[JoeT777]

Of course we do. Fasting though is not ritualistic and is reserved for specific times or events in our lives. If for instance we have a specific need or burden on our hearts a fast could be in order.

The need is that it’s stated that we should pray and fast in Scripture. Don’t Protestants abide by Scripture? What made you assume that it was a burden?

JoeT

[cozyk]

Fasting is an act of penance. It is a virtuous act that “bridles the lusts of the flesh”, to raise the mind freely to God's revelation, and to satisfy sins in a penitent heart. St. Augustine says; "Fasting cleanses the soul, raises the mind, subjects one's flesh to the spirit, renders the heart contrite and humble, scatters the clouds of concupiscence, quenches the fire of lust, kindles the true light of chastity." (De orat. et Jejun. [Serm. lxxii (ccxxx, de Tempore)

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Fast

But my question for you, why is it that fasting seems so irksome to you? Do you have an objection to Catholics in pious fasting? Should we not do it for your peace of mind? Most of your posts seem to ridicule anything Catholic, so why would you care whether or not we fast; or is it that it just gives you more to mock?

JoeT

Joe, I don't get what your reply has to do with my quoted text. I was asking why we had two threads with practically the same title.

For the second part of your reply. I don't find it as irksome as I find it unbelievable and unhealthy. I fasted for 2 days for a church fund raiser one time and I became very sick. Horrible headache, dizziness, blood sugar all out of whack. I can't imagine doing it for 30 days. Bet you could lose some weight. Your question," should we not do it for your peace of mind" tells me that you are getting your snipes in. I don't care that you fast. I care what rituals are practiced and why, and what are they supposed to accomplish. As I said in an earlier post, I WANT to get it, I want it to make sense or make a difference, or be of some benefit. I am depending on the believers and practicing to show me. Your and Akoue's replies to me are showing me the exact opposite. Mean spirited... and not a very good example of your faith you so passionately believe in.

[Akoue]

[QUOTE=cozyk;1514036]You aren't thankful to me, you are being sarcastic, mean and oh so defensive

Sarcastic, yes. Mean, not by a long shot. You like to pepper your posts with remarks to the effect that you find Catholicism (and perhaps other forms of Christianity) to be stupid. This doesn't make me defensive; it makes me bored. I expect adults to carry on debate and discussion in an adult way. If you have objections into which you have put some thought, and care to formulate them in a thougful way, I, for one, am all ears. So, not defensive either. I have no problem with people raising objections. But the little-pt shots don't conduce to reasoned discussion and they are terrifically tedious. Throwing rhetorical barbs is a long way from articulating a reasoned objection.

Where do I get this idea?? How about the poster that wrote...

I don't see anything in that post about bargaining. In fact, I don't see anything that even looks like bargaining. Perhaps you can explain why you do and what you mean.

Everyone has to sacrifice the same thing? You can't choose your own sacrifice ?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. There are sacrifices that are shared and there are sacrifices that are private. An example of the latter would be when Catholics individually choose to give up something for Lent. What's wrong with having both? Shared sacrifice is an expression of unity and solidarity, and I, at least, think these are good things.

]I guess I wonder why you need to be told what to do, instead of having a personal sacrifice between you and God.

Again, I see no reason to suppose that the two are mutually exclusive. You appear to favor a "go it alone" approach to religion. But there are good reasons to reject that, too--especially if you're a Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. You're free to choose not to be Christian, though. I have no quarrel with that.

I know you think I am showing contempt for Catholics. It's not a Catholic thing. What I feel contempt for is how I was raised in the christian faith.

So the idea is that it's okay to show contempt for Catholics, and I shouldn't call you on that, since you are contemptuous of a lot of other Christians too? Contempt is contempt, and I'm not sure why you need to have it on display. You can surely ask your questions and raise your objections without doing so... If you choose to. But, as I've said, your need to express it with great frequency gets a little boring, and certainly raises the question whether you have any interest in honest discussion or are instead just grinding axes.

