logo Sign In

Ask the member of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church AKA Interrogate the Catholic ;) — Page 17

Author
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2,   Yesterday, I watched on tv the Catholic Mass performed by the Pope on the Ben Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia.  I have a very questions.   What is the very ornate looking book they were using?  It is a Bible?  It was Gold gilded and decorated on the covers with gold.    What is that metal thing they were carrying around that had smoke coming out of it.  They were shaking it around.  What is the significance of it? 

 Ha! It's funny to hear it described that way, since it's such a normal thing for a Catholic that we never think twice about it and often we don't think about how odd it might seem to non-Catholics. I'll explain once I'm done my homework.

Author
Time
 (Edited)


RicOlie_2 said:One reason women can't be priests is that priests act in the person of Christ. This includes representing Christ himself, in the sacrifice of the Mass, in confession, etc. God is masculine in nature, especially in the form of Jesus. Priests representing him must therefore be male in order to properly stand in for him.

RicOlie_2 said:It's tough for me to explain, without spending hours and hours on it. But it is readily apparent that God made men and women differently, and not just physically. It isn't just our bodies that are different, but our souls as well.
It's arguably blasphemy to state this you realize this right? It states clearly in Galatians that
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


Course you could talk about the scripture in Timothy and Corinthians about the male authority over a woman and how she shouldn't teach. However it's clearly in reference to a married woman each time. In the hebrew text it even uses the words for husband and wife in Timothy it's just that those words can also mean woman and man. But in each instance it makes much more sense for it to mean a married woman since it talks of her husband in Corinthians and in Timothy it states that she can be saved from having taken authority by bearing children. Which would only make sense if she were already married otherwise it's the bible sanctioning children out of wedlock which is actually blasphemy. Further the spiritual order of having a man as a woman's "head" only makes sense if she is married. Additionally the chapter in Corinthians is mainly talking about the unknown tongues. In context it's arguable it's just saying that women shouldn't teach on unknown tongues.

(Edit) Also it's arguable that it's just her husband that she shouldn't usurp authority over/teach not all men. As in each instance in Corinthians and Timothy it mentions her husband for whom she should turn to. (Edit)

Additionally:

RicOlie_2 said: Or, a person might want to become a priest to escape the responsibilities of family life or life in the "real world," which is also a faulty motive.

The command to "come out of the world" is biblical tho. If priests are to represent Jesus Christ it's blasphemy that they don't come out of the world. The only reason they shouldn't is to retain a job that pays money to support their family should they have one.
From John:
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
From Corinthians:
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.


Seems to me that the whole "priest" position is built on a blasphemous foundation only intended to make men feel special and using Jesus as an excuse. Ultimately you could say that married women can't become priests because they'd be spiritually subservient to their husbands and Jesus is in authority over all men. However there's no reason I see that a single woman couldn't fulfill a priest position should she fulfill the other needed requirements. Though it's a position that seems held up by blasphemy anyways so it's really silly to exclude women on the blasphemous basis that a woman couldn't represent Jesus.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

If you'd like to explain how

RicOlie_2 said:2. Because men tend to have a harder time connecting with their Faith, it helps to have an important and special role for them that doesn't make them feel that religion is for women. This sounds silly when summed up like this, but it comes down to the way men and women differ.

it's a biblical reason to exclude women from representing Jesus feel free to thanks.

Tho I will say that it's odd to have a position in the church specifically so that men don't feel like religion is for women.... It's like stating that this religion isn't for women at all so go away.

http://i.imgur.com/MXA8TmO.gif

http://twister111.tumblr.com
Previous Signature preservation link

Author
Time

"it's a biblical reason to exclude women from representing Jesus feel free to thanks."

maybe should edit this so it makes sense?

Author
Time

Warbler said:

looking forward to it.

 I'm afraid I can't type up a good answer to you myself, since I've got a 2500 word essay to write, but I'll link you to some relevant Wikipedia articles. The smoke and metal thing you were talking about is incense, which is used occasionally (or often--depending on the culture and region) in Catholic worship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_use_of_incense#Christianity

The book you were talking about is probably the Lectionary, containing all Sunday readings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectionary

If it was on the altar rather than being carried in the procession and placed on the ambo (the pulpit), then it was the Roman Missal, containing all the prayers said in the Mass throughout the year, though those are usually red:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Missal

Feel free to ask further questions that aren't answered by the articles, but don't expect a quick answer.

Twister, I'll get back to you...eventually.

Author
Time

sorry, didn't mean to interfere with your school work.   That comes first.   Good luck with the essay.

