Initial Meeting with Priest on Monday...a wee bit nervous

agapecarrie · December 2012

You reacting with hyperbole. No one said you should leave the church, and no one said they were offended. We're trying to engage in a rational, reasonable conversation and you don't seem to respond with any sincerety regarding the issues. Just keep saying "I'm fine with it".

We are concerned for you, because being fine with sin is pride, and all of its a slippery slope.

THe only thing I would be offended by is actual receiving the sacraments without repenting. THat is sacriligous and is desecrating to the EUcharist.

You are so sure of yourself, please read the book. It won't do any harm. If anything it will affirm you in your beliefs even more, or give you more things to think about in how to get closer to God, which is always a good thing.

femme55 · December 2012

Hi, I'm new here; just curious based on this discussion. If the church's teaching on any particular topic is never wrong, then why have popes changed rules on various issues over the centuries? Also, I would tend to agree with the OP that many Catholics don't follow every rule. When the whole birth control issue blew up before the election there were a lot of studies showing that 98% of self-identified Catholics disagreed with the church's stance on birth control and/or used it themselves. Not trying to be snarky, just interested in the discussion.

Calypso1977 · December 2012

femme, agape can explain this best. i think it has something to do with doctrine vs rules or something like that. some things can change, some cant.

also, as my priest likes to say - the church isnt a democracy. just because a majority of faithful believe something should be changed or that something isnt right, doesnt make it so.

femme55 · December 2012

To be fair, just did a quick google search and the 98% figure is exaggerated, but still a very high % use bc:

The data listed in the Guttmacher report, meanwhile, referred to current contraceptive use among “sexually active women who are not pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant.” That is a smaller universe of women, and it shows that 68 percent of Catholic women used what are termed “highly effective methods:” 32 percent sterilization; 31 percent pill; five percent IUD.

Again, only two percent currently used natural family planning. Interestingly, 11 percent used nothing, even though they were not trying to get pregnant. Four percent were placed in an “other” category, which mainly consisted of “withdrawal,” which is also not accepted by the Catholic Church as a birth-control method.

The data also indicated there were relatively few differences among women of different religions in terms of the contraception method that was used. Evangelicals appeared more likely to rely on sterilization, but almost no one used “natural” family planning.

Jones noted that there has long been data showing that Catholic women are avid users of artificial contraception. The first NSFG survey, which in 1973 was administered only to married women, shows that 66.4 percent of all married Catholic women of child-bearing age at the time used contraception. (Table 17). Among those using birth control, only 8.3 percent relied on rhythm; 2.9 percent relied on withdrawal. (Table 18).

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html

femme55 · December 2012

Calypso, fair enough, but based on my figure above, does that mean that 68% of fertile Catholics are going to hell because they are unrepentant bc users?

agapecarrie · December 2012

If you look at some good sources, you'll see that the divorce rate among "catholics" is pretty much the same as the secular world.

Until you plug the variables of: use NFP, Go to mass, and pray at home together.

Then its .09% (point zero nine). Maybe there is something to this.

Regarding changing practices....that is exactly what it is ...practices. Not truth, not doctrine, but discipline.

Changing the language of the liturgy is discipline. Changing the penance requirements is discipline. The fact that there are graces and good brought from penance doesn't change.

Truth, however, cannot change. 2+2=4. You can believe its 5 all you want, but it doesn't make it so. The same is true about God, and his moral teachings. they can't change, otherwise its not true.

Regarding the question about "going to hell"...

When someone commits a sin concerning grave matter (BC being one of them), that means they are seriously harming themselves or others, and offended God (because it harms themselves). If they have full knowledge of the gravity, and consequences, and make a free choice to do it anyways, these are the circumstances of mortal sin. Mortal sin cuts us off from God. It's our choice to do it. If we die cut off from God, without repenting, then there is a possibility of hell, because we've chosen it. We've said "my" choices are better than God's, I don't want Him. He honors that free choice.

That is the math. Then there is mercy. We don't know what any person's mind or heart is about. We can't make any sort of call on where someone is struggling in working out their salvation whether they've commited a mortal sin or not, etc. There is no saying anyone is going to hell because that is not our judgement call to make.