[QUOTE]I didn't think I could dare question what I was told, and the rituals I had to adhere to, and the fear and anguish that was always in my thoughts. Not just for myself, but for everyone that I loved. And even though I saw and was a part of all of that, I saw blatant hypocrisy all around me. I thought that God would much rather you toss all the rituals aside, stop "playing" christian and just LIVE it. When you conduct yourself in a way that pleases God, that covers all the bases. Everything else meant nothing if you did not just LIVE it .

I understand why that would turn you off. Since childhood have you studied these matters in an effort better to understand them, or have you instead turned your back on the whole thing with the idea that it's just stupid?

If my questions seem rude, I'm sorry.

Questions are fine, and I welcome them. These are not simple matters, and there's good to be had even from honest disagreement. But I would suggest that if you really don't want your questions to seem rude, stop asking them rudely.

I am questioning rituals, and when they are said back to you, you think it's being a smart @$$. If you believe in what you practice, I don't understand the defensiveness. I'm waiting and wanting to be convinced and lose my skepticism . So far, rituals seem meaningless and I hate that. The only way I can be convinced is to make sense of some of these things.

Nope, as I've said, questioning rituals is perfectly reasonable. It's healthy, I think. But asking a question and asking a question in a smart @$$ way are two different things. You might get more helpful answers if you don't go out of your way to ask the questions in an insulting way. Here are a few examples:

Why do Catholics fast?
Why do Catholics engage in ritual X?
Do Catholics think that by fasting they can bargain with God?
Have Catholic rules regarding fasting and abstinence changed? If so, why?

These are all perfectly fair questions. And there are plenty of others that it would be fun to discuss and debate.

[JoeT777]

Your and Akoue's replies to me are showing me the exact opposite. Mean spirited...and not a very good example of your faith you so passionately believe in.

You had already come to that conclusion long ago. It would have made little difference what was written or how it was couched, you’d drawn the same conclusion. But, that’s OK. I understand.

JoeT

[cozyk]

Sarcastic, yes. Mean, not by a long shot. You like to pepper your posts with remarks to the effect that you find Catholicism (and perhaps other forms of Christianity) to be stupid. If they sound stupid, maybe they are stupid. And I don't mean that in a bad way.

This doesn't make me defensive; it makes me bored.
Then why do you get so defensive?

I don't see anything in that post about bargaining. In fact, I don't see anything that even looks like bargaining. Perhaps you can explain why you do and what you mean.
The part about instead of doing A, I'll do B, but I'll add C to make it right.



The two aren't mutually exclusive. There are sacrifices that are shared and there are sacrifices that are private. An example of the latter would be when Catholics individually choose to give up something for Lent. What's wrong with having both? Shared sacrifice is an expression of unity and solidarity, and I, at least, think these are good things.
Okay, unity and solidarity, I get that.



Again, I see no reason to suppose that the two are mutually exclusive. You appear to favor a "go it alone" approach to religion.
It is not that I favor it, it is that I don't understand. I was a regular church goer for over 40 years. During that time I (and my husband) held many positions and I was an officer of The Presbyterian Women, and my husband was a deacon. So often, we would stand in church and recite stuff and I realized one day that I did not believe what I was saying. It can't be dictated what and how I am to believe. I could no longer just go along with the program, and follow like a sheep. I had thoughts and beliefs of my own and the one size fits all seemed absurd. It felt more like a cult, or a club.




So the idea is that it's okay to show contempt for Catholics, and I shouldn't call you on that, since you are contemptuous of a lot of other Christians too? Contempt is contempt, and I'm not sure why you need to have it on display.
You are right. It should not be on display. I just so badly want reasonable answers and I get impatient when they don't come.

certainly raises the question whether you have any interest in honest discussion or are instead just grinding axes.
Honest discussion. I've noticed though that so often a a statement is made, I question the point of what is said, and offense is taken for me even questioning it. I think questioning why you do what you do is important. That is the part I over looked for so many years and just fell in line. If it makes the statement maker angry, I get the impression that he/she is also, just a follower like I was. Or else I get an answer that STILL doesn't resonate as sensible, so I dig further.

