Ask a Catholic

Now, admitably, I will cop to my bias... I wouldn't hate Catholicism as much as I do if they hadn't made my childhood a living hell.
Yes, and I am truly sorry about that. We have discussed it before. I was at a school who was blessed with a great group of truly fun young nuns and priests who had traveled and studied above and beyond what it appears your teachers did. My teachers introduced us to Jewish rabbis and George Carlin. Not to mention metaphors. (We did have one nun who is still the meanest person I have yet to meet. She picked on my brother and I wanted to kick her. That behavior would have disappointed my favorite nun, so I refrained.)

I also suspect (as most children are clever at doing) you discovered what buttons to push to pay them all back. I am not excusing your teachers. You asked simple questions with simple answers. Instead of making those questions a teaching moment, they blew you off. And that is too bad.
 
Except you don't beleive in one god, you believe in three Gods.

And a bunch of saints, angels, devils, and a lot of other silly nonsense....

Now, admitably, I will cop to my bias... I wouldn't hate Catholicism as much as I do if they hadn't made my childhood a living hell. (On the other hand, I've only encountered Mormons for a few weeks, and I truly hate those fuckers.)
Nothing excuses or justifies your bigotry and hypocrisy, you low-life.
 
Does anyone have any questions or concerns about the Catholic faith?
yeh... why are priests so... into themselves, or so it seems?

why did we move away from priests facing the altar (God).. Today they face the people, which makes it all about people and not God...

so the priest starts seeing himself as a celebrity

and the paeons in the pews... well... whatever.. They tend to think priests are somewhat God like when they are far from it... the ones I hve known anyhow.. been some very good ones here and there, though...
 
yeh... why are priests so... into themselves, or so it seems?
In my lifetime, I only had one priest who was into himself. It was uncomfortable for me, and I soon learned it was uncomfortable for almost everyone else as well. I don't know the reason why he was. It is disconcerting when we are used to priests who are focused on the Church, parish, and its parishioners to suddenly have a priest who is not, who instead seems to be focused only on his own belly button.

It sounds like you had more than one incident of this, so I feel for you.
 
why did we move away from priests facing the altar (God).. Today they face the people, which makes it all about people and not God...
Before the change in the 1960s, the general consensus was that the priest and the people should all be facing the same direction in prayer and worship, that direction being towards the east. There was symbolism, too--that at Jesus' second coming would be from the East and all would be facing towards him.

Still, there concern about the priest being between the Table (altar) and the people. The Eucharist has always been considered a meal, so why was someone always between the Table and what was happening at Table? It was thought all should be able to see what was happening at Table. Jesus, in the Eucharist, was now in the center, viewed easily from all angles.

Both choices have merit.
 
so the priest starts seeing himself as a celebrity
I haven't run into any priest who sees himself as a celebrity. Over the years, I have heard a few priests say that they sometimes feel that instead of all praying together, some (only some) parishioners seem to expect the priest to entertain or be the host. The role of host belongs to Christ.
 
and the paeons in the pews... well... whatever.. They tend to think priests are somewhat God like when they are far from it...
Show me a person in the pews that feel that way and I'll show you a person who never gets further from the pew to become involved in community/parish outreach and ministries. Those of us who are also involved in Church ministries are well aware they are working with a person just like themselves, who also has the additional role of priest. With our baptism we all become, priests, prophets, kings. Ordained priests take on additional responsibilities.
 
Greetings. My question is about the following passage from Ezekiel 16.

3 And say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.

4 And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all.

5 None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born.

6 And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.


What if any is the teaching of the Church on this passage. My own understanding is that this a literal description of the birth of Sarah's mother.
 
What if any is the teaching of the Church on this passage. My own understanding is that this a literal description of the birth of Sarah's mother.
I haven't heard that. The analogy of Chapter 16 is that Israel is the bride, the bride of God, but she has been unfaithful.
 
I haven't heard that. The analogy of Chapter 16 is that Israel is the bride, the bride of God, but she has been unfaithful.
Thank you. The reason I asked is because of a question I asked God about Gen. 15 v16 the first time I read the old testament.

16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

The question that I asked was: What in the world was the iniquity of the Amorites?
Fifty years later after reading the scripture many times, The Lord answered my question through that passage. Ezekiel told every living Israelite that their mother was a Canaanite. I imagine that got him beat up a time or two.
I agree with your explanation about the rest of Ezekiel 16.
 
Yes, and I am truly sorry about that. We have discussed it before. I was at a school who was blessed with a great group of truly fun young nuns and priests who had traveled and studied above and beyond what it appears your teachers did. My teachers introduced us to Jewish rabbis and George Carlin. Not to mention metaphors. (We did have one nun who is still the meanest person I have yet to meet. She picked on my brother and I wanted to kick her. That behavior would have disappointed my favorite nun, so I refrained.)

That's nice. Don't care. the problem is, of course, is that they really believed that stupid shit... So we'd hear about how God sank the Titanic because someone wrote "God himself couldn't sink this ship". (Which again, makes God look really fucking petty, like Donald Trump levels of petty.)

I also suspect (as most children are clever at doing) you discovered what buttons to push to pay them all back. I am not excusing your teachers. You asked simple questions with simple answers. Instead of making those questions a teaching moment, they blew you off. And that is too bad.

Naw, you see, there really wasn't a way you can say "God drowned every baby in the world" and still make him out to be the good guy. I've been discussing this topic with religionists for 50 years, and frankly, haven't heard a one of you YET tell me how it was good that God drowned babies.

So while Sister Mary Butch was indeed crazy when she screamed "They were WICKED Babies!!!!" at least she was sincere.

Thank C'Thulhu lesbians aren't being bullied into that awful lifestyle anymore.
 
That's nice. Don't care. the problem is
The problem is believing that running into a some who believe that God sank the Titanic, or that the story of the flood was all about God drowning babies, that everyone else has the same take. Other perspectives on the flood story have indeed been offered, but some will not ever be moved, stuck evermore with one perspective, believing all others have that perspective as well.
 
The problem is believing that running into a some who believe that God sank the Titanic, or that the story of the flood was all about God drowning babies, that everyone else has the same take. Other perspectives on the flood story have indeed been offered, but some will not ever be moved, stuck evermore with one perspective, believing all others have that perspective as well.

Actually, the bible is pretty explicit.. God's plan was to exterminate the entire human race save Noah and his inbred family.

Yes, a bunch of "other" explanations have been offered, such as this was a metaphor or race memory of the ice age or some other such nonsense...but that kind of takes away from the Bible being the unerring word of God.

Yes, the stories about Giants and Talking Snakes ARE silly. But if you take out all the silly stuff, you really don't have a lot left. A bunch of rules that Christians selectively follow in order to validate their own bigotries...
 

Forum List

Back
Top