1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi all! No longer will threads be closed after 1000 (ish) messages. We may close if one gets so long to cause an issue and if you would like a thread closed to start a new one after a 1000 posts then just use the "Report Post" function. Enjoy!

Pope Benedict XVI Resigning as Pope!!

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Lorac, Feb 11, 2013.

  1. bek

    bek Guest

    :lol: About gosh ten years ago... I went to Seminary right out of college because I wanted to be a missionary. I was raised Pentecostal/Charismatic went through a period in high school where I believed nothing. Came back freshman year of college but because well I didn't have any Pentecostal groups in college, I went to a Methodist college group.. (I also attended a Christian church for regular services and volunteered at a Presbyterian Church! All while proudly calling myself a Pentecostal...)... I decided to go to a Pentecostal Seminary because I felt my time in ecumenical heaven, I decided maybe I need to learn more about what I actually was.

    Well I pretty much came out of Seminary after two years a Catholic...(I did attend a Catholic high school for two years).. It shocked quite a lot of people, and heck it shocked myself...I wasn't even really looking to be anything more than what I wanted to be but I could just no longer accept Protestantism as a movement... It was also realizing that there wasn't a single Protestant Church that I agreed with 100%... So it was either I could build my own Church based on what I thought things should be... Or I could maybe start asking some questions about my basis..... I really do think it was my ecumenical experience in college that really paved that road.

    It was a difficult choice and for a moment I did ask God if I could just be Methodist a good middle road between Catholicism and Pentecostalism... But after some prayer decided I'd go the whole route!

    I must say that in terms of Catholicism, the biggest thing I got out of Catholicism isn't the Pope... It isn't really Tradition. The biggest thing I got from it is the Eucharist (which weirdly enough was the big thing that made me reject the whole concept of Sola Scriptura). With the Eucharist I get an intense personal encounter and oneness with God. I did experience God as a Protestant...But I never had that Eucharist experience because well I just didn't believe in it....

    Part of saying we agree on essentials is nobody really can agree on what essentials is. For example for Catholics/Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox. The Eucharist is the very center of our faith...

    The whole I'm going to be a Catholic was a tough things as well a woman who went ahead with all of this seminary debt! And I actually struggled some with Catholicism too because Catholicism is much stricter. However now I am just focusing more on my relationship with God....And slowly the career thing is working out too. But in a lot of ways theologically I still know more about Protestantism than Catholicism.....In a lot of areas though my beliefs didn't change that much. (scarily enough which is why I don't feel Catholicism restricts my relationship with God).
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2013
  2. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa discriminating and persnickety ballet aficionado

  3. Angelskates

    Angelskates Well-Known Member

    And not just humans, but men.

    It's the difference between Christian and not Christian.

    The Church is dividing people, not the Holy Spirit. Love God, love others, and it doesn't matters whether there are disputes. Your church won't let me have communion, but mine would let you have communion. Christian is Christian, except for the Catholics. I've never been to a Christian church that has not allowed Catholics to have communion. Which one is dividing people?

    I don't accept that either (does any Christian not believe the Holy Spirit guides them?) but I can have the Holy Spirit guide ME, so I don't need Him to guide anyone else on my behalf. Not to say He hasn't. I have had people, sometimes total strangers, give me messages from the Holy Spirit, but before I follow them etc. I always ask Him myself.

    It's sad that you think this is watered down Christianity, because it's not that Jesus died, it's that He rose, and the reasons for that that mean something so much deeper than can be considered watered down. What that means to me shows in everything I do, everything I say...well, I want it to, anyway. We're humans, so sometimes we stray. Of course there are questions, but no one, not the Pope, not the church, not me, not you, has all the answers. Why should I go to someone who I know doesn't have all of the answers, when I go to the One who has all the answers? The Holy Spirit guides me.

    People seek out information, that's how we learn things. I also became a Christian as an adult (18), but I have always been a seeker, and I still am. I am fascinated with faith. Before I chose my own, even though I had an overwhelming experience with God that was undeniable, I asked around, went to lots of different faiths' services, read lots of different Holy Books, and prayed. I always believed in God, but what that meant in terms of a religion, I didn't know. I sometimes thinks the divisions created by denominations would break Jesus' heart, but then, it means there's something for everyone who chooses Christianity, it means He can touch more people. I still have an interfaith group once a week, and it's a highlight of my week. Do I think everyone except the Christians in my group are wrong? Yes, sometimes. Actually, I think the other Christians are wrong sometimes too :p Do they all think I'm wrong most of the time? Probably. But we still love each other, and others, and we think discussion is important and that an agreement doesn't matter.

