Submitting To Church Teachings

[tinytherese]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1860252' date='May 6 2009, 11:14 PM']Broken link. Weird. I'll find the actual thread.
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81678&hl="]Linky.[/url]
Does this work?[/quote]

Yes, it works now. I bumped it in the Vocation Station.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1860223' date='May 6 2009, 10:53 PM']well I dont fall into idol worship with the pope either.
goodnight.[/quote]

I do not worship the Pope. Mother Church is the whole Church, not just the Pope. Mother Church is the Bride and the Body of Christ.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1860228' date='May 6 2009, 10:57 PM']and it's not a doctrine it could change.[/quote]

Even so it is now binding.

[Guest]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1860345' date='May 6 2009, 11:08 PM']Even so it is now binding.[/quote]

yep and fullfills pauls prophecy. another reason to join the eastern church. cant wait.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Guest

[Adrestia]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1860345' date='May 6 2009, 11:08 PM']Even so it is now binding.[/quote]
except in cases where married priests convert to Roman Catholicism

[Guest]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1860341' date='May 6 2009, 11:05 PM']I do not worship the Pope. Mother Church is the whole Church, not just the Pope. Mother Church is the Bride and the Body of Christ.[/quote]

ok well my appologies. but when you discredit my arguement and are rude on top of it, and state your defenece as " im right your wrong deal with it" i dont take it very well. espially when the eastern church doesnt forbid its priest marriage and nowhere in the bible can forbiding priest or bishops to marry be found. the way you shut down my argument by saying " mother church says so" is not taken very well by me. espially when its not a doctrine and can be argued with scripture. at any rate i'm sorry if i crossed the line. peace.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1860236' date='May 6 2009, 11:03 PM']because there is such a lack of priest and the celibacy evidently attracted alota gay perverted men. if married priest were allowed there would be so many more priest and we wouldnt have to take whoever. it's sick what these priest have done.[/quote]

Sorry to hijack again but I just had to bring up this article regarding what you're talking about.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea2.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea2.asp[/url]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1860370' date='May 7 2009, 12:22 AM']ok well my appologies. but when you discredit my arguement and are rude on top of it, and state your defenece as " im right your wrong deal with it" i dont take it very well. espially when the eastern church doesnt forbid its priest marriage and nowhere in the bible can forbiding priest or bishops to marry be found. the way you shut down my argument by saying " mother church says so" is not taken very well by me. espially when its not a doctrine and can be argued with scripture. at any rate i'm sorry if i crossed the line. peace.[/quote]

I'm sorry if I made the argument that "I'm right" I made the argument The Church is right, and She is right, I am sorry but that is truth. Her current position is still binding to western Catholics, and is backed up by Holy Scripture. You seem to disagree, now logically who would be right? The Bride of Christ, or you? Honestly, I do not mean to be rude, yes I am blunt but if I did not care about you and about our Mother Church I would have said nothing.

[Guest]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1860396' date='May 7 2009, 12:36 AM']I'm sorry if I made the argument that "I'm right" I made the argument The Church is right, and She is right, I am sorry but that is truth. Her current position is still binding to western Catholics, and is backed up by Holy Scripture. You seem to disagree, now logically who would be right? The Bride of Christ, or you? Honestly, I do not mean to be rude, yes I am blunt but if I did not care about you and about our Mother Church I would have said nothing.[/quote]

Godbless dude I see what you are saying and this isnt the first time we went at it. lol You are very knowlegable in what you say and I give you credidt for that. I do however think I am not the only one that holds the opionon that mother church could be in slight error in this area. Again it is not a doctrine. It could change an hour from now. All I am doing is stating my opinon and using scripture to back my opinon. I'm not saying the church is the whore or anything like that. Although just reading in the defence directory the other day I read how the author of the last times article believes that the false prophet could very likely come through the church and the chair of peter. Although if this were to happen it would be an antipope and not a real pope so it doesnt scare me away from being catholic. But my point is although I submit to the pope and the teachings of the mother church and agree with all the infallible teachings, I do still hold my conscience as very valuable and will not discredit all my opinons just becasue "mother church says so" Espially when my opinons can be backed clearly by scripture. And even more so when the teaching isnt infallible and could be changed an hour from now. Let it be known though I do submit to the pope and do submit to the infallible teachings of the papacy. Godbless.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Guest

[Guest]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1860202' date='May 6 2009, 09:40 PM']It is sorry.[/quote]

koc I took this out of contex and that is what sent me into a rage. I see how you meant it now. I thought you were saying my argument was "sorry". Which if you would of said it that way I feel my anger would of been justified. It is clear to me now though rereading it that you didnt meant it that way. my bad. I have to be carefull to remember on the internet you can't tell how peopole are saying things.

[Guest]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1860390' date='May 7 2009, 12:33 AM']Sorry to hijack again but I just had to bring up this article regarding what you're talking about.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea2.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea2.asp[/url][/quote]

Thanks for this. I found this insightfull :

The Associated Press reported that 250 priests had been dismissed or had resigned by the time the bishops met last June, though it is not clear that all of the dismissals and resignations were due to abuse. Even if all 250 priests were abusers, it would still amount to about one-half of one percent (0.53 percent) of the 47,000 priests currently serving in America, a proportion far smaller than in most media accounts. Since some of the allegations involved priests who are now dead, the proportion of offenders within today's priesthood is significantly smaller than one-half of one percent. Nevertheless, the numbers are profoundly disturbing.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1860186' date='May 6 2009, 11:32 PM']Actually no, they are not forced. If a man is called to Holy Matrimony, and the Priesthood, he can get married first, then join one of the rites of the Church that allows a married man to become a priest. The same flawed logic accuses the Church of forcing women to be second class by not allowing them to be priestess.[/quote]

I've got a feeling the Eastern Rites don't want to be treated as a place for Roman Catholics to escape the disciplines instituted by our own Latin Rite.