But it IS our job to admonish, warn, and care for souls. And warning against harmful choices and the hope that comes in following Christ and His teachings is our mission.

Riss91 · December 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_initial-meeting-with-priest-on-mondaya-wee-bit-nervous?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:67e8e8d8-d4f7-461a-84af-d4bbb19704ffPost:50bc75be-e778-43d1-88b1-0b4f0b610fbd">Re: Initial Meeting with Priest on Monday...a wee bit nervous</a>:
[QUOTE]Calypso, fair enough, but based on my figure above, does that mean that 68% of fertile Catholics are going to hell because they are unrepentant bc users?
Posted by femme55@hotmail.com[/QUOTE]

None of us are equipped to determine whether someone is going to hell, purgatory or heaven. But the chances of heaven are much greater for those that follow the Church and her doctrine.

Just for analogies sake.....almost 100% of people lie at some point in their life... it doesn't mean lying should be applauded/considered good...

agapecarrie · December 2012

the other problem with the stats above is that it actually mentions "rhythm" method. That is laughable, and not reliable at all.

My NFP only doc (obgyn) can't take any more patients. His partner, and the newly "converted" nfp doc in town are close to being full as well.

Because there are many many many women who use NFP and don't want bc.

chelseamb11 · December 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_initial-meeting-with-priest-on-mondaya-wee-bit-nervous?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:67e8e8d8-d4f7-461a-84af-d4bbb19704ffPost:50bc75be-e778-43d1-88b1-0b4f0b610fbd">Re: Initial Meeting with Priest on Monday...a wee bit nervous</a>:
[QUOTE]Calypso, fair enough, but based on my figure above, does that mean that 68% of fertile Catholics are going to hell because they are unrepentant bc users?
Posted by femme55@hotmail.com[/QUOTE]

That's not for anyon to determine or decide other than God. We are all human and we all sin in one way or another, so it's always important to be aware of your own sins and confess/repent them often.
Unfortunately, we are an extremely sinful society as a whole. A society that often promotes sinful behavior as good behavior. There have been plenty of "non-negotiatbles" that the Church has never changed its stance on. And to be honest, the rules themselves haven't even changed that much when you really think about it. We have changed how we worship in ways, but we haven't ever changed our doctrines.

chelseamb11 · December 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_initial-meeting-with-priest-on-mondaya-wee-bit-nervous?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:67e8e8d8-d4f7-461a-84af-d4bbb19704ffPost:f9d790c3-e671-4c9c-b845-19b0c4d045b3">Re: Initial Meeting with Priest on Monday...a wee bit nervous</a>:
[QUOTE]If you look at some good sources, you'll see that the divorce rate among "catholics" is pretty much the same as the secular world. Until you plug the variables of: use NFP, Go to mass, and pray at home together. Then its .09% (point zero nine). Maybe there is something to this. Regarding changing practices....that is exactly what it is ...practices. Not truth, not doctrine, but discipline. Changing the language of the liturgy is discipline. Changing the penance requirements is discipline. The fact that there are graces and good brought from penance doesn't change. Truth, however, cannot change. 2+2=4. You can believe its 5 all you want, but it doesn't make it so. The same is true about God, and his moral teachings. they can't change, otherwise its not true. Regarding the question about "going to hell"... When someone commits a sin concerning grave matter (BC being one of them), that means they are seriously harming themselves or others, and offended God (because it harms themselves). If they have full knowledge of the gravity, and consequences, and make a free choice to do it anyways, these are the circumstances of mortal sin. Mortal sin cuts us off from God. It's our choice to do it. If we die cut off from God, without repenting, then there is a possibility of hell, because we've chosen it. We've said "my" choices are better than God's, I don't want Him. He honors that free choice. That is the math. Then there is mercy. We don't know what any person's mind or heart is about. We can't make any sort of call on where someone is struggling in working out their salvation whether they've commited a mortal sin or not, etc. There is no saying anyone is going to hell because that is not our judgement call to make. But it IS our job to admonish, warn, and care for souls. And warning against harmful choices and the hope that comes in following Christ and His teachings is our mission.
Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]
*Standing ovation*

femme55 · December 2012

But when we say that truth doesn't change, isn't that "truth" interpreted and promulgated by human beings, the same human beings who ordered torture and murder during the inquisitions, the execution of galileo and joan of arc, etc.? How can we say that human beings may err but the church does not err, when the "church" may only be run and continued through the participation of human beings? I'm not saying church "truth" on pre-marital sex and bc, etc. is necessarily wrong, but I'm also saying, can we really be certain that it is the only, 100% right way to do things, when the interpretations saying they are the right way to do things were made by human beings who work for the church, not the metaphysical concept of "the church" itself.

