is a Seminarian.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >> >>On what basis do you make this statement? Seriously<< I base it on the fact that anyone who lives by God's word and wants to spread this word should be able to. << No one is preventing a woman from becoming an evangelist in the Catholic Church. There's nothing in Canon Law that says that women do not have apostolates in the Catholic Church. I highly recommend that you look into the life of Mother Angelica and what she has done to spread God's word and she's a mere abbess. >>Don't forget that there's NO proof God wasn't a woman.<< That's an irrelevancy. The fact is, God is genderless in Himself. He chose revealed Himself as Father. That speaks to His nature and the nature of Fatherhood (something that our society denegrates and mocks mercilessly). Jesus Christ came to us as a man to show us the love of the Father, but He came through the agency of His Blessed Mother, Mary. This elevates motherhood to something sacred and holy as well. >>I'm not saying that's what I believe at all, but the image of God was created by men, unless I'm mistaken and you've actually seen and conversed with God. So the whole 'image of God' thing is a weak, outdated excuse. And by your reasoning, deacons, priests and bishops act as "images" of Christ, but not nuns. Why is that? Women shouldn't be allowed to be nuns, really, should they? << Logical fallacy. Jesus Christ established the ministerial priesthood through two different events. First, before He was crucified, He instituted the Eucharist (the synoptic gospels refer to this). Second, He gives the apostles the power to forgive sins (John 20:21-23). In the passages that chronicle these events, only the Apostles are present. Further, the ministerial priesthood is only conferred on male disciples. On the other hand, the Bible also speaks about the holy women who followed Jesus around and participated in the life of the early Church. St. Mary, Mother of God, as well as St. Mary Magdalene, Martha and her sister Mary, are all notable disciples of Jesus. Also, Dorcas, the purpler, is prominent in Acts as one who helped to build up the early Church. >>Seriously. How many young priests do you see nowadays? Maybe your church is different, but the last time we had a young (mid-30s) priest in my area was 1990. My current priest is about 55. People (I'm sorry, men) are not, as a rule, choosing to become priests. << This is really only a major problem here in the United States and some European countries. On other hand, It all depends on the diocese in question. Yes, in Los Angeles, vocations are few and far between. My priest is a relatively late vocation (he's 42 and just celebrated his 10th anniversary in the priesthood). If you were to look at the more orthodox dioceses, you'll find many more vocations. Also, many of the traditionalist orders (FSSP and even the schismatic SSPX) have lots of vocations. >>Therefore, if a woman wants to become a priest and is willing to live by the same rules as a man, WHY should she not be allowed to do it?<< Because the Church doesn't have the authority to ordain women to the ministerial priesthood. There are other, powerful ways for women to serve in the church. And don't think that the word "serve" means to be a walking mat. Everyone has a vocation of service. A priest is on call 24/7, just like a mother or a father. One of the pope's titles is Servus servorum Dei, Servant of the Servants of God. There have been powerful women in the history of the Church. St. Theresa the LIttle Flower. Bl. Theresa of Calcutta. Mother Angelica. Heck, Catholics revere Mary above every other saint. >>And you don't think more young men (who want to follow the word of God but also want to have a family of their own) would become priests if they were able to be married? << Actually, before I became Catholic, I was Lutheran and I got to see the real struggle it is for both the man and his family. A vocation to the priesthood is not a full-time position, it is an all-consuming lifestyle, just like family life. That's why there are vocations to the married life and vocations to the priesthood. >>Um, actually, by not going to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, you are committing a mortal sin<< I have NEVER been so insulted by anything I've read on these boards.<< :-\ Please. No need for hyperbole. If you feel insulted because I speak what the Church's authentic teaching is, I would suggest considering that the problem is not me or the Church. In my own case, I am constantly on guard and avail myself of the Sacrament of Reconciliation often because I am a sinner. >>You don't have a clue of the kind of person I am, I don't think you've ever even spoken to me on these boards before. And now you're going to tell me I'm committing a Mortal Sin and I'm going to Hell?<< I can only tell you what the Church's authentic teaching is. You are the one who draws conclusions from that. I am not telling you that you are going to hell, I am telling you that if you do not go to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, then you commit a mortal sin, which if unconfessed, could very well land you in hell. As to whether you end up in hell or not is up to you. That's why there is the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Believe me, it's not easy to hunble one's self and make a good examination of conscience and then confess, out loud, what my faults are, but it's necessary and it's amazing how liberating it is knowing that I am absolutely forgiven and freed from my sins! >>I do live a good life. I give to charity, I don't deliberately hurt people, I don't get drunk or do drugs, I nursed my Grandmother for 2 years through Alzheimers and pneumonia until her death. Shame that doesn't count as much as what I do on a Sunday morning. I guess the good news is Heaven's obviously not going to be too over-crowded.<< Those are all good things on a natural human level. They are certainly to be commended; however, heaven is a supernatural end and in order to attain a supernatural end, God has provided supernaturial means through the mystical body of His Church. See, God demands that He be first in our lives. A part of that involves going to Church on a weekly basis. If an hour a week in the public worship of God's Church is too much, then ask yourself if eternity with Him and His family is really want you desire. That's the real issue at question.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle >>If an hour a week in the public worship of God's Church is too much, then ask yourself if eternity with Him and His family is really want you desire. That's the real issue at question.<< It's not that an hour in Church is too much to ask, in fact I still go to Church most weeks, although we do generally go on a Saturday (gasp!!) and not every week. I did go every week as a child and in my early teens, and I believe I'm a better, more aware Catholic now than I was then. Church is simply not where I feel closest to God. What it comes down to is that if I went every week it would not be out of the desire to examine my spiritual self - I do that on a daily basis every time I pray, or every time I witness beauty and thank God for it - but because I was afraid of what would happen to my soul if I didn't. I just don't see the value in that. More power to you if you do. And thank you Mele.