Author
Time

"Incense is being increasingly used among some other Christian groups as well, for example, the Book of Worship of The United Methodist Church calls for incense in the Evening Praise and Prayer service" 

hmm.  I have never seen incense used in my church, and it is a United Methodist Church.   I never knew this was in the Book of Worship.   I guess I don't know as much about the United Methodist Church as I should. 

Author
Time

Warbler said:


"it's a biblical reason to exclude women from representing Jesus feel free to thanks."

maybe should edit this so it makes sense?
??? ()_o It's a continuation of the sentence from above the quote. "If you'd like to explain how it's a biblical reason to exclude women from representing Jesus feel free to thanks." The "it" being the quote. Pretty straightforward.... Maybe using the up arrow "^" or the word "that's" might make it more clear but seems a bit useless to edit it now that I've explained it.


http://i.imgur.com/MXA8TmO.gif

http://twister111.tumblr.com
Previous Signature preservation link

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I read it as "If you'd like to explain how x its a biblical reason to exclude women from representing Jesus feel free to thanks. " (x being the the quote from RicOlie_2).  I am not a grammar expert, but I think you should either say "how x is a biblical . . ." or "how it is a biblical . . ." or "how that's a biblical . . .".   Also I think you need a comma between Jesus and feel.   

Author
Time

Warbler said:


I read it as "If you'd like to explain how x its a biblical reason to exclude women from representing Jesus feel free to thanks. " (x being the the quote from RicOlie_2).  I am not a grammar expert, but I think you should either say "how x is" or "how it" or "how that's".   Also I think you need a comma between Jesus and feel.   
()_o I'm not gonna George Lucas my post into SE version 50 over minor grammar issues that have already been clarified. It's a waste of time.


http://i.imgur.com/MXA8TmO.gif

http://twister111.tumblr.com
Previous Signature preservation link

Author
Time

twister111 said:

Warbler said:


"it's a biblical reason to exclude women from representing Jesus feel free to thanks."

maybe should edit this so it makes sense?

??? ()_o It's a continuation of the sentence from above the quote. "If you'd like to explain how it's a biblical reason to exclude women from representing Jesus feel free to thanks." The "it" being the quote. Pretty straightforward.... Maybe using the up arrow "^" or the word "that's" might make it more clear but seems a bit useless to edit it now that I've explained it.


http://i.imgur.com/MXA8TmO.gif

        Biblical reason?

        How 'bout the bit about the chief officers of the congregation being good husbands to one wife?

        Of course, this only refers to certain offices, and only where there is a capable man available. There are good and sufficient reasons for limiting things so.

        Other positions are open to capable women.

Author
Time

You know what nevermind. Regardless of whether or not I'm right on this certain issue it really doesn't matter. I was temporarily puffed up with pride and arrogance and I apologize and repent of my behaviour. RicOlie_2 you don't need to make any reply to that post whatsoever.

Have a nice day everyone. http://i.imgur.com/UK732.gif Take care in the coming days ahead.

http://i.imgur.com/MXA8TmO.gif

http://twister111.tumblr.com
Previous Signature preservation link

Author
Time

twister111 said:

You know what nevermind. Regardless of whether or not I'm right on this certain issue it really doesn't matter. I was temporarily puffed up with pride and arrogance and I apologize and repent of my behaviour. RicOlie_2 you don't need to make any reply to that post whatsoever.

Have a nice day everyone. http://i.imgur.com/UK732.gif Take care in the coming days ahead.

http://i.imgur.com/MXA8TmO.gif

       Can't tell if sincere, or passive-aggressive. ;/

Author
Time
 (Edited)

twister111 said:

You know what nevermind. Regardless of whether or not I'm right on this certain issue it really doesn't matter. I was temporarily puffed up with pride and arrogance and I apologize and repent of my behaviour. RicOlie_2 you don't need to make any reply to that post whatsoever.

Have a nice day everyone. http://i.imgur.com/UK732.gif Take care in the coming days ahead.

http://i.imgur.com/MXA8TmO.gif

   double post

Author
Time

thejediknighthusezni said:

twister111 said:

You know what nevermind. Regardless of whether or not I'm right on this certain issue it really doesn't matter. I was temporarily puffed up with pride and arrogance and I apologize and repent of my behaviour. RicOlie_2 you don't need to make any reply to that post whatsoever.

