Cloistered Nuns: Locked Behind The Grate

[desertwoman]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1229703' date='Apr 4 2007, 02:31 PM']There is no other side to history, other than the silly revisionist stuff which makes an actual historian barf.[/quote]


Word up.

[Budge]

[quote]
The Magisterum's job is not to make up new things. The Magisterium has never said anything that goes directly against the teachings of the Scriptures... never.[/quote]1 The Assumption of Mary is NOT in scripture.

2. The immaculate Conception is NOT in Scripture.

3. Papal Infalliblity was not doctrine until the 1870s.

As for Peter.

1. Peter was rebuked by other apostles.

2. Peter never claimed a position of authority over the other apostles.

3. Jesus preached AGAINST one apostle holding authority over the others and basically says here {its also in Mark}
that THERE WILL BE NO POPE:
[b]
24 And there was also a strife among them,[u] which of them should be accounted the greatest.[/u]

25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 [u]But ye shall not be so:[/u] but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.[/b]

4. Peter spoke of himself as simply an elder or pastor
[b]
'Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.' I Peter 1: l.'The elders which are among you I exhort,[u] who am also an elder[/u], and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of God that is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.' I Peter 5: 1-3.[/b]

5. Peter never was in Rome.

6. James headed one of the councils.

7. Peter refused to have Cornelius bow down before him, no kissing of rings there and bowing and scraping.

[quote]I was born on the other side of things. There is not a question that you have asked that I did not ask with the same zeal and playing the best devil's advocate I know how.[/quote]

So what is your answer to them? I have noticed your response over and over, is indirectly dont look to scripture as your main authority.

Let me see if I can get a link, I know part of that book is online, it was linked to my board before.

TE
[quote]Do you believe the apostles wrote the NT or not? {if they did, it would HAVE to be finished would it not because their natural life spans would have expired!}
The Apostles did not all get together for a "write the Bible get-together" and write the Bible and then stack it all up nice and neat and hand it to a publisher. That is not how it worked Budge, and if that silly book told you that I think you should write that author and demand your six dollars back.[/quote]

No they wrote it seperately, but all the accounts match, havent you noticed all the gospels repeat some of the same happenings?

For the gospels to have been written it would have to be by 100ad, due to the course of their natural lifespans.

Are you trying to tell me SOMEONE ELSE besides the APOSTLES/Peter, Paul etc.... wrote the NT?

The early church {the real ones} had the canon...way before the Catholic Church even exsisted.

{sadly I shouldnt be shocked, because I remember being told some of the same things, about the NT, there are MANY people who work to create doubt regarding scripture}

God Bless you too.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Budge

[Guest T-Bone]

Debating with Budge is like trying to wash a cat.

Nothing gets accomplished.

[Budge]

[b]
24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.[/b]

What does that verse say to you.

I notice some here do get easily frustrated when I post scriptures that go against what Rome teaches.

[Guest T-Bone]

What you notice is the frustration of some when you take snippets of scripture out of context for the express purpose of their misuse.

[Budge]

Heres the whole chapter, you tell me

what that bolded part means now to you..
[quote]
Luke 22 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible][KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

Luke 22

1Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

2And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.

3Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

4And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.

5And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.

6And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.

7Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.

8And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

9And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare?

10And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in.

11And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

12And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.

13And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

14And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

15And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

16For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

17And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

21But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

22And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!

23And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.
[b]
24And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.[/b]

27For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

28Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.

29And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

33And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.

34And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the pickle shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

35And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

39And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.

40And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.

41And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

44And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

45And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,

46And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.

47And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.

48But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?

49When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?

50And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.

51And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

52Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?

53When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.

54Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.

55And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.

56But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him.

57And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.

58And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.

59And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean.

60And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the pickle crew.

61And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the pickle crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

62And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

63And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.

64And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?

65And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.

66And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,

67Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:

68And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.

69Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

70Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

71And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.[/quote]

Interesting the same chapter Jesus says NO POPES, is the chapter Jesus tells Peter he is going to betray Him

[Guest T-Bone]

Budge- I'm not playing your silly game.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

Just because something is not explicitly written in Scripture doesn't mean that it isn't true. The fact that Jesus had ten toes is not in Scripture. Does this mean it is an 'unbiblical' teaching to say that He had the usual number of appendages on His feet? On a more subtle level, tradition enriches Scripture by refining the ore; it softly draws out what is implicitly written and gives us the ability to appreciate the Bible on a deeper level.

[quote]3. Papal Infalliblity was not doctrine until the 1870s.[/quote]The Church never defines a doctrine until the commonly held belief is challenged. Jesus' divinity was never formally stated until the Arian controversy blew up three centuries after His death. Then the Church made a definitive statement on the matter: Jesus Christ was fully divine. Does this mean that no one believed in His divinity before? Obviously not, otherwise there wouldn't have been any controversy - or such a strong backlash to it.