    And we question theirs, and all others. You question mine. I actually don't question yours - I use the Catholic (Jerusalem) Bible, along with as many different translations as I can get my hands on. Because I think they're all equally Holy, and equally right, and can all teach me something.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013
  4. Vagabond

    Vagabond Well-Known Member

    Before it was suggested upthread that Ziggy and the Pope could be roommates, I had kind of imagined that Benedict and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, the timing of whose own abdication seems to be more than just happenstance, would act out their own version of Much Ado About Nothing (or Berlioz's opera) and settle down together in Messina or the South of France. The women in her family do have a penchant for German men and Catholics.

    Moto Guzzi and (deleted member) like this.
  5. bek

    bek Guest

    There are Protestant Churches that practice closed communion. For example a lot of Lutherans do. Part of the reason we Catholics practice closed communion is because a lot of Protestants deny what Communion actually is-the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. I know there have been some Protestants who have been administered communion to by the Pope himself but one of the rules has been that this person must affirm the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. We feel this denial by most Protestants is extremely serious..

    Second communion is suppose to symbolize unity. Right now there is no unity between Protestants/Catholics/Orthodox. Closed communion is difficult but it encourages us to fix our issues. The Eastern Orthodox have a very similar attitude towards the Eucharist that we do, which is why they too say no common Eucharist until we come to terms with our disagreements since the Eucharist is the symbol of our unity....

    If you view Communion as just a spiritual supper than its easier to say everyone participate. But if you view Communion as actually partaking the glorified body and blood of Christ.......

    Of course Christ's death and resurrection affirms everything we should do and say. But its a watered down Christianity because the relativism of what Sola Scriptura brings up. I.e we know Christ died and rose for our sins, but we don't know anything else. We can't agree on anything else. It makes it difficult for the Church to speak on anything with one voice because people will disagree and say Scripture and the Holy Spirit tells them different.

    Jesus said I'm the Way, the Truth, and the Life. So how is this Christian life suppose to be lived? In fact that's what the Lord told me in that moment in class. That's there's truth. That Jesus had a meaning when He said " This is my body" and it wasn't decide for yourself. That's there's truth in the debate of whether Christians can lose their Salvation or not. Scripture itself says the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

    In a word that is increasingly hurting, the Church needs to be able to speak out on topics. It needs to speak about evil, sin. Because sin is real and it separates people from God. But how can the Church do this if people can debate/argue etc about what Truth is? And there's no means of coming into agreement. Catholicism is careful to say not everything is infallible. Things like priestly celibacy, fasts etc aren't infallible. The Church actions aren't either... We've certainly learned from our mistakes and grow in our understanding of Truth. But there still must be a means of discerning what the Truth is. We don't believe God left us to fend for ourselves or decide for ourselves when the Holy Spirit is speaking/not speaking. I.e that the Holy Spirit is giving multiple confusing truths out there contradicting Himself and leading to all kinds of divisions.

    I agree with you that its human beings separating and causing these divisions. But some of these humans do come to conclusions where they feel what about truth? For example an Arminian who believes in free will and the importance of stressing the Gospel to all. And yes that one can lose their salvation. Versus a Calvinist who believes something very different. There is a right answer here in the end...

    In the end as Catholics we believe when these moments come. The Church will follow the example of Acts where a council was created. And Jesus when he says two or more gathered. Our bishops/Pope will pray. They will search Scriptures. They will also search Church Tradition based on Galations which says if anyone comes to you with a Gospel other than the one you have accepted. Than after all of this prayer, search a decision will be made. We believe if those in the council can't agree, Peter's successor will have the final say because someone has to have it. And then a decision will be made. And we believe the Holy Spirit who wants unity and wants Truth will guide this truth..

    I could point out would any government work if it was decided people could interpert the Law for themselves? Eventually you'd have chaos because folks would disagree with what the Law meant. Surely then judges are needed to determine what the Law is. For order and for the law to actually well mean something.

