Stand by your MAN

[fester30]

All of the apostles celebrated the sabbath on Saturday.  The Catholic church began celebrating the sabbath on Sunday many years after the death of the last apostle.  Is that a faithful adherence to what is written in the Bible or the traditions of the apostles?

Speaking of the Sabbath, are priests going to hell for working on Sunday?

[AnimatedDirt]

All of the apostles celebrated the sabbath on Saturday.  The Catholic church began celebrating the sabbath on Sunday many years after the death of the last apostle.  Is that a faithful adherence to what is written in the Bible or the traditions of the apostles?

As an Adventist myself, this comes up a lot and one of the most informative pieces is a "short" piece put together a few years ago.  It's a piece put together from articles from an old Catholic publication, The Catholic Mirror, and called Rome's Challenge.

It's an interesting bit to most people quickly researching Sabbath vs. Sunday worship.

I'm really enjoying reading through this topic as it unfolds.  Very informative and pleasant as no one is arguing.

[TeresaBenedicta]

I don't think its fair to compare the first with the second two.  The first, if freely chosen, is not inherently bad.  The second two, regardless if chosen, is inherently bad. 

There are Muslim women here in America that choose freely to cover themselves.  Is that wrong?

You certainly have a different definition of free will than I do. Some of these countries have laws. If a woman exposes her hair, face, ankles, even if her shape can be determined under her attire she runs the risk of being disciplined. There is also a social stigma even within non Muslim countries, Minority groups often put a lot of pressure on themselves, its almost as if they were living in a Muslim country. These women aren't allowed to drive cars, they aren't allowed to rent a hotel room, they aren't even allowed to travel without a letter of approval from their man. Yes, it is happy times for the Muslim woman.

I should've clarified, I'm apologize.  Of course I don't think it's free will if it's coerced by law.  It's a sticky situation.  Obviously not the main topic of this thread, but certainly related.  All that I am saying is that it is possible (I live in Portland and have met some Muslim women who think and believe this way) for there to be a Muslim woman who is in favor of this tradition, follows this tradition, and could easily choose otherwise if she desired.  In such a case I do not see it as 'oppression'.

[TeresaBenedicta]

first, it is not true that male prostitutes are now morally allowed to use condoms.  The Pope's statement said that the use of condoms in that situation indicates the beginning of an understanding of morality. 

So you admit to change then, after all these years of tradition, there has been change, no matter how miniscule.

Oh, certainly there has been change!  I wouldn't consider the aforementioned matter 'change' in moral thinking, however. 

Divine Revelation ended with the death of the apostles.  That means that the fullness of truth that the Church teaches is contained in the deposit of faith as found in Sacred Scripture and the Traditions of the Apostles. 

So in holding to tradition the church is essentially playing a centuries long game of Chinese Whispers. We played it at school as children, within a matter of minutes the original message had changed drastically.

Not quite.  There are a few things to be considered here.  First is how things were transmitted, culturally, back then.  Oral tradition was super important, in a way that isn't found in most of our cultures today.  The every day Jew was not literate, but most knew the Scriptures.  They knew and prayed the Psalms.  By heart.  Think of it in the way that Catholics memorize prayers.  We've prayed the same prayer to St. Michael for who knows how many years.  It hasn't changed drastically.  One of the oldest Catholic prayers is the Sub tuum, which dates back to the 3rd century... and its still prayed the way it is written on old Egyption papyrus.

And there were things written down.  So, it wasn't as though everything was word of mouth.

Also remember that the Gospel was the most important thing to the early Church.  It was their lives.  They gave their lives for it.  Much more value attached than a child's game.  Much more effort to get things right.

So it would be impossible for her to change her teaching in this matter.

Nothing is impossible for an all powerful god and hence a church guided by the almighty. We have seen change, no matter how miniscule.

True, nothing is impossible for God.  The point I've been trying to make is that, given the premises that the Church is founded upon, she can't change this matter on her own.  If she did, all credibility would be lost.  I dare say that I would cease being Catholic if this teaching changed.  Not because I am so completely attached to it and I don't believe that women can be priests... but because of the larger breach.  If the Church changed this teaching, then she would be contradicting herself in a matter of faith.  And we were promised by Jesus that the Church would be protected from this sort of contradiction.  If the Church has no source for authority, then I cannot trust her to have the whole truth.  How then do I know if baptism is required for salvation? Or if the Eucharist is really Jesus' body and blood?  Or that the Church really does have the authority to forgive me my sins?  Or any number of questions that make a serious impact on my salvation.

You're right- we have seen change.  The Church is certainly not static.  So here I should emphasize that the Church remains solid, or unchanging, on matters of faith and morals.  Perhaps it is helpful to make a few distinctions.  Here are a few words or phrases that have been tossed around. 