[quote]1 The Assumption of Mary is NOT in scripture.

2. The immaculate Conception is NOT in Scripture.[/quote]

First off, you're writing them the wrong way round. The Assumption is the logical conclusion of the Immaculate Conception. Our knowledge of this is rooted in the original Greek of the gospels: the word that Gabriel uses to describe Mary. [i]Kecharitomene[/i]. This word choice is very unusual, as it suggests that she was saturated in grace, practically oozing it at the pores. It is used for no one else in the Bible, although many are called favoured or blessed. It wasn't that Mary did not need a Redeemer - she did. The same blood that cleansed us cleansed her. It was just that she was redeemed pre-emptively. But as your understanding of time is very fixed (time has got to be linear and the Gospel events are all isolated happenings in an irrelevant past) you may not see this as the Christians of the Early Church did. St Ephrem attested to the prevalent belief Mary's Immaculate Conception - and he was writing before Constantine came to power, so your usual rationale ("All the things that I see as unbiblical were introduced by Constantine") won't hold.

[quote]1. Peter was rebuked by other apostles.[/quote]Yes, he was. All this tells us is one thing: he wasn't perfect. Anyone who finishes their reading of the NT with the four Gospels will be left with this impression - there's no need to see what the other disciples thought to work it out. Peter was by turns a liar, a coward, and a fool. But he was also very loving and always ready to accept forgiveness and try again. Those are the qualities you need in a pope. They're as liable to make mistakes as the next man - but hopefully readier to admit it.

[quote]2. Peter never claimed a position of authority over the other apostles.[/quote]

And 'Jesus did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped.' Does this mean that He didn't possess such equality?

[quote]24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.[/quote]Being the Pope doesn't make you any better than the next person. God uses the Pope to direct the Church (and prevent it from splintering into fragments, which is what has happened in Protestantism) but great responsibility doesn't automatically equate to 'greatness' in the worldly sense.

[quote]4. Peter spoke of himself as simply an elder or pastor[/quote]

He also bore the name [i]Kephas[/i]. No changing that back to Simon. All that your verse shows is Peter's touching humility.

[quote]5. Peter never was in Rome.[/quote]Yes, he was, and there is a wealth of historical evidence to attest to this. Tertullian wrote of Peter's martyrdom in Rome in 200 AD (yes, over a hundred years before Constantine) and there are earlier references still. But you choose to reject those sources as heretical because you don't like what they say. Yet you don't have a single contemporary source of your own to back up your claim that Peter was never in Rome. You have to rely on the likes of Jack Chick, who in turn relies on thin air.

[quote]6. James headed one of the councils.[/quote]

Cardinals head various councils and congregations today. This doesn't detract from the authority of the Pope.

[quote]No they wrote it seperately, but all the accounts match, havent you noticed all the gospels repeat some of the same happenings?

For the gospels to have been written it would have to be by 100ad, due to the course of their natural lifespans.

Are you trying to tell me SOMEONE ELSE besides the APOSTLES/Peter, Paul etc.... wrote the NT?[/quote]

You know very well that people here are not saying that, but I'm sure this is a charge you would love to put into Catholic mouths. When the canon was assembled there were literally dozens of books floating around, purporting to be Scripture. The 'Gospel' of Peter. The 'Gospel' of Thomas. The 'Gospel' of Nicodemus. The list goes on and on. It was a Catholic council, guided by the Holy Spirit, that formally selected and definitively codified that canon. Prior to that, the books accepted as canonical differed from place to place. I can't help noticing that Fundamentalist Christians have no credible explanation for how the Bible came to exist in its current form. Anyone would think the various books just flew together and collided in midair.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[center]J.M.J.[/center]

[quote name='Budge' post='1230041' date='Apr 4 2007, 06:19 PM'][b]
24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.[/b]

What does that verse say to you.

I notice some here do get easily frustrated when I post scriptures that go against what Rome teaches.[/quote]

Cathoholic Anonymous did a beautiful job answering your "refutes" just as she usually does. So, to respond to you would just be repeating what she said. So, I do not see a reason in doing so. She answered all of your questions. I will wait for your reponse on those.

As for Luke 20, 14-16....

The Bible is God's Word. It holds His truth. It cannot go against the truth of the Church (nor has it ever).

So, I'm not going to shy away from this verse like you seem to think I will, nor should any Catholic. And if you know Catholics that have then they did not know their own faith.

First of all do you know what ROME teaches about this verse? You seem to think you know, so I'm curious according to you what you think Rome teaches about this verse. Do you think Rome has hidden this verse from the entire Catholic population? I'm curious to know.