    Mere Christianity is a great thing and I still believe in that something. But it doesn't end there. Its like holding on to a mother's milk, when one can have meat. And I'm not anti everything Protestant etc. I'm still amazed by great Protestant Christians like Corrie Ten Boom etc...I still like Cs Lewis. I actually do have a great respect for John Wesley etc.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2013
  6. cruisin

    cruisin Banned Member

    It's interesting to consider closed Communion. My husband was raised Catholic. His mother was a very strong practicing Catholic. However, my husband was married and divorced. I was raised Episcopalian, so that is the church we married in. For a very long time my husband's mother feared for her son's soul, since he was no longer "Catholic". At least his marriage was not recognized. I did try to reassure her that the Episcopal church was very similar to the Catholic church. When she came to visit, she went to the Episcopal church with us, but did not take Communion. The year before she passed away, she went to midnight mass with us, at the Episcopal church. When it came time for Communion, she got up to receive. I was stunned. And I asked her about it. She looked at me and said, you know what? You're right, we are the same. We believe the same thing. She was 81 at the time.

    I never had a problem receiving Communion in a Catholic church. I have never believed that God or Jesus cared what building I was in or who gave me the Eucharist. I have always believed it was more about how I live my life.
  7. skatesindreams

    skatesindreams Well-Known Member

    Many of my Catholic friends feel very comfortable when visiting the Episcopal church.
  8. numbers123

    numbers123 Well-Known Member

    This is what the Communion Overview as described in the UMC.org
    as far as I am concerned, when Communion is offered/given it means that the life and breath of Jesus is within the breaking of the bread and sharing of the wine. This sharing of the Holy Spirit is not restricted to the special holy people of the Catholic church but to all of us. I suppose that in my misunderstanding of the Catholic Church's communion practices, when I participated during the wedding ceremony of my friend - I committed sin and caused this transgression to seep onto those who administered it to me.
    The Catholic church seems hell bent on making the Christianity religion for only some people and not all people.
    I believe that what affirms everything we do should be part of the Old Testament where the 10 Commandments lie along with the additional one that Jesus commanded us to do - love one another. But that can be part of other religions too. We as a Christianity belief need to accept that other religions have their place in our world, you know they whole love one another as you would love yourself. Historically, one could find evidence that Jesus spent not only time in Jewish temples but studied with other types of religions.
    yet what is sin? I struggle with the concept of sin. To say I am born into sin, without knowledge of sin is irrational. One must learn to differentiate what is right and wrong and act accordingly. We are all subject to the evils of sin - that is what happens when you are given free choice. The Church needs to carefully view topics that previously were not addressed and consider what Jesus would do. Trite sentence, I just can't figure out how best to say it. Jesus challenged the status quo. Did not pass by the issues of the day, asked us to accept people where they are, recognize that people are born who they are and just because certain rules have been in place by the leaders of the church doesn't change how we should treat them. There is more to the story of the Good Samaritan that we want to consider. Insert a gay man sitting at the side of the road, hurt, bleeding and in need of acceptance - someone outside the church offers help and acceptance. Would we not be charged with the same actions? The Catholic church and in general Christian churches have transitioned too much to a status quo state.
    Truth comes from hearing others speak out and eliminate barriers to our preconceived ideas. To me this is what Jesus taught - throw away those accepted beliefs and challenge ourselves to meet changing social/culture norms.
    Yes, it is human who cause the separating and divisions. That I will agree upon
  9. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa discriminating and persnickety ballet aficionado

    Ummm, dunno. Ziggy or Queen Beatrix. A tough decision.
  10. Southpaw

    Southpaw Saint Smugpawski

    Maybe they can have shared custody?
  11. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa discriminating and persnickety ballet aficionado

    There you go--weekends with Ziggy, school nights with the Queen. Ziggy better let him post here. :D He'll clear up the above discussion, eh.
  12. Southpaw

    Southpaw Saint Smugpawski

    He'll be complaining that not enough skaters use Ave Maria before you know it. They grow up SO fast.
  13. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa discriminating and persnickety ballet aficionado