chelseamb11 · December 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_initial-meeting-with-priest-on-mondaya-wee-bit-nervous?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:67e8e8d8-d4f7-461a-84af-d4bbb19704ffPost:e8e883ac-d815-40d2-91ed-fce8cb1bb9ee">Re: Initial Meeting with Priest on Monday...a wee bit nervous</a>:
[QUOTE]But when we say that truth doesn't change, isn't that "truth" interpreted and promulgated by human beings, the same human beings who ordered torture and murder during the inquisitions, the execution of galileo and joan of arc, etc.? How can we say that human beings may err but the church does not err, when the "church" may only be run and continued through the participation of human beings? I'm not saying church "truth" on pre-marital sex and bc, etc. is necessarily wrong, but I'm also saying, can we really be certain that it is the only, 100% right way to do things, when the interpretations saying they are the right way to do things were made by human beings who work for the church, not the metaphysical concept of "the church" itself.
Posted by femme55@hotmail.com[/QUOTE]

From what I gather of this is it has to do with hierarchy of the church. Like mentioned before, the Church is not a democracy. These teachings and doctrines have been passed down from Jesus himself to leader to leader to leader to leader. Jesus knew at that exact time whether or not he could trust Peter to pass on the Church successfully. Jesus wouldn't have started a church he knew would fail its people.

Resa77 · December 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_initial-meeting-with-priest-on-mondaya-wee-bit-nervous?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:67e8e8d8-d4f7-461a-84af-d4bbb19704ffPost:e8e883ac-d815-40d2-91ed-fce8cb1bb9ee">Re: Initial Meeting with Priest on Monday...a wee bit nervous</a>:
[QUOTE]But when we say that truth doesn't change, isn't that "truth" interpreted and promulgated by human beings, the same human beings who ordered torture and murder during the inquisitions, the execution of galileo and joan of arc, etc.? How can we say that human beings may err but the church does not err, when the "church" may only be run and continued through the participation of human beings? I'm not saying church "truth" on pre-marital sex and bc, etc. is necessarily wrong, but I'm also saying, can we really be certain that it is the only, 100% right way to do things, when the interpretations saying they are the right way to do things were made by human beings who work for the church, not the metaphysical concept of "the church" itself.
Posted by femme55@hotmail.com[/QUOTE]

These are great questions! The reason that we believe that the Church does not and cannot err on matters of faith and morals is because Jesus promised us so, when He said "whatever you shall bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you should loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The pope is protected from teaching wrong. He is totally human, and on his own doesn't have special powers to be infallible. However, because the Holy Spirit guards him and the Church, and so that's where the infallibility comes in.

People get confused on this because they dont necessarily recognize the difference between, say, my pastor making a statement about BC or the divinity of Christ, vs the pope doing so. Individuals in the Catholic Church, other than the pope, do not have the gift of infallibiliy. In order for the pope's statements to be infallible, he must be speaking "ex cathedra" (which means literally "from the chair (of Peter)", but basically means in his full capacity as pope) on a matter of faith and morals. So if the pope is at a poker game and says that the Yankees are better than the Red Sox, that's not an infallible statement. Even if he's speaking on matters of faith and morals, every word out of the pope's mouth isn't true; just when he's actually making a papal statement. Hope that clears it up some :) There are lots of finer ins and outs, but that's the basic jist :)

When we're talking about things like not eating meat on Fridays, or whether Mass must be said in Latin, these are just customs and practices, and so that can all change. The Church has never changed it's position on doctrine or dogma.