A man who thinks God is calling him in two distinct directions needs to learn the virtue of sacrifice.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1860243' date='May 7 2009, 12:07 AM']I would question the motives of a married man that felt called to be a priest, but would not become a deacon.[/quote]

Permanent deacons are not eligible for ordination to the priesthood. Permanent means permanent Of course, a dispensation is possible, but the diaconate is a different ministry from the priesthood.

Not to mention the heavy responsibilities that weigh on married deacons. Most men need to focus on raising their families and maybe after the children are grown they can pursue the diaconate.

[Guest]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1860611' date='May 7 2009, 09:39 AM']Contrast this to my heterosexual cousin who likes Britney Spears and The Pussycat Dolls.[b] Now THATS disordered.[/b][/quote]


Whoa hey now those are my homegirls. I love the pcd's song "I hate this part"
Chill with that bro.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1860642' date='May 7 2009, 10:21 AM']Well, that's Jansenism... the reason your friend can't enter seminary isn't because he's not nice enough, it's because he's a Jansenist heretic. there might be some Jansenist tendencies among many traditionalists, but such hard-core Jansenism is very very rare in traditionalism.

now, lighter types of Jansenist trends exist among the thought processes of many traditionalists, but that usually just arises out of a bit of scrupulosity applied to a larger paradigm, since the scrupulous are often attracted to the traditional movement. but those Jansenist trends tend to give way to an acknowledgment that truly repentant attitudes are always to be received by the Church with mercy and forgiveness.[/quote]

Exactly.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1860642' date='May 7 2009, 09:21 AM']Well, that's Jansenism... the reason your friend can't enter seminary isn't because he's not nice enough, it's because he's a Jansenist heretic. there might be some Jansenist tendencies among many traditionalists, but such hard-core Jansenism is very very rare in traditionalism.

now, lighter types of Jansenist trends exist among the thought processes of many traditionalists, but that usually just arises out of a bit of scrupulosity applied to a larger paradigm, since the scrupulous are often attracted to the traditional movement. but those Jansenist trends tend to give way to an acknowledgment that truly repentant attitudes are always to be received by the Church with mercy and forgiveness.[/quote]

He's not a friend of mine. He actually creeps me out a bit. He is also quite irritated that I, a woman, am able to attend the seminary that he isn't. He could enroll and pay the tuition just like I do as a lay student, but he wants to be a seminarian. You have to keep a 3.20 average to remain as a lay student, and only 1.70 as a seminarian. Plus, seminarians don't pay tuition or room and board, their dioceses cover that. Every time he sees me, he grills me with questions on theology trying to trip me up. It's quite entertaining.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1860637' date='May 7 2009, 09:11 AM']Permanent deacons are not eligible for ordination to the priesthood. Permanent means permanent Of course, a dispensation is possible, but the diaconate is a different ministry from the priesthood.

Not to mention the heavy responsibilities that weigh on married deacons. Most men need to focus on raising their families and maybe after the children are grown they can pursue the diaconate.[/quote]
That's beside the point.

I was responding to the idea that allowing married priests would dramatically increase the number of priests.

I recognize that deacons and priests are different. The fact is that married men can be ordained. If married men felt called to serve in the priesthood but refused to serve as a deacon, I would question his motives. Maybe I would be wrong to do so... but that's a different conversation.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1861362' date='May 7 2009, 09:47 PM']You have to keep a 3.20 average to remain as a lay student, and only 1.70 as a seminarian[/quote]
i find this so disturbing

[Ash Wednesday]

I have always had a hard time getting my head around so much suffering, evil and horrific world events all coming about because some woman took the fruit off of a tree and told her man it was good to eat. That act in itself just seems so simplistic compared to all the events of mankind that followed it. To me Adam and Eve's acts smack of sheer stupidity rather than blatant rebellion. Basically you have things like mass-murder and torture because a couple of airheads got jobbed by a serpent.....and ate some forbidden fruit?

I mean, I wasn't there, I don't know what was going on in their heads. Maybe I should go back and read Genesis again. It's entirely possible that because it was written in a different time, Adam and Eve lack the same complexity in the story that I appreciate seeing in figures like Peter. To me it's jumping the gun to doubt something simply because you can't understand it, to be Catholic means to embrace a lot of mysteries (and not just the ones of the rosary...) But I've just always had a hard time totally getting my head around it, save for the concept that perhaps original sin is like a small germ that came to fruition and spread like an awful disease and epidemic. Or a small wayward cigarette butt culminating in a raging forest fire that destroys thousands of acres and people's homes. But it seems like the things that took place in history as a result of the fall in the garden seem more gruesome than the original act itself.

It's not something that affects my faith, I mean it's not like I can get my head around the concept of infinity and eternity, either. That's pretty hard to do when you're confined by time and space as you know it!

Edited May 8, 2009 by Ash Wednesday

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858424' date='May 6 2009, 03:03 AM']also that paralegic men, paralyized from the waist down are not allowed to get married in the catholic church, when Mary never had sex according to the church and was lawfully married to her husband.[/quote]


Hey is this true i did not know that, does not paul state he was married and had a son but after conversion had no more sexual relations with his wife and that he understood that not all could be like this but never said some can't ?