Second of all: the verses

Jesus had to say that because the apostles were men and they had a human outlook on things. They wanted to be the greatest. This was not the first time they talked amongst themselves as to who was the greatest. Jesus (three and two verses earlier) has given them a greater sense of responsibility by telling them that one of them would betray him and that they were to renew the Eucharistic Sacrifice, so of course (these men being the men they were) started to talk amongst themselves as to who was the greatest. We can only imagine what those arrogant men were saying as well as we can only imagine Jesus just shaking his head back and forth because he had showed them already two times the great need for humility because he was meek and humble of heart and they were called to be like him. This is what this verse is about. It is teaching them that they must be humble. To respond to a calling from God a person needs humility (and these men had a great calling from God), and this humility is what expresses itself in the form of service. To be of service to the servants of God (which is what these men were being called by Christ to be) these men had to be humble, and that is why Jesus is stressing that the least of them would be the greatest. [b]It is not to prove that none of them are not being called to great areas of service in the Church (all of them were), but he told them that the least of them would be the greatest because of their great call. They could not serve the Church if they thought they were the greatest, no one (from a human outlook) can serve when they think they are the greatest. No one can merit Heaven if they are not like children. THIS is why Jesus said this. He is beckoning them to be humble, for he had just previously called them to a greater sense of responsibility and service in the Church. Did you know the Pope is called the Servant of servants?[/b] The least among you shall be counted as the greatest. These men were arrogant, human, and ambitious. They had a worldly outlook on success and greatness. But to be able to use them they had to be humble. "Christ did not count equality with God something to be grasped at, but emptied himself." And he was the greatest Servant!

That is what that verse means Budge. It does not mean that these men were not called to serve the Church greatly (because we know from Scripture they were). It does not disprove that Jesus gave a group of men divine authority to judge in matters of faith and morals. We know he did from Scripture. We know from a couple verses previous that he called them to a greater sense of responsibility. This verse simply proves that to truly serve one must be humble and empty himself of himself just as Christ did. We should not count equality with God something to be grasped. We should not seek to be the greatest.

Also, to be the Pope, although the world thinks it is a high place... it is hard. It takes great humility. Your whole life is being given over to the Church. You truly are the servant of servants. And this verse just proves that it takes that great humility to be a servant and an heir to Heaven. That is all this verse proves. Nothing more Budge.

God love you!

In Jesus and Mary,
Marie

[RezaMikhaeil]

[b]Budge, no one ever said that religious life replicated heaven. Stop misrepresenting our beliefs. You're only deceiving yourself. [/b] Its important to note that convents/monestaries can be a great experience. His Holiness Pope St. Kyrillos VI, established St. Mina's Monestary "to bring a piece of heaven down to earth" but don't get it twisted.

In regards to the Roman Church's history, it's important to note that St. Mark also helped St. Peter establish the Roman Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church. It wasn't St. Peter solo, and St. Mark also went on to found the Coptic Orthodox Church.

I'd have to agree with Budge thou in regards to the infalliblility of the Papal office. I don't see it as infallible, no matter what angle, anymore then the other rites. As I'd mentioned previously, the Apostles didn't just found the Roman rite but the other original 3 rites.

Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

[b]Budge, no one ever said that religious life replicated heaven. Stop misrepresenting our beliefs. You're only deceiving yourself. [/b] Its important to note that convents/monestaries can be a great experience. His Holiness Pope St. Kyrillos VI, established St. Mina's Monestary "to bring a piece of heaven down to earth" but don't get it twisted.

In regards to the Roman Church's history, it's important to note that St. Mark also helped St. Peter establish the Roman Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church. It wasn't St. Peter solo, and St. Mark also went on to found the Coptic Orthodox Church.

I'd have to agree with Budge thou in regards to the infalliblility of the Papal office. I don't see it as infallible, no matter what angle, anymore then the other rites. As I'd mentioned previously, the Apostles didn't just found the Roman rite but the other original 3 rites. The Patriarch isn't the head of the church but God is... [and if you ask the other 3 rites, "who is the head of your church", they'll say that God is, not a man]

Reza

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Budge, no one ever said that religious life replicated heaven. Stop misrepresenting our beliefs. You're only deceiving yourself. Its important to note that convents/monestaries can be a great experience. His Holiness Pope St. Kyrillos VI, established St. Mina's Monestary "to bring a piece of heaven down to earth" but don't get it twisted.[/quote]

They are 'great experiences' (I think experience is a bad word) for those who are called to them, but let's not forget that marriage is equally wonderful for those who have that vocation. When we reach our personal fulfilment in God's plan for our lives, we're as close to Heaven as we can be on this earth. That means living your calling to the full - and when that happens, any household can become like 'a piece of heaven'.