[QUOTE]I didn't think I could dare question what I was told, and the rituals I had to adhere to, and the fear and anguish that was always in my thoughts. Not just for myself, but for everyone that I loved. And even though I saw and was a part of all of that, I saw blatant hypocrisy all around me. I thought that God would much rather you toss all the rituals aside, stop "playing" christian and just LIVE it. When you conduct yourself in a way that pleases God, that covers all the bases. Everything else meant nothing if you did not just LIVE it .

I understand why that would turn you off. Since childhood have you studied these matters in an effort better to understand them, or have you instead turned your back on the whole thing with the idea that it's just stupid?
I have been praying, searching, seeking, reading, visiting, and debating religion and faith for several years now. SO FAR, it keeps coming back to personal faith over group rituals or beliefs. Personal feels closer to God. If I had turned my back on the whole thing, I would not be spending time on a religious board.


Questions are fine, and I welcome them. These are not simple matters, and there's good to be had even from honest disagreement. But I would suggest that if you really don't want your questions to seem rude, stop asking them rudely.
I'm sorry, I'll make an effort to be more diplomatic.:o

[Akoue]

I don't see anything in that post about bargaining. In fact, I don't see anything that even looks like bargaining. Perhaps you can explain why you do and what you mean.
The part about instead of doing A, I'll do B, but I'll add C to make it right.

I'm not going out of my way to be dense, but I still don't get the bargaining bit. The Church is just saying that everyone should participate in a shared sacrifice. If you can't sacrifice the same thing as everyone else (say, for health reasons, you can't go without meat), then do something else in order to be a part of that shared sacrifice (unity, solidarity). I honestly don't see what this has to do with bargaining.

It is not that I favor it, it is that I don't understand. I was a regular church goer for over 40 years. During that time I (and my husband) held many positions and I was an officer of The Presbyterian Women, and my husband was a deacon. So often, we would stand in church and recite stuff and I realized one day that I did not believe what I was saying. It can't be dictated what and how I am to believe. I could no longer just go along with the program, and follow like a sheep. I had thoughts and beliefs of my own and the one size fits all seemed absurd. It felt more like a cult, or a club.

Thanks for that, it makes sense. You're right: If you don't believe it, you shouldn't be doing it.

Honest discussion. I've noticed though that so often a statement is made, I question the point of what is said, and offense is taken for me even questioning it. I think questioning why you do what you do is important. That is the part I over looked for so many years and just fell in line. If it makes the statement maker angry, I get the impression that he/she is also, just a follower like I was. Or else I get an answer that STILL doesn't resonate as sensible, so I dig further.

I agree with you: Questioning is important. And follow-up questions are perfectly fair. I agree that you shouldn't be bullied off asking the hard questions.

I have been praying, searching, seeking, reading, visiting, and debating religion and faith for several years now. SO FAR, it keeps coming back to personal faith over group rituals or beliefs. Personal feels closer to God. If I had turned my back on the whole thing, I would not be spending time on a religious board.

Fair enough. With my question (which could have been clearer) I was wondering whether you had done research into the beliefs and rituals that didn't/don't make sense to you. As I say, I, for one, don't think there's anything remotely wrong with your asking questions about Catholicism or anything else. I hope you'll continue to do so in a spirit of charity.

[arcura]

Akoue,
Yes, cozyK does seem to be hostile to the Catholic Churh.
As has been said, people who seem to hate the Catholic Church som[;ey do not understand it.
So they really just hate what they think it is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

I don't care that you fast. I care what rituals are practiced and why, and what are they supposed to accomplish. As I said in an earlier post, I WANT to get it, I want it to make sense or make a difference, or be of some benefit. I am depending on the believers and practicing to show me.

Since you indicated a wanting to learn about Catholic, I’ll expand a little on fasting just in case some Catholic hasn’t already done so. It’s a discipline – you do remember discipline, it’s like the drill sergeant says, there are three ways to do something and all but the latter are wrong; there is the right way, the wrong way and a Marine’s way.