    Can't wait to do a pbp with him.
  14. allezfred

    allezfred Master/Mistress of Sneer Staff Member

    I remember seeing a news report where some Vatican expert said Benedict would be living in a cottage at the bottom of the Vatican garden. I suppose it makes sense since so many of the Catholic clergy are familiar with cottaging. :saint:
  15. cruisin

    cruisin Banned Member

    That would not be a sin issue in all Christian churches. The Episcopal Church ordains gay ministers.
  16. skatesindreams

    skatesindreams Well-Known Member

    There have been several "splinters" from the Episcopal Church as a result.
    However, I am proud of my church for moving toward greater tolerance and inclusion, even when it is difficult for some to accept.
    AJ Skatefan and (deleted member) like this.
  17. cruisin

    cruisin Banned Member

    I agree. Our church has two female ministers. One is gay, the other is Matthew Broderick's sister. They are both wonderful women!
  18. bek

    bek Guest

    While I wouldn't take Communion in the Epscopalian Church I do think I have more in common with Protestants than I have against..... And in the end it is the same God. And honestly too although far less so more in common with the devout Muslim...(well depending on the version!) One of the things I love about being Catholic is the Church doesn't say the devout Muslim is condemned to Hell. But rather talks about Natural law...And God taking into account People's intentions.

    I still feel there's more to it than mere Christianity..

    As for communion, I understand in the Methodist church there's a variety of opinions on Communion just like there's a variety of opinions about everything in Communion.

    As for Catholicism creating an "elite club".. The Church says the sacraments are for Catholics; however its not like the Church says others can't be Catholic....Protestants aren't stopped from having communion in their own circles and if a Protestant is in desperate need at times it will be allowed...Catholicism recognizes Protestant baptism a lot of Protestants don't recognize Catholic baptism. Methodism does recognize Catholic baptism.

    I understand the principals of open communion but some of it comes from a different understanding of communion or church unity.. Or Church believes Christians literally must be one church before open communion. Its not like Catholicism is stopping Protestants from having communion amongst themselves.

    However once again, we as Catholics don't believe we are just sharing the Holy Spirit we believe we are taking in Christ's actual body. And we think handing over Christ's body to those who don't discern his Body is very serious thing. There are many Protestants who truly believe its just a piece of bread.

    But you have to understand we Worship the Eucharist. Are you willing to worship the Eucharist? We truly believe that after the consecration its Jesus.....Are you willing to worship that as Jesus. And if you don't/can't. Can you see why for us that is a huge obstacle.

    I honestly think Protestants who don't believe in this should have huge issues with what we are doing..
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2013
  19. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa discriminating and persnickety ballet aficionado

    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  20. Angelskates

    Angelskates Well-Known Member

    I can't. Communion is between the individual and God, just like everything else. You have no idea the state of anyone's heart, or their beliefs. They don't ask each person what they believe before taking communion, they leave it up to the individual, and could all be lying for all you know. It's between them and God. I don't see the harm in open communion at all, and I take communion extremely seriously for myself.
  21. Sasha'sSpins

    Sasha'sSpins Well-Known Member

    I thought being Pope was for life. Kind of like a Supreme Court judge. Well, here's hoping for the sake of more liberal-thinking Catholics that a younger Pope with more modern ideas is elected. Beginning with celibate priests. The 12 Apostles were all married. Roman Catholic priests should be allowed to marry too if they so choose-and have children. Some priests ARE married but only if they agree to live as brother and sister with their spouse. IIRC from my long-ago Catholic school teachings, some Pope centuries after Christ decided that due to the hardships of travelling involved it would be better if priests did not marry. But that's just not the case today. It hasn't been actually I'd say for at least the last century and a half since transportation improved dramatically. And I absolutely believe birth control should be addressed. Although-don't they allow the use of condoms now to combat AIDS?
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  22. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    The Catholic Church acknowledges other denominations as Christian. From the catechism:

  23. bek

    bek Guest

    Communion isn't just between the individual and God. Communion is where Christians become one with God and with each other. I.e in Catholic teaching by partaking of Christ's glorified body we become with each other...All united in Christ's body. Communion then isn't just about you and Jesus.

    For the record of course the Church can't know who is Catholic who isn't. It can only state the requirements and leave it up for the individuals to be truthful or not.

    At the heart of this is a very different understanding of what the Church is. Catholics believe Jesus Christ established one visible Church. And so we believe the existence of all the separate sects/divisions is a result of human sin. This sin is because of sin we committed too. (We are no innocents) But we believe God wants and demands Communion with each other.

    There is a Scripture verse that talks about healing the rift with your brother before taking. In our mind we cannot profess in Communion right now what is not true. While all Christians are tied together in a mystical way right now we very much are separated brothers/sisters. We are not speaking with once voice...We don't even agree with what is going on in Communion.. As such we can't say there's a unity that is not there.

    And for the record I never said Protestants don't take Communion seriously. I know I did, but a lot of Protestants don't take it the same way. Some do but most don't take it the way we do.

