The New Paganism and the Culture of Death
- Thread starter sanctus
- Start date
Generally, one is expected to receive a secular University degree, even a Masters. There are obviously exceptions based on individual circumstances. Seminary, which is from Latin seminarium, from semin-, semen seed
and is an institution of secondary or higher education for the training of candidates for the priesthood. It is 7 years in length and involves sections on homiletics, Church History, Applied Theology, Comparitive Religion, etc.etc.One is also physically trained in Sacramental theology and the actual Mass, sometimes, as in my case, in several different liturgies including the traditional Latin Mass, which I still say twice a month.
```Zionist thread...............down the hall and to your right```
answer from sanctus:
`` Odd that you lump the Jews in, considering they have, for the most part, rejected the Messiah, but your point is germaine none-the-less. ``
Just think about it sanctus -- if people would only obey the Bible that they claim to use as their source for religious inspiration, there would be no war in the ME today.
answer from sanctus:
`` Odd that you lump the Jews in, considering they have, for the most part, rejected the Messiah, but your point is germaine none-the-less. ``
Just think about it sanctus -- if people would only obey the Bible that they claim to use as their source for religious inspiration, there would be no war in the ME today.
Frankly, it generally amuses me when non-Christians, claiming to reject the faith, revert to usage of biblical passages in their posts
We do not "pretend", we do.
It's called sarcasm. A product of an independent mind that thinks on it's own not just quoting others. Original thinking is also a byproduct.
Perhaps when a non christian "quotes biblical passages, it is only because he has good knowledge
of the religion, even though he doesn't believe, I think that's OK, knowledge is good.
of the religion, even though he doesn't believe, I think that's OK, knowledge is good.
Another very busy thread started by our friend sanctus. Major kudos to MikeyDB, selfactivated, RSK, the Bear, and a few others whose names don't come immediately to mind because I'm less familiar with their works, for such thoughtful and spirited posts. MikeyDB in particular I thought put up an exceptionally good post in about the middle of page 11.
I've noticed what I think are two pretty consistent patterns in all the religion-related threads here at CC, and also in the wider world. First, most believers seem to attribute anything good that anybody does or feels or thinks or says to the influence of god, while all the bad things are attributed to our sinful human natures. Even this unrepentant old atheist has been told in effect that whatever goodness there is in me is due to god working invisibly and without my knowledge (or consent, I might add) within me, and thus that I cannot really be both an atheist and a good person, I must have some degree of religious belief. In other words, the good stuff comes only and entirely from god, the bad stuff's our fault, we're all just as the lowly worm without god. Quite apart from the fact that worms are very useful and productive creatures in the web of life, and that is thus an insult to worms, I think that's nonsense. I believe It *all* comes from us, the good and the bad, nobody's responsible for ourselves but us and no supernatural being is going to help us. I've seen no good evidence that suggests otherwise. It's all up to us. We're on our own and it's long past time we started taking personal responsibility for what we do.
Second, when a relatively small number of people share an irrational belief, we call it occult, or pagan, or evil, or psychotic, or something like that, and often try to repress or control or lock up such people. I suppose we should be grateful that we're not burning them at the stake anymore, or stoning them. But when a whole lot of people share an irrational belief we dignify it by calling it a religion and grant it special status and moral authority.
I think that too is nonsense.
And just as an aside, sanctus (though it's admittedly a personal matter that's really none of my business and you're perfectly entitled to refuse to answer, I'm just curious): you appear here as a Roman Catholic priest, but the web page linked to in your public profile where your poetry is published says you have two children and there's no mention of a wife. What's that about?
I've noticed what I think are two pretty consistent patterns in all the religion-related threads here at CC, and also in the wider world. First, most believers seem to attribute anything good that anybody does or feels or thinks or says to the influence of god, while all the bad things are attributed to our sinful human natures. Even this unrepentant old atheist has been told in effect that whatever goodness there is in me is due to god working invisibly and without my knowledge (or consent, I might add) within me, and thus that I cannot really be both an atheist and a good person, I must have some degree of religious belief. In other words, the good stuff comes only and entirely from god, the bad stuff's our fault, we're all just as the lowly worm without god. Quite apart from the fact that worms are very useful and productive creatures in the web of life, and that is thus an insult to worms, I think that's nonsense. I believe It *all* comes from us, the good and the bad, nobody's responsible for ourselves but us and no supernatural being is going to help us. I've seen no good evidence that suggests otherwise. It's all up to us. We're on our own and it's long past time we started taking personal responsibility for what we do.
Second, when a relatively small number of people share an irrational belief, we call it occult, or pagan, or evil, or psychotic, or something like that, and often try to repress or control or lock up such people. I suppose we should be grateful that we're not burning them at the stake anymore, or stoning them. But when a whole lot of people share an irrational belief we dignify it by calling it a religion and grant it special status and moral authority.
I think that too is nonsense.
