I agree with Rudey...why attack someone because they are presenting the facts of the faith as they are? There are plenty of people who claim to be whatever religion and don't follow all of the teachings...not just Catholics, and are they really being true to that faith? I don't think so. I don't think Beryana is acting holier than thou, I think a lot of people have their panties in a bunch because what she pointed out is correct. You can't just pick and choose what you believe when you claim to be of a certain faith.

Would anyone order bacon and eggs or a cheeseburger if sitting next to the rabbi at brunch or lunch? I realize it's an extreme example, but you get the picture. If you're only going to "practice" when going to mass, services, temple, whatever then it seems a bit hippocritical.

It is also hippocritical to criticize people for having strength in their convictions, no matter what they are. Peace be with you all.

While it's fine and dandy that you are a theologian (Orthodox - which does carry it's own vias within the faith) you really need to brush up on your Church history - specifically the early Church.

Again priests, bishops and what-not where allowed to marry, but the pratice and rules to be followed pretty much came down to being chaste - which was and is technically the "proper" Catholic relationship anyways. Now the role of celibacy took greater promenence and became the mandated social/relational norm for the clergy thanks to monastisim....

As for ultra-feminist nonsense... you're begining to sound a wee bit like Jerome now ;) The push for women having more say in the Church is as old as the Church itself - one of that Constantine had the Church sort out (along with the various herasies at the time)... but it never really went away. I know it cropped up during the Pelgian herasy... and again in some Magdalene convents in Northern France and the British Isles - which a one large part of the reason why Gregory denouced Mary Magdalene; it removed support for the Magdalene convents.

Fasting doesn't mean the absence of food - but in the Church's case a refraining from meat (which is why Fish & Chip places do great business on Fridays here in Toronto). That practice has been around for well over a century - St. Patrick and St. Columba had to deal with the political and social ramifications of not partaking in some feasts - the nobles of the Dal Radia took it as a slight to have their hospitality refused (although more problematic in Columba's case being a noble himself).

You can disagree with teachings of the Church and not be "cast out" (although some hard-core folks would like to think so) - to disagree is not to dissent.


.... surprising how this discussion brings back memories of living at the chapter and attending Mass next door at the Opus Dei residence...

Hmmm... a group that has seperated itself from the RCC... with it own saints and everything....

They seem to be a church based on the teachings that they (the synod of bishops within their church) deem apropiate - while leaving out others.

Basically they are a Protestant church that identifies themselves as Catholic (which most associate with the RCC)... much in the same way as the Celtic Catholic Church up in Scotland and Wales. Their current Archbishop even identifies himself as a former "Roman Catholic" in his ruminations section discussing the new Pope.

Looking up at my previous post - I'm struck by the fact that this a group not disagreeing with the teachings of the Church, but are in fact dissenting... making Beryana's comments about Protestans and Catholics somewhat ironic... given this statement by her:

Since I don't have internet access often, I will answer the bigger questions.

First I'm going to ask my question: for those that are Catholic, WHY are you Catholic is you don't follow Her teachings?

Being an orthodox Roman Catholic is to be a faithful Roman Catholic. Yes, there are some churches out there that claim Vatican II was not in occordence with the Church and broke themselves off. This is not orthodox Roman Catholicism. To be orthodox is to be faithful and true to all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Statistics on the vocation 'crisis': no, I don't have numbers, but I do know (in talking to local priests, bishops, religious, etc) that we do not have a crisis. There is a possibility that years down the road there will be a shortage of priests, but when the dioceses are ordaining 8-20 men on average a year, that is not a shortage or even close to it. What is happening is that society is putting religious life as a last resort (if you can't get married, join the priesthood, etc.). Where you have active prayer life you have vocations to the priesthood and religious life. To those that feel the 'only solution' is married priests, how can someone give their whole self to the wife AND their whole self to the Church?

With regards to women having a say in the Church, we do - and always have had a say. We are teachers, mothers, etc. Who are the first to instill a prayer life and religious beliefs in a child, the parents. If that is not having a say in the future of the Church, I really don't know what is. Holy women have influenced the Roman Catholic Church for centuries - and did not have to be priests to do such. Women have been given the title of Doctors of the Church. Women will never be priests within the Roman Catholic Church - and any truly Catholic woman will agree with this. It is a gross misunderstanding of equality that puts people on the rampage. To be equal does not mean that we have to do the exact same job/have the exact same role. Equality is respect - and women have had respect and reverence within the Roman Catholic Church since the beginning!

Beryana

P.S. by the way, there is a difference between abstaining from meat and fasting. Fasting is limiting the amount of food eaten during the day (water only fasts, bread and water fasts, two small meals and one larger where the two small together cannot equal the larger, etc). Abstaining from meat is just that - not eating meat.

