OK...to be blunt, how many married men are going to agree to celibacy?

You didn't read post #111 did you?

You didn't read post #111 did you?

 

You didn't read PepRock's post, did you?

In some cases how is it any different? :sssh:

 

Yeah, but that wasn't something they bargained for. They thought they had free milk for the rest of their lives! They didn't realize that when the cow gets tired, or ticked off, the milk dries up! :lol:

You didn't read PepRock's post, did you?

How does the Council of Elvira trump Titus and Timothy?

5wide, I'm still banned but, when the Cats away....Cats back home I'll reply on RockMom's question after the warden is alseep...but HHSdad said some good things. I just repeated scripture and its very basic verses.

I just repeated scripture and its very basic verses.

:thumb: That you did and that (God's Word) is all that you need to repeat.

Three men were visiting the United States from the inner regions of Africa. While here they really wanted to visit different churches to see how religion was practiced here. The first stop was at a Baptist church, the men went in and sat in the back. After the service was over the Pastor came back and talked to the gentlemen for a while. He asked how they like the service and they said they enjoyed it but that they did have a question. They were wondering what the people that went to the front of the church and got down on there knees were doing? The Pastor explained that they were speaking to God, giving thanks and asking for forgiveness. One of the men asked again, "They were speaking to God?" Yes as a Baptist we can speak directly to God.

 

Later the three men went to a Catholic church to attend a service. Afterwards they had a question for the Priest. "Why did the church members not go down front to speak to God?" "In the Catholic church the members talk to their Priest" was the reply. "Whom do you speak to?", they asked. "I speak to the Bishop." "Who does he speak to?" "He speaks to the Cardinal", was the reply. "And the Cardinal, he speaks to God?", they asked. "No he talks directly with the Pope and the Pope speaks directly to God". The men looked at each other and nodded their heads in a knowing way. "Do you understand now?" asked the Priest.

 

"Yes....your Pope is a Baptist"

 

I have no idea if your joke has any basis in fact or not, but I DO know it is funny. :D

 

Being the non-denominational Christian I am, I find jokes about all denominations/faiths to be worthy of mention.

OK...to be blunt, how many married men are going to agree to celibacy?

 

Why do they have to be celibate??? That's part of the problem with all of the sexual abuse cases. There is nothing in the Bible that says that the apostles were celibate. That, again, is a man made law, which is from the Medieval times. Our points of view are very different on this, obviously. I respect your view, but I am going to be adament that the church will die in the United States if it does not adapt.

Why do they have to be celibate??? That's part of the problem with all of the sexual abuse cases. There is nothing in the Bible that says that the apostles were celibate. That, again, is a man made law, which is from the Medieval times. Our points of view are very different on this, obviously. I respect your view, but I am going to be adament that the church will die in the United States if it does not adapt.

 

The church must maintain true to its spiritual self and focus. Just because you feel that it is archaic and outmoded does not mean that its practices are necessarily all that way. That said there is a need for change in the church, I have no doubt of that.

 

Benedict is not saying anything new or changing anything, he is reinforcing that which makes the Catholic Church what it is. There are some on here who would call it misguided, corrupt, man-made for political reasons, but in the end it is all a matter of faith. If I can have faith that the books that were chosen to be in the Bible were the ones that were divinely inspired and those which God intended, is it too much of a stretch to then have faith that God has worked through his church on Earth to bring it back to focus when it erred? I have faith that there is the truth in the Bible and I have faith that there is the truth in the holy traditions of the Catholic church. I have faith that in time of need and peril those men who have dedicated themselved mind, body and soul to guiding the church will do as God intends.

 

To be entirely honest with you though mexitucky I think there is more going on behind what you say here. Arguing for drastic change in the church is problematic. We have seen a dramatic shift from the piety, worship and participation well before the scandals came down. Was it Vatican II? I don't, not entirely no. I think that giving the laypeople too much power over the worship, when they themselves were not well versed in the liturgy is at the heart of the issue. At least this is the way I see things in Louisville.

 

Essentially however you strike me as a relativist attempting to place the concepts of relativism over the frame of the church. That in and of iteself will not and cannot work.

 

Bear in mind that I am aware of the political involvement of the church throughout history. With my area of study in college having been history and with my involvement in the church since I was a child and church history has always been an interest of mine. Just because something was done or changed in the Middle Ages does not mean it was done stricty for political reasons.

Heck, the Baptists have been saying the same thing for years.

 

I really think that Pope Benedict is not going to be good for the Church. Its obvious that he wants to tear at the very fabric of Pope John XXIII's Vatican II and take the Church back into the dark ages. I fear that he will quickly undo the works of great Catholics like Pope John Paul II, Mother Theresa, and others who have sought to advance the cause of Christ.

 

I am going to change my religion if we go back to the dark ages:D

 

But if Benedict XVI is saying this does this also apply to the Eastern Orthodox Religions? Because they came off of the Catholic Church.

The church must maintain true to its spiritual self and focus. Just because you feel that it is archaic and outmoded does not mean that its practices are necessarily all that way. That said there is a need for change in the church, I have no doubt of that.

 

Benedict is not saying anything new or changing anything, he is reinforcing that which makes the Catholic Church what it is. There are some on here who would call it misguided, corrupt, man-made for political reasons, but in the end it is all a matter of faith. If I can have faith that the books that were chosen to be in the Bible were the ones that were divinely inspired and those which God intended, is it too much of a stretch to then have faith that God has worked through his church on Earth to bring it back to focus when it erred? I have faith that there is the truth in the Bible and I have faith that there is the truth in the holy traditions of the Catholic church. I have faith that in time of need and peril those men who have dedicated themselved mind, body and soul to guiding the church will do as God intends.