Calypso1977 · December 2012

People get confused on this because they dont necessarily recognize the difference between, say, my pastor making a statement about BC or the divinity of Christ, vs the pope doing so. Individuals in the Catholic Church, other than the pope, do not have the gift of infallibiliy. In order for the pope's statements to be infallible, he must be speaking "ex cathedra" (which means literally "from the chair (of Peter)", but basically means in his full capacity as pope) on a matter of faith and morals. So if the pope is at a poker game and says that the Yankees are better than the Red Sox, that's not an infallible statement. Even if he's speaking on matters of faith and morals, every word out of the pope's mouth isn't true; just when he's actually making a papal statement. Hope that clears it up some There are lots of finer ins and outs, but that's the basic jist

exactly.

and no, BC users arent automatically going to hell. in fact, no one is automatically going to hell or heaven for that matter. each person's soul is judged at the time of their passing and only God knows the true thoughts and faith of any soul.

its impossible to figure out who will make it to heaven. some well known person (i dont know the name tho) once said that if you get ot heaven, you wont be surprised by the people who are there but rather by the people who arent there.

chelseamb11 · December 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_initial-meeting-with-priest-on-mondaya-wee-bit-nervous?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:67e8e8d8-d4f7-461a-84af-d4bbb19704ffPost:0b5ba374-e70a-4b23-91a0-41a12cfa01f6">Re: Initial Meeting with Priest on Monday...a wee bit nervous</a>:
[QUOTE]People get confused on this because they dont necessarily recognize the difference between, say, my pastor making a statement about BC or the divinity of Christ, vs the pope doing so. Individuals in the Catholic Church, other than the pope, do not have the gift of infallibiliy. In order for the pope's statements to be infallible, he must be speaking "ex cathedra" (which means literally "from the chair (of Peter)", but basically means in his full capacity as pope) on a matter of faith and morals. So if the pope is at a poker game and says that the Yankees are better than the Red Sox, that's not an infallible statement. Even if he's speaking on matters of faith and morals, every word out of the pope's mouth isn't true; just when he's actually making a papal statement. Hope that clears it up some :) There are lots of finer ins and outs, but that's the basic jist :) exactly. and no, BC users arent automatically going to hell. in fact, no one is automatically going to hell or heaven for that matter. each person's soul is judged at the time of their passing and only God knows the true thoughts and faith of any soul. its impossible to figure out who will make it to heaven. some well known person (i dont know the name tho) once said that if you get ot heaven, you wont be surprised by the people who are there but rather by the people who arent there.
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]

This exactly. The priest from our old church gave an amazing homily a few months ago that so many people just assume they are going to heaven and that's a grave mistake to make. When you assume you're going, you don't do everything in your power to make sure it happens because you find it to be just a given. It was very moving

femme55 · December 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_initial-meeting-with-priest-on-mondaya-wee-bit-nervous?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:67e8e8d8-d4f7-461a-84af-d4bbb19704ffPost:787d034f-434b-498c-bb30-b10d1568c7cd">Re: Initial Meeting with Priest on Monday...a wee bit nervous</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Initial Meeting with Priest on Monday...a wee bit nervous : These are great questions! The reason that we believe that the Church does not and cannot err on matters of faith and morals is because Jesus promised us so, when He said "whatever you shall bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you should loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The pope is protected from teaching wrong. He is totally human, and on his own doesn't have special powers to be infallible. However, because the Holy Spirit guards him and the Church, and so that's where the infallibility comes in. People get confused on this because they dont necessarily recognize the difference between, say, my pastor making a statement about BC or the divinity of Christ, vs the pope doing so. Individuals in the Catholic Church, other than the pope, do not have the gift of infallibiliy. <strong> In order for the pope's statements to be infallible, he must be speaking "ex cathedra" (which means literally "from the chair (of Peter)", but basically means in his full capacity as pope) on a matter of faith and morals. So if the pope is at a poker game and says that the Yankees are better than the Red Sox, that's not an infallible statement. Even if he's speaking on matters of faith and morals, every word out of the pope's mouth isn't true; just when he's actually making a papal statement. </strong>Hope that clears it up some :) There are lots of finer ins and outs, but that's the basic jist :) When we're talking about things like not eating meat on Fridays, or whether Mass must be said in Latin, these are just customs and practices, and so that can all change. The Church has never changed it's position on doctrine or dogma.
Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>
</div><div>This is interesting--did not know that distinction re: papal infallibility.</div><div>
</div><div>As to the idea that doctrine has not changed, I'm not sure that's true. See this review of a book by a devout catholic discussing same, with some good examples:</div><div>
</div><div><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22STEINFE.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22STEINFE.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0</a></div><div>
</div><div>Thanks ladies for an interesting discussion. I have been lurking around here because you have some nice debates. I used to be part of a religious/philosophical discussion group where we debated these types of issues while having coffee and snacks in someone's living room. I miss it!

