The Church needs to change - but not in the way they all say

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

The church and state are separate entities, we know that as one unit the state has to much influence over the church. Just an example supposedly just like as a general rule if a christian marries an athiest there is a greater possibility that the christian will water down there faith than the athiest gaining faith, or it will be a mixed up bish and bash with no real foundation.  We are the weaker of the 2 vessels, believing in love and mercy which can incline us to allow the other to manipulate us(for want of a better word) oh that's it, get away with more than they possibly should.

and holy scripture can't be just read literally, though it can, that is sola scriptura and than scripture only has one meaning kind of thing. The truth is a double edged sword babe and each verse can have a multiple meanings. That's how i have been led by the spirit and the catechism to read holy scripture.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Like there is a subject matter from heading to heading, but these guys have divine madness and can bounce around the shop from aisle to aisle selling this and that without leaving the front desk kind of thing, they can talk about the inside and the outside at the same time, lol. Something like that anyhow, but truly Jesus says " The truth is a double edged sword" and the catechism teaches us there are four ways to read holy scripture.  And perhaps a few others the holy mother church is yet availed to, being revealed to by the holy spirit.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[MarysLittleFlower]

Franciscanheart - I think it help to clarify if there was a description of the approach the article is talking about but using a different language and more precise... I can't tell really if the way I understood the article is correct. I'm not sure if others would agree..

[Lilllabettt]

It is truly sad and frustrating to me that so many Catholics are so completely utterly clueless about Theology of the Body. Forget the normals. You Catholics don't have a clue.You cannot even ridicule it properly, you are so ignorant. Reject it if you want but don't you think you should get it before you reject it?

HOW MANY YEARS HAS IT BEEN since John Paul II died? HMMM??? And we have had this Theology of the Body stuff packaged, and marketed, and smacked on lunchboxes. And you still don't get it.

arrrrghhhhh

Why is contraceptive sex wrong according to the Church, friends? Is it because the Church thinks its icky? Is it because it is *impossible* for God to make a baby when the sex is contraceptive???

p.s. you know why people are suspicious whenever people talk about showing love for homosexual individuals? Because the people who are loudest about that so often turn out to be frickin traitors to the cause.  E.g. the Deacon who gave the homily after the Supremes decision. Long arse homily on how we haven't been welcoming of gay people and how we need to love them. "Yes" thought me. "A challenging sermon. Exactly what we need to hear." The he ends the thing by remarking that although the Church's teaching on the Sacrament of Marriage hasn't changed,no doubt we will be wrestling with moral dilemmas on the subject in the future. In other words, earth to congregation, the Church is one day going to bless gay relationships, so get used to it!

 

 

 

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Can we get a bit more specific, Lillllllllabettttttt!tt?

[MarysLittleFlower]

The church and state are separate entities, we know that as one unit the state has to much influence over the church. Just an example supposedly just like as a general rule if a christian marries an athiest there is a greater possibility that the christian will water down there faith than the athiest gaining faith, or it will be a mixed up bish and bash with no real foundation.  We are the weaker of the 2 vessels, believing in love and mercy which can incline us to allow the other to manipulate us(for want of a better word) oh that's it, get away with more than they possibly should.

and holy scripture can't be just read literally, though it can, that is sola scriptura and than scripture only has one meaning kind of thing. The truth is a double edged sword babe and each verse can have a multiple meanings. That's how i have been led by the spirit and the catechism to read holy scripture.

 

I would recommend reading the syllabus of errors and the encyclical against modernism to anyone interested in the topic of Church and state... Basically the Church needs to be able to guide the state in morals. We respect the authority of the state but can't agree with its moral errors if it disregards the Church. 

Regarding the part about the Bible - sola scriptura refers to reading it without the Church's Tradition... Yes many verses have multiple meanings. The literal meaning still applies but then there are more hidden meanings. Bit with these too we need to submit to the Church for interpretation. Like that verse is clearlytalking about bad company. Does it mean something else for Church and state? I don't know myself and that's up to the Church... 