    We would point out this Scripture verse

    1 Corinthians 11: 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be
    guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

    While Protestants may feel differently we'd say not recognizing its the Body and Blood of Christs could hurt many. Thus the Church insists as “We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…”
    -Justin Martyr -FIRST APOLOGY, 66,20–(150 A.D.)
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2013
  24. Sasha'sSpins

    Sasha'sSpins Well-Known Member

    Thank you! I still can't believe it when people say such things and are so misinformed about pedophiles! Orthodox priests, Protestant ministers and Jewish Rabbis who are married have also been accused of child molestation. Marriage most certainly does not prevent a pedophile from committing child sexual abuse! On the other hand, I was raised Catholic and fortunately I was never molested by any priest nor heard of one who was accused of doing so. It does happen though and I am very sensitive to that. But the priest's marriage state or lack thereof has nothing to do with it!

    Thank you for the link to this tragedy that could have been avoided.

    Reprehensible. That story just makes me so mad.

    Judging from portraits, Pope Victor I appears to have been white or light-skinned. Here's one: http://www.archelaos.com/popes/image.aspx?id=51

    Best post of the thread!! :rofl:

    There is a legend of a Pope Joan. I didn't know about it myself though til I saw the tv movie about her legend last year.

    Interesting! In my day the order was Baptism, First Confession, First Communion, then Confirmation. I was 5 when I was baptized as were my nephews years later. The reason I was given was they couldn't find godparents for me and for my sister's kids it was the same. They just wanted to wait until they felt they could ask the people they were comfortable with to stand as godparents. My First Confession (now called Reconciliation) was several weeks before First Communion. I loved my First Holy Communion especially the ritual, my dress and the wreath of flowers we girls wore instead of a veil. I remember a few years later being annoyed with Confirmation. It didn't feel like I had a choice-like it was just expected of me. And I envied some cousins who got to do their Confirmation when they were older and could decide for themselves if they wanted to be Soldiers of Christ. I did get to pick out my Confirmation name though. :D

    I remember my 6th grade teacher Mr. Quinn telling us that he once went to an Episcopalian church but didn't realize till about halfway that it wasn't Roman Catholic!

    I've enjoyed reading everyone's post here and had no idea that so many non-Catholics as well as former Catholics would pipe in and give their (at times witty :lol:!) point of views! I am a fallen-away Catholic with Pagan leanings myself, I guess I do still consider myself a 'cultural' Catholic as it were but in any event, I do hope for the sake of practicing Catholics that the next Pope is at least willing to listen to more forward thinking for the 21st century. Pope Benedicts stance on condoms really was a shock and a pleasant surprize for me-never thought it'd happen in my lifetime so who knows? Small steps. :cool:
  25. Angelskates

    Angelskates Well-Known Member

    Everyone taking communion is taking communion together, but the act itself, and what you believe it to be, only you and God know.

    bek - you said that some Protestants think communion is just bread. I know some Catholics also think communion is just bread. Some Protestants don't take communion seriously. Some Catholics don't take communion seriously. Aside from a few very good friends of mine, and my uncle (who is a chaplain at a Catholic school) who are Catholic, every other Catholic I know takes communion because that's what they've been taught to do. I took communion - heck, I took my first Holy Communion, because everyone else did. Every single person in my class had their first Holy Communion on the same day. Do you think we were all ready for that, and understood it? I did all of the steps, went to all of the classes, because that's what everyone did. My family did it, my class and school did it, their families did it. Only two are still Catholic. You say the collective "we" meaning all Catholics, but you really should be saying "I", because you can actually only speak for yourself when you say how you take communion seriously, you have no idea how everyone else takes it, only how you want - and your church says - they should take it. Your church really doesn't know (and more than mine does) - like I said, it's between God and the individual.
  26. agalisgv

    agalisgv Well-Known Member

    I would say the defining feature of Christian inclusion is the acceptance of baptism--not the eucharist. When a denomination accepts the baptism of another, they are affirming that the others are part of the Christian family. Catholics accept the baptism of Protestants. Some Protestants will accept a Catholic baptism, but not all. The issue for some Protestants isn't whether it's done by a Catholic Priest, but whether it is done with the full consent of the person baptized. Therefore an infant baptism by some will not be considered necessarily valid. Some Baptists will ask for the person to be baptized again since a baptism is only seen as valid if it follows becoming born again. Other Baptists will allow a pre-born again baptism if the person accepts the regeneration of that earlier baptism. IOW, it's left up to person if they want to be baptized by immersion now or not. But if a person was baptized Catholic after becoming born again, that baptism is seen as valid and binding.