</div>

s-aries8990 · December 2012

All of this is very interesting. I'm thinking about coming back to the faith and find these discussions very helpful!

Resa77 · December 2012

Well then you should be participating more! You ask some good questions and provide some good sources

I don't have time right now to thoroughly read the NY Times piece, but from what I did read, it doesn't prove the Church has changed doctrine. There are areas where the Church has a general "this is our custom" stance on something, without it being expressly taught. Then, due to divine inspritation, a pope will make a statement regarding the matter, at which point the Church has it's first official stance on the issue. For example, with slavery, the Church didn't really have a stance on it. Slavery was very much a part of many cultures, and while perhaps it wasn't encouraged, no pope ever made an authoratative statement prohibiting it, And then one did.

BC is, to me, a very interesting example of papal infallibility and the protection of the Church by the Holy Spirit. In the 1930s, condoms and other barrier methods were becoming more popular. At that time, the Church officially declared, in Casti Connubii, that the purposeful frustration of sexual act, either through withdrawal or through a physical barrier, was intrinsically evil. Most other faiths made similar statements.

Then the pill came around, and people thought "oh, this isn't a physical barrier! This is totally okay!" Lots of priests thought it was okay. The pope at the time formed a commission, which included lots of high-up clergy, as well as married lay people and scientists, and asked that they study it and basically give their opinion on whether the pill was morally permissable. This commission came out and said "yeah, it's totally fine. There's no physical barrier to the union of spouses, and so it doesn't go against our beliefs." The pope ended up with a different answer. He officially stated, in Humanae Vitae, that the pill was also morally wrong.

Many people said "oh, the Church changed its mind on this!" because the commission said it was fine, and then the pope said it wasn't. But the commission wasn't infallible, and so their results were never doctrine. Furthermore, it almost appeared that the Church was about to teach that contraception was okay in its new, pill form...that's certainly what it looked like! But then the Pope taught the opposite. Since contraception is ALWAYS wrong, the Holy Spirit jumped in a protected the pope from agreeing with the commission. At this time, all the other Christian churches were saying contraception was okay, basically changing their previous position, and it seemed the Catholic Church would to. But it did not. This just beautifully illustrates the idea of the Church being protected from erring on matters of morality.

Sorry, long story...but I just always liked that one, for some reason.

Calypso1977 · December 2012

resa, i just learned something new in your post!

femme55 · December 2012

Yeah I should really be doing work now, and will come back later to introduce myself in a separate thread and continue discussion, but one major point that stuck out at me from the article in terms of changing doctrine re: morality was on capital punishment. For example in the 1300s the church approved of execution for heresy, but now the church says capital punishment is absolutely immoral even in cases of murder. So I think that's an example of the church's truth not being immutable and being an example of changing interpretation.

And sorry OP for totally hijacking your thread.

MedStudent13 · December 2012

I love this discussion! So many good questions being asked!

Resa77 · December 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_initial-meeting-with-priest-on-mondaya-wee-bit-nervous?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:67e8e8d8-d4f7-461a-84af-d4bbb19704ffPost:3fc67532-6f96-4547-bba6-2a186e4f2206">Re: Initial Meeting with Priest on Monday...a wee bit nervous</a>:
[QUOTE]Yeah I should really be doing work now, and will come back later to introduce myself in a separate thread and continue discussion, but one major point that stuck out at me from the article in terms of changing doctrine re: morality was on capital punishment. <strong>For example in the 1300s the church approved of execution for heresy, but now the church says capital punishment is absolutely immoral even in cases of murder. </strong> So I think that's an example of the church's truth not being immutable and being an example of changing interpretation. And sorry OP for totally hijacking your thread.
Posted by femme55@hotmail.com[/QUOTE]