Deposit of Faith- Holy Scripture AND Sacred Tradition, recognized and deliniated by the Magesterium (teaching body of the Church throughout the ages). INFALLIBLE. It cannot be added to or subtracted from.

Dogma- INFALLIBLE teaching of Faith or Morals, derived from the Deposit of Faith. Propagated by ex cathedra pronouncment of reigning Pontiff or by a ecumenical council of the Church's bishops in turn ratified by reigning Pontiff. Cannot contradict Deposit of Faith or prior Dogma.

Doctrine-NOT an infallible teaching of the Church on Faith and Morals. Binding on all Catholics while propagated. Can be altered, modified, distinguished. Doctrine RARELY becomes Dogma (although it could and does)

Discipline- NOT infallible rules of behavior, binding on all Catholics while propagated, designed with the intent to keep believers "on the straight and narrow". Includes Lenten rules of fasting & priestly celibacy. Can be relaxed, altered, or abolished.

Devotion- Devotions: Private practice of prayers, meditions, and disciplines, in accordance to Church approval. Includes 99% of Marian devotions, belief in approved apparitions or visions (Private Revelation), First Saturdays, Stations of the Cross, etc...

Each of these categories are different and any 'teaching' of the Church falls under one of the above. 

It's not terribly difficult to see that the issue of women in the priesthood is not an equality issue. 

Maybe the problem is me, maybe I am lacking the brain cells required to see this. I hear what you are saying with regards to tradition and I know that a claim of divinity can persuade many a people. It seems that even the Catholics do not know why god doesn't want women in the priest hood. They simply accept this as god's will.
The only reasoning you have offered behind god's implied stance is with regards to persona Christi. By my reasoning an all powerful god could persona Christi via a woman.

I apologize, I can see my statement there wasn't very charitable. 

Could an all-powerful God use a female for in persona Christi?  Sure.  And God certainly could've sent the Christ as a female rather than a male.  But God didn't.  God sent Jesus as a male.  Jesus chose only males for the priesthood.  And only males can properly confect the words of consecration, in persona Christi.

I'm not your average Catholic.  I have a degree in medieval philosophy, and a minor in theology.  I work for the Church.  I plan to enter religious life and serve God and the Church in such a way.  So you could say I'm pretty invested in these things, including the nitty-gritty why's of what the Church teaches.  But I'm still not a theologian.  That's not my role.  I'm interested in these questions, no doubt, but I don't always have the time to fully come to understand them.  So I trust the Church to teach me what is necessary to believe and I trust that she has very good reasons for teaching me something.  Much in the way that I trust that my car is built correctly and will safely provide me a mode of transportation from one place to another.  I don't need to understand all of the mechanics of how my car is built.  It's just not practical for me to take the time to learn it in depth.

That's the same sort of thinking for many Catholics.  We have good reasons for believing and trusting the Church to teach us correctly.  We just don't always have the time or energy (or even feel the need) to dive deeply into something.  It's not practical for us.  And that's why you'll find that many Catholics simply 'accept' it as God's will and move on.

That doesn't mean it's wrong to ask why.  Just remember that with each 'why' we jump into a level of further expertise.  Catholics (and non-Catholics) deserve an answer when they ask why.  Don't get me wrong- I definitely agree about that.  I guess I'm just saying that it doesn't surprise me that most Catholics just accept it as God's will and move on.

Now, I'm a Catholic nerd and I love theology.  So I'm totally willing to dive further into this.  I think what is needed now is a deeper understanding of the theology that requires a male in order for a person to act in persona Christi.  I'm going to have study a little more before getting back to you.  What we're diving into here is actually pretty in-depth theology... Master thesis' have been written on this subject.  Heck, doctrinal thesis' have been written on this subject.  I have neither a Masters nor a Doctorate.  Nor are many on this forum familiar with technical theological language.  So I'll do my best to understand and convey in terms we can all work with.

And where is the love and acceptance for the Church and its members on behalf of society?

I have heard this before, and you probably already know the well used Atheist response.
The right to discriminate is not a right, it takes away human rights.

And the circle runs around.  Yeah, I gotchya.  It's just that we this issue not as a political issue, but as a theological one.  The priesthood isn't simply a job or a task to be done.  It's a sacrament.  But we'll run circles around this later.

[TeresaBenedicta]

All of the apostles celebrated the sabbath on Saturday.  The Catholic church began celebrating the sabbath on Sunday many years after the death of the last apostle.  Is that a faithful adherence to what is written in the Bible or the traditions of the apostles?

Perhaps it would be best for a new topic on this matter?  I don't mind answering, but I don't want to get too far off track here.  I'll start a new thread.