[AccountDeleted]

I loved reading this thread! I started reading it because the title is Cloistered Nuns, but then it turned into a theological debate which was fascinating. I think Budge would be a great Devil's Advocate for cases of canonization because she never gives up!

I don't really have anything of a theological nature to post because I wasn't raised a Catholic and the amount of knowledge by other posters far exceeds my own. I can say though that I must be the eldest one posting now (yayy - I win! ---lol) because I am 54.

I would like to take the thread back to the beginning however, as I am one of those "poor women" who is going to enter a cloistered convent (in July), the Wolverhampton Carmelite Monastery in England. I am not going to seek out previous quotes and reply to them, so I am relying on my "senior-moments" memory - please forgive any mistakes.

I am not entering because I was brain-washed into a cult or because my parents wanted me to, or because I couldn't find a husband, or because I want to guarantee myself a place in heaven etc etc etc. I am putting myself "behind bars" out of my own free will and choice because I want to. Amazing as that seems, dear Budge, it is the truth. I don't remember all of your reasons for pitying nuns, but I can assure you that I not only feel a great joy at being accepted (not everyone is accepted, you know) but I also feel a great sadness for anyone who can't comprehend the gift that I am being given by being allowed to do this. I am well-educated, with a Masters degree and many wonderful years of career and family behind me. I am not running away from anything, nor am I worried about my salvation. I am a generally happy person. For me, this is a love affair with Jesus, my heart to His, and I only regret now that I have to wait until July to close the grille behind me. For someone who has never felt this call, this need to become His alone, I can only say, "You don't know what you are missing."

An 80 year old nun at the convent where I am entering, wrote this to me:
[i]"It is an amazing condescension on God's part to want His children to sing His praises here on earth before we enter heaven there to praise Him in the eternal Now."[/i]

Budge, your main concern for young girls entering seems to be that you feel they have chosen a false religion and they will not be saved. But you, yourself have been a Catholic and a UU and now a Baptist. You now think that you have found the one true religion, I can see this, but it must be hard for you to know for sure when you have changed so many times? Often we try to convert others to our own way of thinking when we need support to help ourselves to feel sure about our own choice. I don't know if this is true in your case, or if you are just feeling zealous from a love for Christ, but either way, your enthusiasm is very stimulating.

As a Catholic, I would love for those people closest to me to become Catholics too, but I know that I can't "save" them. I can, however, pray for them and if it is His Will ("Thy Will Be Done"), then they will be converted. If not, then I have infinite trust in His mercy and compassion. When we worry overmuch about the souls of others, then we are more likely to neglect the state of our own soul. If I did not trust in Christ's mercy, then I would constantly worry about those loved members of my family who have died, not knowing Him here on earth. But I have given their care over to Him, since He created them all in the first place!

What does come across to me in your writings, my sister, is your deep love of Jesus Christ. With such a common bond between us all, Catholic or Protestant, it is so sad to see the temporal differences pulling us apart on this forum.

I am a faithful daughter of the Roman Catholic Church and you are obviously a faithful daughter of the Baptist Church, but in reality we are both daughters of one God, and have one Lord, Jesus Christ. We may never see eye to eye on the religious differences, but we should celebrate that we have accepted Jesus into our hearts as Lord and Saviour, and show charity towards each other in our conversations. It will show honor to Our Lord as well, if Christians can behave towards each other with the same charity and compassion that He showed, even to those who put Him to death.

God bless you, Budge.
Annie

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1229999' date='Apr 4 2007, 11:49 PM']I read history books. Some are written by Catholic authors, but the ones that aren't (and even some written by Protestants) agree with how the Bible was put together and just what went down.

Unlike you though I read the actual sources of the times more than I read history books themselves. I honestly only own one history book (my school book), and after that my history is made up of actually reading the writings of the time I'm studying. Which you have said you don't believe in, which I think is ridiculous.[/quote]

You make a historian proud! One of my profs won't let anyone use any more than 2 secondary sources for any paper, actually.

And you and Cathoholic Anonymous have done an excellent job in your posts. Don't know that I can add anything at the moment without just repeating you.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1230949' date='Apr 5 2007, 01:37 AM']They are 'great experiences' (I think experience is a bad word) for those who are called to them, but let's not forget that marriage is equally wonderful for those who have that vocation. When we reach our personal fulfilment in God's plan for our lives, we're as close to Heaven as we can be on this earth. That means living your calling to the full - and when that happens, any household can become like 'a piece of heaven'.[/quote]

See the great thing about His Holiness Pope St. Kyrillos VI was that he wasn't saying that it was just a piece of heaven for Monks but for everybody that had the opportunity to visit and see St. Mina's relics. It was for everybody, even the parents that bring their whole families to be blessed!

Reza