I have never heard that the Church says capital punishment is absolutely immoral. I have heard that JPII said that in today's modern age, where we have max security prisons (aka it's not so easy to escape), that he saw no need for cap punishment, even for murder:

<span class="box-yellow"><em>“The dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform.”</em>
--Pope John Paul II, <em>Evangelium Vitae</em>, 1995

</span>I have heard a few great talks about the death penalty, all of which said that the Church is not a fan of the death penalty, but that it's not intrinsically evil (aka, there could be cases in which it's permissible).

Furthermore, even if the Church did come out and say it's intrinsically evil, that wouldn't be going back on doctrine/dogma. Their practice of executing heretics was a practice, in line with the culture of the time. They never said "execution of heretics is an absolutely required punishment, and is a righteous action," you know? People within the Church can do wrong things, for sure.

Great convo btw! I like you, femme!

agapecarrie · December 2012

Sooo much to respond to.

1) The church has not changed in moral and faith teaching. Ever. The capital punishment thing isn't the way it goes down, and its not what the church teaches currently either. Capital punishment, according the catechism, may be a moral means of protecting society. It is not considered an intrinsic evil (The pope's opinion, which does NOT fall under infallibility, is that it isn't needed in any first world countries today). The idea is that when there is a primitive society that may need it to protect the greater good of the people because they are not able to keep the criminal contained, then capital punishment may be used.

2) The teaching magisterium of the church, INCLUDING PRIESTS are under infaillibility when they teach in union with magisterium and the pope.

3) Please do some more research regarding inquisitions, crusades, galileo, and slavery. from other sources. These always seem to be brought up as red herrings without much substantiation. I'm not saying that all leaders have been good, some corrupt. But that does NOT effect the Holy Spirit from preventing them from teaching error. These above circumstances dont' have much to do with teaching faith and morals. They have to do with sinful actions.

As I said earlier in the thread...its all about believing that Holy Spirit can protect the church as promised in Matthew 16. I believe Jesus when He promised it. He did NOT say the pope would never sin....as proven in the very next verses. when he tells Peter to "get behind me Satan". That sets it up. A pope can sin. He can get the baseball score wrong. He can have opinions about many things, including disciplines in the church. None of those are infallible.

lalaith50 · December 2012

wow, just catching up after a long day! And I'll echo chelsea- agape, that post from 2:02 was some of the best worded stuff I've ever seen from you! Thank you! :-)

mcda04 · December 2012

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_initial-meeting-with-priest-on-mondaya-wee-bit-nervous?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:67e8e8d8-d4f7-461a-84af-d4bbb19704ffPost:a7cb83a4-97b8-408a-87f2-18386e73e181">Re: Initial Meeting with Priest on Monday...a wee bit nervous</a>:
[QUOTE]You know, I wrote responses to each of you then deleted them. I realized I have no one to answer to but my FI, God, and our priest. I'm really sorry if me marrying within the Catholic Church offends anyone. Me? I'm really, really happy. And I have a wedding to plan :-) God bless.
Posted by jenferian[/QUOTE]

Jen. I'm very sorry you were offended by some of the responses. I can see how you are defending your position because your priest told you you were ok.

I want to share my personal story with you. H and I met as kids and we began dating in HS. well he proposed in 2004 and I moved in with him in March of 2005 and we got married in the Catholic church 3 months ago. In the course of this time together, we've had two children and I was so scared of seeing a priest about marriage. I thought i'd be repremended for my sins and be bashed on. To my surprise, our priest was very welcoming and didn't request anything from us other than attend the retreats and marriage prep classes. Oh and my kids were to be baptized which they were as infants.

I started looking into the religion a little further and trying to follow it for myself. not for a requirement from a priest but for God and the Church. I am still learning and these boards are really helpful. Please open your mind to experience the Catholic faith. It will be a blessing for you both.

Initial Meeting with Priest on Monday...a wee bit nervous

Re: Initial Meeting with Priest on Monday...a wee bit nervous

Choose Another Board

Search Boards