And just as an aside, sanctus (though it's admittedly a personal matter that's really none of my business and you're perfectly entitled to refuse to answer, I'm just curious): you appear here as a Roman Catholic priest, but the web page linked to in your public profile where your poetry is published says you have two children and there's no mention of a wife. What's that about?
Last edited:
Not a personal matter at all! I do have two children, two girls, one 14 and one 11, who live with me. Wife, well she left sometime ago, too busy to bother with conventional things like parenthood.
Yes, I am A Roman Catholic priest in the Byzantine Rite. The Church has 22 Rites, or jurisdictions if you will. Each is under the Roman Pontiff and each celebrates its own liturgical and ecclessiatic traditions.
The Byzantine Rite is one of what is known as the Eastern Rites of the Church, perhaps you would be more familiar with Ukranian Catholics or Marionites, other Rites.
Following Orthodox traditions, married men may be accepted into the priesthood. Kind of a catch-22, if a married man is accepted into the priesthood, he must remain chaste with his wife, or true to her in common terms. IF that wife dies or for some reason the marriage partners separates, the priest must become celibate. No dating or re-marriage is ever permitted for, as you know, "priests never marry".
I'll submit some information on the Rites of the Catholic Church for your information.
Feel free to ask any other questions as it suits
However, picking Biblical quotations at random pulls them out of context to what might be a different message than is presented in a single quote.
A general belief that is not dismissed by the Church. It is important that each individual owns up to his or her personal responsibility for their actiopns and behaviour. The difference is, of course, is our further instruction for that person to submit those events in prayer to God.
I suspect you make a valid point. What comes to mind, though, is the potential for harmful spiritual behaviours in certain belief systems, such as paganism for example. Now, to you it would matter not one iota since you've discredited spiritual sources for yourself, but for the believer it has sometimes a harmful effect.
Not a personal matter at all! I do have two children, two girls, one 14 and one 11, who live with me. Wife, well she left sometime ago, too busy to bother with conventional things like parenthood.
Yes, I am A Roman Catholic priest in the Byzantine Rite. The Church has 22 Rites, or jurisdictions if you will. Each is under the Roman Pontiff and each celebrates its own liturgical and ecclessiatic traditions.
The Byzantine Rite is one of what is known as the Eastern Rites of the Church, perhaps you would be more familiar with Ukranian Catholics or Marionites, other Rites.
Following Orthodox traditions, married men may be accepted into the priesthood. Kind of a catch-22, if a married man is accepted into the priesthood, he must remain chaste with his wife, or true to her in common terms. IF that wife dies or for some reason the marriage partners separates, the priest must become celibate. No dating or re-marriage is ever permitted for, as you know, "priests never marry".
I'll submit some information on the Rites of the Catholic Church for your information.
Feel free to ask any other questions as it suits
When my kids were in Catholic grade school, a few of their class-mates were children of married eastern Rite priests.
I always felt kind of sorry for the kids, to be honest with you, because in my experience they are labelled alongside their fathers vocation. Same as the wife.
.
Eastern rite priests cannot get married. However, Eastern Rite married men may be ordained as priests. See the difference? Basically, you can be married before your ordination, but after your ordination you cannot be married.
Historically there are many reasons. In the early centuries of Christianity, many Latin priests were legitimately married men. However, problems of nepotism, passing on Church lands to one's children, etc. greatly contributed to the general discipline of prohibition of married men from ordination.
In the East, married men have always been ordained priests. The Council of Trullo, the Quinisext Council, which was held to drawn up canons for the fifth and sixth Ecumenical Councils, and which was held in the East, condemned the Latin discipline of (required) clerical celibacy. It also drew up canons that prohibited a married ordained man from leaving his wife or being forced to leave his wife. The Council of Trullo is still regarded in the East as a legitimate Council, whereas in the West it is not generally accepted because of certain anti-Latin practice canons.
Eastern rite priests cannot get married. However, Eastern Rite married men may be ordained as priests. See the difference? Basically, you can be married before your ordination, but after your ordination you cannot be married.
Historically there are many reasons. In the early centuries of Christianity, many Latin priests were legitimately married men. However, problems of nepotism, passing on Church lands to one's children, etc. greatly contributed to the general discipline of prohibition of married men from ordination.
In the East, married men have always been ordained priests. The Council of Trullo, the Quinisext Council, which was held to drawn up canons for the fifth and sixth Ecumenical Councils, and which was held in the East, condemned the Latin discipline of (required) clerical celibacy. It also drew up canons that prohibited a married ordained man from leaving his wife or being forced to leave his wife. The Council of Trullo is still regarded in the East as a legitimate Council, whereas in the West it is not generally accepted because of certain anti-Latin practice canons.
From the original post, which I think the thread has veered from. this is quite true. We have so many examples of people trying to re-write or re-define what the Bible teaches to suit their
pc agendas.As if now God has changed his mind on the faith!
that makes sense. i mean, if it was supposed to be true ten years ago why would it not be true now.
that is so cool though, havign a priest for a dad. i wonder if they expect more of the kids though??