But it can't mean condoning any evil in society since its talking about not mixing with public sinners to avoid scandal and bad example - perhaps. Even that is complex cause there were times Our Lord and Saints were around sinners but it was to help them get out of sin, and the Saints warn of bad company too. I know we are all sinners I mean notorious unrepentant public sin. As for Church and State the syllabus of errors is very informative

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Okay we have both had our say, but i don't totally agree with all you have said. I never said anything about condoning, i don't think we should condone or villanize it, it is a matter outside of the churches jurisdiction, what goes on outside of the church is there business and God will judge them, not me and you, good or bad. They can't be bad by the way because they know not what is good, and you have to know what is good and deliberately go against it to do actual bad, theologically speaking.

We will agree to disagree, this will circle and i don't wan't to argue nore debate because 1. st paul warns christians not to argue with each other and 2 this is not the debate table. Adew adew honey boo.  and God bless you.

Though of course we chat and pray about matters of all manner of things.

[Lilllabettt]

Can we get a bit more specific, Lillllllllabettttttt!tt?

No we cannot get more specific cuz I am sick of explaining it to every Tom Dick and Harry. I am tired.

oh oh here's a stupid short explanation.

Food. 

Sometimes people eat mostly cuz they are hungry. They need food to nourish them. Food's purpose is to give us nourishment.Some people eat mostly for pleasure, and the nourishment is just a side effect. All good. We are supposed to enjoy eating; we evolved that way because, hello, it helps propagate the species.

But sometimes people are already full. And then they eat more, because they want the pleasure eating gives them. But guess what, now the food doesn't nourish them. It actually makes them sick. Now instead of food being nourishment, it is poison. It's the opposite. It's 3:00 AM instead of the Hour of Mercy. It's the crucifix turned upside down. It is ego, selfishness, disease. It is children starving to death in Africa. Nature recoils.  

That is the corruption of original sin, right there. This tendency among humans to twist everything. Eating for pleasure is fine and even praiseworthy as long as it isn't divorced from the purpose of nourishment.

Are people who poison themselves with food really "eating" in any genuine sense of the term? They are ingesting objects but deriving no nourishment from them. In fact the opposite, they are actually poisoning themselves.  They are "feeding" not eating. In the same way people merely "screw" when they have gay/contraceptive/unmarried intercourse. They aren't having real sex they are poisoning themselves for the fun of it.

I wish corrupt sex made people as visibly, physically, unwell as corrupt eating does. It would be less attractive that way.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Tab'le De'Bah-Rye, Not all people are invincibly ignorant.. We just can't say who is or isn't usually cause that could be judging. But its not as simple as people just not knowing. There's a case of a hardened conscience. As for the Church and State - I'm not quite sure what you mean but the mission of the Church is to help the people outside come to the Church.. If the world is in error its an act of mercy to help them and instruct them. Morality is not in the state's jurisdiction but the Church's. The State should follow it. I think maybe you are trying to express a different point like the Church being responsible for its people but we should also try to help people outside to come in, yes? like I was once outside. Mayber we're just speaking past each other. I don't see it as a debate though just trying to understand and come to a consensus! 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

we evangelize yes, judge as being good or bad. NO! Evangelising is usually a one on one or pulpit thing, not an activist group. By tha way. :o* no pun intended just tickling your extra rib. 

Edited July 15, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Nihil Obstat]

 

 

No we cannot get more specific cuz I am sick of explaining it to every Tom Dick and Harry. I am tired.

oh oh here's a stupid short explanation.

Food. 

Sometimes people eat mostly cuz they are hungry. They need food to nourish them. Food's purpose is to give us nourishment.Some people eat mostly for pleasure, and the nourishment is just a side effect. All good. We are supposed to enjoy eating; we evolved that way because, hello, it helps propagate the species.

But sometimes people are already full. And then they eat more, because they want the pleasure eating gives them. But guess what, now the food doesn't nourish them. It actually makes them sick. Now instead of food being nourishment, it is poison. It's the opposite. It's 3:00 AM instead of the Hour of Mercy. It's the crucifix turned upside down. It is ego, selfishness, disease. It is children starving to death in Africa. Nature recoils.  

That is the corruption of original sin, right there. This tendency among humans to twist everything. Eating for pleasure is fine and even praiseworthy as long as it isn't divorced from the purpose of nourishment.

Are people who poison themselves with food really "eating" in any genuine sense of the term? They are ingesting objects but deriving no nourishment from them. In fact the opposite, they are actually poisoning themselves.  They are "feeding" not eating. In the same way people merely "screw" when they have gay/contraceptive/unmarried intercourse. They aren't having real sex they are poisoning themselves for the fun of it.