    The defining factor of who is considered Christian writ large is whether their baptisms are accepted as valid by other denominations. With some caveats, Catholics and Protestants recognize each other as Christian more or less because they accept each other's baptisms. The one group whose baptisms are not considered valid by any Protestant or Catholic church are members of the Latter Day Saints movements. That is why LDS are not considered Christian at the denominational level.

    The issue of the eucharist is more an ecclesial matter rather than defining who is Christian. For example, some churches believe you must be born again, and you must be truly penitent for your sins in order to receive the Lord's Supper. If either is untrue, you drink eternal condemnation upon yourself. So they will have a rather extensive self-introspection time, and the eucharist will not be given to everyone in the congregation, but only those who self-select in a separate part of the service.

    Then you have the open communion table practiced by some that don't even require a person to be Christian to partake. This would be heresy for some, but is widely practiced by others. Some believe you have to drink from the same cup, while other denominations believe the congregation must drink at the same time, so issue separate cups to each individual. Some churches have modified their eucharistic practices based on public health concerns, so only allow the celebrant to touch the bread, and encourage intinction for receiving the wine/juice. Catholics theoretically restrict communion to Catholics and certain Orthodox traditions, but in reality leave it up to the individual to take or not take. IOW, if someone goes up for communion, the priest isn't going to turn them away (with exceptions of the person being known to be excommunicated by the priest). In Missouri and Wisconsin Synod Lutheran churches, the pastor will absolutely stop the service during communion to ask if someone they don't know is indeed Lutheran of an appropriately observant church before allowing them to take communion. So while in theory Catholics have a close communion, in practice their communion table is pretty open. The same cannot be said for some Protestant traditions.

    But that's because Christianity itself isn't necessarily being affirmed in the Eucharist, but rather the contours of a particular ecclesial community. Inclusion or exclusion from the eucharist does not signify acceptance of another's Christianity. Rather it signifies acceptance of an individual into a particular ecclesial community.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  27. cruisin

    cruisin Banned Member

    You are assuming that all Catholics understand the Eucharist the way you do. I would guess that many Roman Catholics do not believe as strongly as you do. Should they receive Communion?

    But, I did not say pedophiles in my post. I said molestation. There is a history of Catholic Priests and Nuns having sexual relations, consensual and not. My point was why celibacy? If humans have physical needs, why would the church deny them? Especially a church that feels so strongly about not using birth control.

    The Episcopal service is probably closer to the older Roman Catholic service than the "current, new" Catholic service. Especially in high Episcopal churches.
  28. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    Technically, a Catholic who is not currently in a state of grace should sit out from communion. If they do not or no longer believe in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist, no they shouldn't take it. The Eucharist IS the body of Christ. It isn't a representation. If you listen to the mass, that is made very clear.

    Many Catholics take communion when they shouldn't according to the Catechism. I'm not the one to judge their actions, and they shouldn't judge mine. That is only up to God.
  29. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    I don't think the argument is that marriage would prevent pedophiles from abusing children.

    I think the argument in favor of allowing priests to marry is that the profession would then attract people who want to marry, which is a majority of people out there in the world.

    By its current policies, the Church excludes candidates who would want a committed adult heterosexual relationship and puts itself in the position of having to choose its priests from among men who

    * are attracted to women but are willing to forgo sexual relationships because they feel a stronger commitment to serving God and community

    * are attracted to men but are willing to forgo sexual relationships because they feel a stronger commitment to serving God and community (and know they shouldn't have homosexual relationships even if they weren't priests, but that's less important than the religious calling)

    * are completely asexual

    Ideally, from the Church's point of view, all priest candidates would come from the above categories.

    However, in reality, what happens is that they also get men who are attracted to the same sex and/or to children but not to adult women, know that acting on those attractions is forbidden, and

    4) believe that their attraction to men is trivial and they'll grow out of them, and that the important fact about their sexuality is the lack of interest in adult women, which they interpret to mean that they are called to commit to the Church instead of to a wife

    In a world where homosexuality is accepted (outside the priesthood), men in this category would just identify as gay and live their lives as gay men rather than interpreting their lack of desire for women as a sign that they are called to religious celibacy. Probably that has been happening, which could explain part of the shortage of candidates for priesthood.

