For Catholic Church's Future, Tradition vs. Radical Change: Two Camps

CatholicVote.org ^ | 3-25-02 | Alan Cooperman

[Poohbah]

One of the best priests in our diocese was a Episcopal convert and married. Needless to say, Steubenville University made him an offer he couldn't refuse :o)

One thing that I find hopeful is that some widowed men are opting to go to seminary and become priests in later life. Maybe this can become a trend...

[saradippity]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I stand by my original thoughts and am more convinced of them. In going back to scriptures,I read and prayed little more,and have more thoughts on the matter. But as a Catholic in these times,I cannot do justice to a discussion much beyond the point you and I have reached.

One thought that I will put out for your consideration is that Jesus told the 11,that they should go out and teach all nations what He had taught them,baptize,preach penance and remission of sins;in other words,they were to bring Christ to the world.

How does one teach knowledge that is Truth to the world? By word and deed,by talk and action.How best to achieve believabilty when bringing Truth to the world? I would say, by emulating the one who is Truth,Jesus Christ.

And,I would add that those whose lives most closely correspond to the life of Jesus are those that will most successfully accomplish His mission.Jesus was free to go anywhere at any time to serve His Father,married men are not,they must consider the well-being of their wives and children.I believe that the oppurtunity to most closely conform one's life to the life of Jesus Christ is found in the vocation of the priest.

[AnalogReigns]

Here's a thought for you: I'm going to assume, since this is a politically conservative forum you are a conservative. Which kind of federal judge (or justice) are you most comfortable with, one who says "oh the Constitution is a FLEXIBLE document, we must interpret it according to the times and situation..." or one who says, "the Constitution says specific things granting specific powers and limits to government, we must interpret it for what it says, not what we'd want it to say..."?

Knowing the inspired scripture is God's word--and not relying on vague and undefined traditions of men and certain utterances by certain Roman bishops, and that the Bible is only saying what experts in a changing organization SAYS it says (isn't that how revisionism is defined?).... is similar to believing the Constitution says what its writers meant it to say--and we can't interpret into it our own meanings. I am very satisfied and at peace to know and follow what I know and can read for myself the apostles taught, that is the New Testament--not what a fallible changing organization tells me they really meant.

I'll take what I know is true about God from scripture alone any time over what a demonstrably corruptible organization tells me... The whole of scripture reveals sola scriptura as authoritative, but only the eyes of faith can see it there...

[Robert Drobot]

A very somber thread.