Well, this is the first time I've heard the term "orthodox" applied to Roman Catholism.

As for priest shortages, a recent Toronto Star article addressed this:

So the priests are mostly in develoing countries, but not in western Europe and North America. Parishes here are disappearing, and we've all heard about these problems. Beryana, do you think they should fly priests in from Africa and Latin America to replace the older gentlemen in this part of the world? After all, the number of priests are growing there.

And I guess you probably don't think Anglicans are real Christians and following the Bible to its fullest because they ordain women. In fact, the first woman Bishop in Canada will be honoured by her high school (and my alma mater) this spring as a "distingushed Old Girl."

ETA: here's the link to the priest article: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...acodalogin=yes

One of the main priests at my last parish was from Viet-Nam(as an aside he was a really cool guy and he spoke 6 languages). The head pastor at one of my friends churches is from Nigeria...there is nothing wrong with having priests from developing nations join the ranks of priests in parishes in the US. I think if anything it gives American Catholics a broader view.

:)

I was baptized in the Church very shortly after I was born, in accordance with the traditions of the time. Still have my baptismal certificate. Never did First Communion nor was I confirmed. My family wasn't much into regular church attendance - weddings, baptisms and funerals is about it.

While I have great respect for the teachings of the Church, there are certain ones that I don't particularly care for. Most of you know that I am an active Freemason, and that already puts me in a 'state of grave sin' with the Church and I may no longer receive Holy Communion, so long as I maintain my membership in the fraternity. I firmly believe Freemasonry is NOT a religion, and its teachings do not contradict with my personal belief in God. Sorry, Your Holiness, but that's a decision I made, and it's non-negotiable.

I won't go into detail on my personal stance over abortion and birth control, because I don't need to start a firestorm on GC.

This is a 'discussion' on the Roman Catholic Church ordaining women. What has Anglicans not being Christian have to do with their ordaining women? (And I'm NOT saying that Anglicans are not Christians because they are a Protestant Christian denomination). All I have said is that Protestant denominations are not embracing the fullness of Truth given to us by Jesus.

And you are a baptised Christian, but you are not a Catholic. There are three Sacrements of initiation into the Catholic Church - Baptism, Holy Communion, and Confirmation. You don't have to agree with any of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church because you are not under her authority. If you choose to be Confirmed and recieve Holy Communion through the RCIA program, then you are bound to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Anglicans are Protestant, yes, but many Protestants view high church services as being very "catholic." A Toronto-area girls' school was founded, apparently because they thought the existing Anglican schools (such as my alma mater) were too "smells and bells", or, in other words, too "high church" or "catholic" for their liking. Mind you, this was in the late 1800s.

And from what I have beent told, 'High Services' are very similar to Roman Catholic (I'm assuming that is what you mean by 'catholic'). HOWEVER, there are still GREAT doctrinal differences (the Eucharist being the main one with valid Holy Orders being another) which makes the Anglican Church Protestant and not Catholic.

I think this thread is awesome, but can someone tell me, SERIOUSLY, why he or she would possibly give a rat's ass if someone on the interweb thinks he or she isn't really XYZ religion or that he or she is sinning or will go to hell or whatever?

I'm Catholic because I have recieved Baptism, Confermation, and Holy Communion.

I choose to exercise my judgement and intelligent to evaluate whether the teachings past and present are valid for myself and for my Church. Just as you have chosen in some part what teachings to follow so have I - however we both practice the same faith, and adhere to the same core teachings... if not practices. For example I do not believe in the infalibility of the Pope (temporal and secular) because the weight of history proves that wrong on so many levels.

I did some checking with family and friends within the Church... and all I have to say where hestitant about aspects of the "orthodox" movement within the Church - not the movement itself, but the people that it tends to attract...

However I think it is more important to reach out to members of the Church that may be going astray, instead of pushing them away by denying their faith in the Church.

VERY GOOD POINT. I don't see how "Catholic" it is to tell people that they're not Catholic. WWJD? Certainly not talk down to people and insult them b/c they didn't follow every single thing to the letter.

BTW, what person out there is able to follow the church to a T? No on is infalliable. Surely each and every one of us has broken many of the commandments. Or else what would the real need for confession be?

I do want to know what kind of Catholic forcefully pushes people away like this? Is that part of being Orthodox???

My late grandmother (requiescat in pace) would have said otherwise. Good reason why I profess myself to be a 'lapsed' Roman Catholic. However, I still consider myself to be one, even though I may not strictly adhere to the tenets of the Church. I could have converted a long time ago to Episcopalian, but considering how I rarely attend any church services or other religious activities, it would not have been worth it.

'Nuff said on my part.