    *believe that their attraction to children is trivial and they'll grow out of it, and that the important fact about their sexuality is the lack of interest in adult women, which they interpret to mean that they are called to commit to the Church instead of to a wife

    *know that their "perverse" desires are strong but believe that dedicating themselves religion will help them resist temption

    However, they may discover that the attraction is not trivial and is not so easy to resist after all, at least without therapy.

    *know that their lust toward children is strong and have no intention of resisting, but are actively drawn toward a profession that will allow them access to children under cover of respectability

    It's the guys in these three categories who pose a danger to children.

    Allowing priests to marry would not prevent such men from desiring children sexually or acting on that desire.

    What it would do is give the Church a wider pool of potential priests, so they could reject applicants who show indications of pursuing priesthood primarily to escape their own sexual demons.

    The lack of the mystique of celibacy would also lessen the attraction of the priesthood to such individuals.

    Pedophilic attraction would still exist -- and how to deal with it is a problem for the society at large.

    But the number of pedophilic individuals in the priesthood, the number of priests choosing that profession for the wrong reasons, would be reduced. So it would be no more of a problem or part of the culture within this profession than in, say, education or sports coaching -- where, yes, pedophiles exist and are often married.
  30. bek

    bek Guest

    Sigh. Angelskates you are asking me why Catholicism says only Catholics should receive Communion. It is not the lay people who don't believe in transubstation who makes these rules. It is the official Church. So if you are going to question why the OFFICIAL church makes these rules, it is fair to bring up what the Catholic Church officially teaches about the Eucharist.

    And what I'm saying is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. There are things in the Catholic Church that are not defined, that Catholics are free to disagree about and still be within the bounds of Catholicism. This is why in someways there's far more diversity amongst Catholics.

    However there are things in Catholic teaching that are clearly defined, infallibly spoken. They are considered "essential" all Catholics are required to believe it. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Is one of those things. It is defined in the Church councils. Nobody not even the Pope can change this teaching. Every denomination has its core teachings that define them. Every Church has official teachings. Just because there may be some who go to and attend those Churches and maybe disagree or dissent does not change what those core teachings are.

    The Eucharist being really and truly our Lord Jesus Christ is at the core teaching of the Catholic Church. Its the heart of the Catholic Church. There are many Catholics who struggle with the teachings of the Church in a lot of areas but stay because of the Eucharist. It is sad there are Catholics who don't understand this. But the Church does what is in their power to make them understand. It is why our Church has people genuflect when entering Church. It is why Catholics bow before taking the Eucharist. And it is why Eucharist adoration is so heavily encouraged in the Church. All to promote to Catholics are believe that Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist. It has something our Church has taught for 2,000 year. And as I said before its our very heart.

    And of course the Catholic Church cannot read the hearts and minds of people. It can't know if they are Catholic, it cannot know if they are in mortal sin etc. That is between them and God. But they can tell people guidelines if they should or should not receive. As Agasliv mentioned nobody is presented with 20 questions before partaking of the Eucharist.

    But you can't have it both ways. You can't say its unfair Catholicism restricts it, and then when I say why, say well not every Catholic believes that. Because the Church would tell those Catholics, they shouldn't be receiving either if they don't believe that.

    The majority of pedophiles are straight and married
    . Marriage brings them far more access to children than non marriage. Now thank goodness since Churches everywhere are putting more restrictions. Marriage even more is going to be attractive to pedophiles....

    Pedophiles are going to find their ways to get to children. The best thing we can do is watch who are children are with and also punish them when they are caught... This is why we must talk to kids about what is appropriate and what is not.

    And for the record just because Catholic priests are celibate doesn't mean they don't have sexual desires. Rather they choose to give up these desires for the sake of the Kingdom of God. The Church teaches all non married Catholics should be doing the same. Not wanting to be married doesn't make you weird and it doesn't mean you would hurt children. Same with being gay. It doesn't make you more likely to hurt children either.

    The rate of sexual abuse in churches isn't "less" amongst those who have married clergy. Now one could argue the priestly shortage had the Church keeping men they shouldn't have..... However in faithful dioceses and places were Orthodox Catholicism is being encouraged, priestly vocations are going up...In parts of Asia and Africa its huge. So IMO the Church should weed out those who have issues and then see if we end up with a continued shortage than yes its time to discuss removing celibacy....
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2013