I wish corrupt sex made people as visibly, physically, unwell as corrupt eating does. It would be less attractive that way.

Sure. But I was hoping for examples in this thread of Catholics who clearly do not understand the teleology and theology of human sexuality. I have mainly been skimming, and you seem to have a very clear idea.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

timed out some how. heres the rest.

 Though yes st paul did debate in a pagan public forum once or twice in greece i think, but it was a public sphere not political and he had his say and let it go, he didn't proselytize them, and also he went into that public debate arena on invite and not his own steam.

[Lilllabettt]

Sure. But I was hoping for examples in this thread of Catholics who clearly do not understand the teleology and theology of human sexuality. I have mainly been skimming, and you seem to have a very clear idea.

it's 2 pages, bro. 3 including this one. Go back and read. 

[Nihil Obstat]

 

it's 2 pages, bro. 3 including this one. Go back and read. 

No can do. My work allows for checks here and there, but usually no more than a minute at a time. Hence my hope for a highlight reel. Today is my long day where I leave the house at 8am and get home at 10pm.

[MarysLittleFlower]

It is truly sad and frustrating to me that so many Catholics are so completely utterly clueless about Theology of the Body. Forget the normals. You Catholics don't have a clue.You cannot even ridicule it properly, you are so ignorant. Reject it if you want but don't you think you should get it before you reject it?

HOW MANY YEARS HAS IT BEEN since John Paul II died? HMMM??? And we have had this Theology of the Body stuff packaged, and marketed, and smacked on lunchboxes. And you still don't get it.

arrrrghhhhh

Why is contraceptive sex wrong according to the Church, friends? Is it because the Church thinks its icky? Is it because it is *impossible* for God to make a baby when the sex is contraceptive???

p.s. you know why people are suspicious whenever people talk about showing love for homosexual individuals? Because the people who are loudest about that so often turn out to be frickin traitors to the cause.  E.g. the Deacon who gave the homily after the Supremes decision. Long arse homily on how we haven't been welcoming of gay people and how we need to love them. "Yes" thought me. "A challenging sermon. Exactly what we need to hear." The he ends the thing by remarking that although the Church's teaching on the Sacrament of Marriage hasn't changed,no doubt we will be wrestling with moral dilemmas on the subject in the future. In other words, earth to congregation, the Church is one day going to bless gay relationships, so get used to it!

 

 

 

 

 

I think I see what you mean.. I was trying to say that the natural result proves its natural law but I think I wasn't very clear. I think - going back to your analogy - people would need to remember in that case that food is primarily for nourishment. That's why theres no sex in Heaven - because pleasure is not its only or main purpose and it just wouldn't have a purpose there (of course there are also no bodies in Heaven but I'm just making a point). I'm not saying every marital act needs to be fruitful in itself to be valid, but open to being fruitful. Without that it just loses the point because the reason it exists is not primarily pleasure. I'm not saying theres no reason for that - the fruitful part is just not optional. Just as how eating is only proper eating if its not against nourishment (like eating toothpaste would be). 

we evangelize yes, judge as being good or bad. NO! Evangelising is usually a one on one or pulpit thing, not an activist group. By tha way. :o* no pun intended just tickling your extra rib. 

lol.. I didn't mean activism by the way as for judging - we shouldn't judge individuals but I don't think its judging to determine criteria for invincible vs vincible ignorance and talk about the theology of it. We can apply those ideas to ourselves usefully  

timed out some how. heres the rest.

 Though yes st paul did debate in a pagan public forum once or twice in greece i think, but it was a public sphere not political and he had his say and let it go, he didn't proselytize them, and also he went into that public debate arena on invite and not his own steam.

I am not talking about political activism...rather that politicians need conversion too :P  I also don't mean we try to force people to believe but it's easy to go the other direction too and be afraid to talk at all

Sure. But I was hoping for examples in this thread of Catholics who clearly do not understand the teleology and theology of human sexuality. I have mainly been skimming, and you seem to have a very clear idea.

Do I? Although I probably wasn't clear anyway. I see it basically like - procreation needs to be there cause that's the design. We can see it in natural law.