 

To be entirely honest with you though mexitucky I think there is more going on behind what you say here. Arguing for drastic change in the church is problematic. We have seen a dramatic shift from the piety, worship and participation well before the scandals came down. Was it Vatican II? I don't, not entirely no. I think that giving the laypeople too much power over the worship, when they themselves were not well versed in the liturgy is at the heart of the issue. At least this is the way I see things in Louisville.

 

Essentially however you strike me as a relativist attempting to place the concepts of relativism over the frame of the church. That in and of iteself will not and cannot work.

 

Bear in mind that I am aware of the political involvement of the church throughout history. With my area of study in college having been history and with my involvement in the church since I was a child and church history has always been an interest of mine. Just because something was done or changed in the Middle Ages does not mean it was done stricty for political reasons.

 

What he said!

 

 

mexitucky, we all have done things that are counter to what the Church teaches. But, how many times did we do them despite knowing that we would be going against what we were taught to believe was right? Saying the Church should change it's view of things because it's convenient for us is really not at all conducive to the good of the Catholic Church as a whole.

 

You mention celibacy as the reason for the sex abuse scandals. I emphatically disagree with that one. Human frailty is the reason for those scandals. The inability to control one's impulses led to the scandals. I don't excuse or even (maybe) forgive those who committed such acts, but your use of celibacy as a reason gives them an excuse. In addition, it trivializes the utter committment of MANY, MANY more committed priests who have remained celebate, and who willingly choose priesthood and celibacy today.

What he said!

 

 

mexitucky, we all have done things that are counter to what the Church teaches. But, how many times did we do them despite knowing that we would be going against what we were taught to believe was right? Saying the Church should change it's view of things because it's convenient for us is really not at all conducive to the good of the Catholic Church as a whole.

 

You mention celibacy as the reason for the sex abuse scandals. I emphatically disagree with that one. Human frailty is the reason for those scandals. The inability to control one's impulses led to the scandals. I don't excuse or even (maybe) forgive those who committed such acts, but your use of celibacy as a reason gives them an excuse. In addition, it trivializes the utter committment of MANY, MANY more committed priests who have remained celebate, and who willingly choose priesthood and celibacy today.

 

What is convenient for us? I'm not going to be a priest. I'm going to be married and have children. I was using married priests as an example of something that should be changed for the GOOD of the church. If a young man goes to the seminary for college, is ordained in the traditional manner, and decides that he wants to share his love with a family, how does that make him less holy than an unmarried man? Why can't women be priests? Will it effect the way you receive Jesus in your life if the Word comes from a woman? If that is the case, then who are we really listening to? God or the human being? After all, the priests are interpreting their understanding of the Gospel. If a married man, or woman, has studied the same books, been through the same classes, what makes their interpretation less inspired? Nothing, but tradition says that it does. I believe in el Senor, Jesus Cristo, y el espiritu santo (I've had this debate with a priest in Mexico). I believe that Jesus came to save the world, was conceived of the Virgin Mary, and became man. I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, and I believe that they all are one. I also believe that this is the foundation of our faith. I believe that the political power of the church in the past make many of our traditions suspect b/c we do not know what motivated them. I believe that premarital sex is wrong. I also believe that holding on to traditions that do not contradict the dogma of the faith, but are traditions for traditions sake will only hurt the church as it advances on towards the Second Coming.

To be entirely honest with you though mexitucky I think there is more going on behind what you say here. Arguing for drastic change in the church is problematic. We have seen a dramatic shift from the piety, worship and participation well before the scandals came down. Was it Vatican II? I don't, not entirely no. I think that giving the laypeople too much power over the worship, when they themselves were not well versed in the liturgy is at the heart of the issue. At least this is the way I see things in Louisville.

 

Essentially however you strike me as a relativist attempting to place the concepts of relativism over the frame of the church. That in and of iteself will not and cannot work.

 

What I argue for is drastic change in the hierarchy of the church as the organization. I do not argue to change the faith. They are not one in the same. The hierarchy decides how we hear the faith, how we receive. The faith is what this church was built on.

To be entirely honest with you though mexitucky I think there is more going on behind what you say here. Arguing for drastic change in the church is problematic. We have seen a dramatic shift from the piety, worship and participation well before the scandals came down. Was it Vatican II? I don't, not entirely no. I think that giving the laypeople too much power over the worship, when they themselves were not well versed in the liturgy is at the heart of the issue. At least this is the way I see things in Louisville.

And therein lies the biggest 2 faults of the Catholic church. 1) Form over substance and 2) ignorance of the Bible by a great part of the laity and parishioners. These two fit hand in glove with the idea of Papal Infallacy. The Catholic Church is "stuck" in a form that separates the body from the Father by intentionally placing a clergy between them and God and replaces worship and study with rote and routine.

And therein lies the biggest 2 faults of the Catholic church. 1) Form over substance and 2) ignorance of the Bible by a great part of the laity and parishioners. These two fit hand in glove with the idea of Papal Infallacy. The Catholic Church is "stuck" in a form that separates the body from the Father by intentionally placing a clergy between them and God and replaces worship and study with rote and routine.

 

There is nothing in place to keep the people from reading the Bible or understand it. Not anymore, that is a thing of the past as rockmom pointed out in the other thread.

 

Define form over substance here, I am not sure where exactly you extrapolated that from my initial point.