Y'all are making me feel bad! I thought we were having a great conversation!

 

 

Between you nimbly dodging everything I threw at you and HHSDad resorting to subliminal message and foreign languages, I'm having serious inferiority issues today.

Mexitucky, there's so much in what you say that is similar to the way a child feels of his parents rules or guidelines. In a way, that's exactly what the Vatican is to the lay man...the parent so to speak. The guidance and the "rules enforcer". Because you don't personally agree doesn't mean the Church is wrong. And, you sometimes have to reconcile yourself that the Church is not an entity to bend to the will of what we want. They are here to enforce and uphold the will of God, and we must obey.

 

What about people who have disagreed with the Catholic church in the past, suffered persecution for it, only to have those same views endorsed at a later point by the same Catholic church?

 

So, mexitucky, I would offer to you that just because you disagree with the church, doesn't mean YOU are wrong.

I know a LOT of Catholics, HHSDad, and I do not know of ANY who worship the Pope. We respect and revere him as the holiest of men, but we do not worship him.

I guess this is where my problem lies. Worship takes place in many forms. The pope is but a man, yet he is treated by his followers like a king. Let me try to give you a counter-example.

 

In Lystra there sat a man crippled in his feet, who was lame from birth and had never walked. He listened to Paul as he was speaking. Paul looked directly at him, saw that he had faith to be healed and called out, "Stand up on your feet!" At that, the man jumped up and began to walk.

 

When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!" Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.

 

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy." Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.

 

I feel that this is where the traditional Pope is. A man who proclaims he is just a man of God, but nonetheless, accepts the gifts of the people. I think the Church profits more from a Kiril Lakota figure, much as Pope John Paul II was, rather than a pope that seeks to strengthen the Papcy and and the infallability of the Bishop of Rome.

Between you nimbly dodging everything I threw at you and HHSDad resorting to subliminal message and foreign languages, I'm having serious inferiority issues today.

 

Wow! I haven't had the word "nimble" (or any derivative) applied to me in years! I do good to just plod! :lol:

 

I honestly have not been trying to dodge anything....I thought I was being straightforward. Sorry.

What about people who have disagreed with the Catholic church in the past, suffered persecution for it, only to have those same views endorsed at a later point by the same Catholic church?

 

So, mexitucky, I would offer to you that just because you disagree with the church, doesn't mean YOU are wrong.

 

I didn't say he was wrong. I said that he, as a Catholic, is duty bound to obey, regardless.

I guess this is where my problem lies. Worship takes place in many forms. The pope is but a man, yet he is treated by his followers like a king. Let me try to give you a counter-example.

 

In Lystra there sat a man crippled in his feet, who was lame from birth and had never walked. He listened to Paul as he was speaking. Paul looked directly at him, saw that he had faith to be healed and called out, "Stand up on your feet!" At that, the man jumped up and began to walk.

 

When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!" Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.

 

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy." Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.

 

I feel that this is where the traditional Pope is. A man who proclaims he is just a man of God, but nonetheless, accepts the gifts of the people. I think the Church profits more from a Kiril Lakota figure, much as Pope John Paul II was, rather than a pope that seeks to strengthen the Papcy and and the infallability of the Bishop of Rome.

 

As much as I understand what you're saying, I firmly believe that Pope Benedict DOES need to assert the doctrine rigidly in these days of the Church. I honestly, FIRMLY believe that the Catholic community needs to be reminded of our core tenats of faith. We try to live our way, saying we're Catholic, yet ignoring basic, simple doctrine. Yet we expect forgiveness and understanding when we wilfully do "our own thing". That's not the way it works. Like it or not, we have an established "way to do things." It's very clear. Agree or disagree is moot. The fact of the matter is that we profess our faith and to me, if we believe in the Catholic dogma, then we follow the doctrine.

For the sake of their BGP membership is probably closer to the truth.

 

And yes, moderators get in trouble when they break the rules, just in case anyone was wondering.

 

Occasionally we get someone rockmom who hasn't a clue and we try to give them rockmom some benefit of the doubt. Try as we will, we just can't correct their rockmom wrong thinking about certain matters. But I don't want to mention any names rockmom.

 

I'm just having a little fun in this serious topic. I have the utmost respect for rockmom.

 

Who you be talking about? :confused:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:thumb: :jump: :thumb: :jump: :thumb:

As much as I understand what you're saying, I firmly believe that Pope Benedict DOES need to assert the doctrine rigidly in these days of the Church. I honestly, FIRMLY believe that the Catholic community needs to be reminded of our core tenats of faith. We try to live our way, saying we're Catholic, yet ignoring basic, simple doctrine. Yet we expect forgiveness and understanding when we wilfully do "our own thing". That's not the way it works. Like it or not, we have an established "way to do things." It's very clear. Agree or disagree is moot. The fact of the matter is that we profess our faith and to me, if we believe in the Catholic dogma, then we follow the doctrine.