Have a nice day everyone. http://i.imgur.com/UK732.gif Take care in the coming days ahead.

http://i.imgur.com/MXA8TmO.gif

       Can't tell if sincere, or passive-aggressive. ;/

     NVM. It pays to read ahead in the forum.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2, I am curious how you and other Catholics feel about the new TV series “The Young Pope”?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I’ve never seen it (or heard of it before now), so I can’t really say a lot. Based on the Wikipedia article, nothing looks particularly objectionable, although I see some things that could be, depending on how they’re portrayed.

Have you seen it at all? If so, are there any specific parts that you’d be curious about? It does seem unlikely that there would be the level of corruption among cardinals that the article mentions, but it is possible. I also object to the idea of “conservative” vs. “liberal” Catholicism. Although I know what is meant by that, I disagree with the use of the terms (that’s a sidenote though, it doesn’t really have much to do with the show).

EDIT: It looks interesting, though. I’d love to have a discussion about some of the issues it references.

Author
Time

Unfortunately, I have not been able to see it. I do not have HBO. 😦 I was just curious what Catholics in general felt about TV shows and movies about their Church and the Pope.

Why do you object to the idea of “conservative vs liberal” Catholicism. I thought in real life there were arguments within your church between the liberal and conservative minded.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

Unfortunately, I have not been able to see it. I do not have HBO. 😦 I was just curious what Catholics in general felt about TV shows and movies about their Church and the Pope.

Well that really depends on how the Church and pope are portrayed. 😄 If the Church isn’t being made fun of, then it’s totally fine. Representing the pope as less than perfect isn’t bad either, since the pope is human, but the fact that a pope is selected mainly for his holiness and suitability for dealing with present-day situations means that it’s a bit offensive when he’s demonized (unless, of course, it’s a movie about one of the bad Renaissance or Medieval popes…).

Why do you object to the idea of “conservative vs liberal” Catholicism. I thought in real life there were arguments within your church between the liberal and conservative minded.

The Church has a single, unified body of doctrine, with some room for personal interpretation in some areas. For this reason, speaking of it as if it were divided into two different camps with competing doctrine is harmful to the Faith, as it tends to polarize Catholics and pit them against each other instead of us all being united in our faith. There should be no “liberal” or “conservative” or “moderate” or whatever Catholics, we should simply be Catholic. If we start breaking off into factions, or talk about the Church as if it was made up of different political parties, we are violating the prayer Jesus prayed at the Last Supper, “that they may be one” (John 15 or something like that).

“Liberal” or “conservative” in this context usually refers to political views, which should only be secondary to religious ones. The truth is that the middle ground is the best road to take. If you’re too conservative, chances are you don’t have the same concern for the poor or social outcasts that you should and that you favour doctrine over charity. If you’re too liberal, chances are that you are less appreciative of the Church’s traditions as well as being willing to accept some degree of moral relativism, thinking of doctrine as less important than being “nice.”

Neither of those is healthy, since we are called to love and we are also called to uphold the truth. These are both of equal importance. Leaning one way or the other is usually what gets someone pegged as conservative/traditionalist or libera/modernist, which detracts from our main goal and vocation of living Christlike lives.

Hopefully that makes sense, and I’m happy to ramble on some more if you want me to expand on anything. 😉

Author
Time

In Babylon, they were all unified under Nimrod with one purpose and program. Isn’t there much to be said for division? If one group strays, they are not taking all the others with them.

There are many different offices in The True Church, some are Prophets, Bishops, Deacons, Language experts, Teachers, Healers… Why must the local congregations be exactly uniform?

Could they be one under The Logos while diverse in other respects?

Conservatives are demonized as uncaring. I would contend that it is precisely the opposite. To care for others means to honestly recognize what lifts people out of destructive conditions and to courageously hold to those principles in the face of all the hatred they inevitably receive from the enlightened ones. Moral Narcissists will feed the poor for a day and prance around with great superiority thereafter.

Author
Time

I just watched the trailer for the show and a few clips on Youtube, and now I have some objections! 😄 First of all, the pope is so incredibly arrogant (I mean not having sins to confess!? That’s not even remotely likely), the likelihood of his ever being pope is almost null. He goes so far as to say, assuming I heard correctly, “I’m God,” which is downright blasphemy. Then there’s some nun who sees the pope as being very holy, which either means the nun is insane or she is only pretending to be Catholic.

That pope would be among the very worst of the Church’s popes, although I do agree with a lot of what he says in various video clips. He’s very hypocritical and arrogant, but he strikes me as more misguided than evil in a lot of what I watched. He’s not the sort of leader I would want for the Church, but he does express a lot of truths that I would like to see a pope give voice to.