Do you ever feel that the established way to do things ever gets in the way of the Church's most basic and important tenets? This is a good question for all Christian faiths, but I feel that its a bigger problem with the Catholic church than some others.

I didn't say he was wrong. I said that he, as a Catholic, is duty bound to obey, regardless.

 

So, if you see an error, contrary to God's will and word, you'd be better off choosing the Catholic teaching?

Do you ever feel that the established way to do things ever gets in the way of the Church's most basic and important tenets? This is a good question for all Christian faiths, but I feel that its a bigger problem with the Catholic church than some others.

 

 

There are an awful lot of things done in small Protestant churches just because "that's the way we always did it".

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff

are to be respected by all

as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth.

In matters of faith and morals,

the bishops speak in the name of Christ, and

the faithful are

to accept their teaching and

adhere to it with a religious assent of souls.

This religious submission

of will and

of mind

must be shown in a special way

to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff,

even when he is not speaking ex cathedra ...

his supreme magisterium is acknowledged ...

the judgments made by him ... adhered to ...

known chiefly

from the character of the documents,

from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine,

from his manner of speaking.

Therefore his definitions,

of themselves, and

not from the consent of the Church,

are justly styled irreformable, for they are

pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit,

assistance promised to him

in blessed Peter ...

need no approval of others,

nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.

... the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment

as a private person ...

but rather as the supreme teacher of the universal Church,

as one in whom

the charism of infallibility of the Church herself is individually present,

he is

expounding or

defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.

There are an awful lot of things done in small Protestant churches just because "that's the way we always did it".

 

I was thinking the same thing. I think that applies across the board...there are people from all sides who are only getting "religion" and not salvation. Ultimately, it comes down to the individual churches, and their responsibility to teach and stress the gospel and repentance and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

I can see how some Catholics get caught up in tradition and ritual and miss the point...just like in the protestant churches that I'm familiar with, people just show up and participate, not because they're saved and have a zeal for Christ, but because that's where their family went to church and that's where they've always gone. Some people, I think, treat church more like a social club than what it really is. I think it's important for pastors to teach the truth about the gospel and drive that point home so these people aren't mislead into thinking they have salvation.

 

I have no problem with unsaved people coming to church. I wish more of them would. I have a problem with churches where they don't want to offend anyone, so they have that I'm okay, you're okay thing going on...that is a problem. What better chance would you have to tell someone the road to salvation than when they're right in your church. Yet we're often too timid...we're afraid to make anyone mad. I would venture a guess that that is one of the single biggest problems with churches in America today. When I read about Jesus in the gospels, and the apostles in Acts, and the epistles of Paul....I don't get a picture of people who were afraid to offend. I get a picture of people who were more afraid of dissappointing God than they were of offending their friends, strangers, or anyone else. I think we all need that attitude...but it's easier said than done, like most things.

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff

are to be respected by all

as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth.

In matters of faith and morals,

the bishops speak in the name of Christ, and

the faithful are

to accept their teaching and

adhere to it with a religious assent of souls.

This religious submission

of will and

of mind

must be shown in a special way

to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff,

even when he is not speaking ex cathedra ...

his supreme magisterium is acknowledged ...

the judgments made by him ... adhered to ...

known chiefly

from the character of the documents,

from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine,

from his manner of speaking.

Therefore his definitions,

of themselves, and

not from the consent of the Church,

are justly styled irreformable, for they are

pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit,

assistance promised to him

in blessed Peter ...

need no approval of others,

nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.

... the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment

as a private person ...

but rather as the supreme teacher of the universal Church,

as one in whom

the charism of infallibility of the Church herself is individually present,

he is

expounding or

defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.

 

So, if you're a Catholic, you're bound to follow their teaching no matter what?

 

I wonder, what if everyone throughout history had taken that stance...what would their doctrine look like right now.

So, if you see an error, contrary to God's will and word, you'd be better off choosing the Catholic teaching?

 

I know this: I am in no way qualified to make the distinction of "error" when it comes to doctrine. The men we trust to do so are studied in theology....more than most any other men alive. They are experts in the Canon of the Church. There is no point within the doctrine of the Church that I feel that they do not have a greater theological and philosophical understanding of than any individual Catholic lay person.

 

HHSDad, how is the Church getting in the way of the most basic and important tenets? At this point, Pope Benedict is obviously trying to reinforce those. Granted, we have a mission, but not in the old-style Crusades or missions where our primary goal was to convert, by force if necessary.

So, if you're a Catholic, you're bound to follow their teaching no matter what?

 

I wonder, what if everyone throughout history had taken that stance...what would their doctrine look like right now.

 

Those who didn't: Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal....

 

But to answer your question, yes. You follow the doctrine of the Church. You follow the teachings. Why do you think we have Catholic schools? It ain't just the football!