In the Catholic Church of the United States discipline of fasting is not eating for 24-hours. Permitted are water and one light meal at around midday. The amount of food should be sufficient to maintain health given the activity level of the penitent. No red meat. In the U.S. eggs, milk, butter, cheese and fish are not to be eaten; however, bread, cake, fruit, herbs and vegetables are allowed. In other countries, the custom changes according to the ordinances for that country.

Fasting is considered both an act of penance and an obligation. In the United States fasting is all the days of lent; Fridays of Advent; the Ember Days; the vigils of Christmas and Pentecost along with the day of Assumption (Aug. 14) and All Saints day. The old and those with health conditions are not obligated to participate. Equally important to the Catholic is fasting from the previous midnight till mass the next day. Nothing can be eaten or drunk one hour before Mass. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Fast

JoeT

[cozyk]

Akoue,
Yes, cozyK does seem to be hostile to the Catholic Churh.
As has been said, people who seem to hate the Catholic Church som[;ey do not understand it.
So they really just hate what they think it is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fair enough Fred. I think the hostility comes from the accumulation of so many things I just don't get.

1. The Pope, Why is this mere human held in such a high regard. And given so much power to change policy. He was in Colorado the same time I was a few years ago. It was like another Woodstock. Thousands of people were rushing the city. When it was over the crowds left a big mess. People seem to worship him like he was a God... AND a rock star. But they were not respectful of the park they gathered in to worship him.:confused:

2. I have MANY Catholic friends. Not one of them is a "practicing" catholic. They disagree with too many of the stances. Is the church losing it's members?

3. Birth Control. ALL of my Catholic friends use birth control. Their parents did not and they had children they could not really afford. My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He is one of five, and he tells about how they couldn't send their kids to college, pay for braces for their teeth, get individual attention, etc. The rhythm method is allowed if I understand correctly, but isn't that a method of birth control too?

4. Priest not getting married. I hear "they are married to the church." Why can't you be dedicated to your church and your wife? God made humans to be sexual. Isn't that against nature for a man to not have a companion, no affection, no relationship of any kind with a woman. God saw that even Adam needed a mate. And masturbation is out of the question too. To me, it sounds like it is just asking for trouble. And how can a priest properly council married couples when he can not empathize?

5. The whole annulment thing. At first you could not get a divorce. Then, you could get a divorce, but you were banned from communion IF you remarried without getting an annulment from the church. Why the change in policy?

6. Now, I know that every religion has their kooks and immoral leaders. Maybe I've been reading all the wrong papers, but it seems like a whole lot of "covering up" is going on within the church. Priest child molesters just being moved from one location to another, but not fired and prosecuted. And I've seen news shows, Oprah, etc. about children, (now grown) mostly boys, having been molested by their priest over and over. So far,
These shows have only been about Catholics. I don't understand, why is it you only hear about Catholics doing this?

I think these will do for now. As Fred always says,
Peace and Kindness
cozyk

[cozyk]

[QUOTE=JoeT777;1514542]Since you indicated a wanting to learn about Catholic, I’ll expand a little on fasting just in case some Catholic hasn’t already done so. It’s a discipline – you do remember discipline, it’s like the drill sergeant says, there are three ways to do something and all but the latter are wrong; there is the right way, the wrong way and a Marine’s way. okay, the Catholic way.

In the Catholic Church of the United States discipline of fasting is not eating for 24-hours. Permitted are water and one light meal at around midday.
Is this new? Did fasting used to mean, no food...period? If so, when and why did it change?

Fasting is considered both an act of penance and an obligation. In the United States fasting is all the days of lent; Fridays of Advent; the Ember Days; the vigils of Christmas and Pentecost along with the day of Assumption (Aug. 14) and All Saints day
I'm confused. I thought someone told me a few posts back that there was a time where Catholics fasted for a whole month? Did I mis-read something?

[/COLOR

The old and those with health conditions are not obligated to participate. Equally important to the Catholic is fasting from the previous midnight till mass the next day. Nothing can be eaten or drunk one hour before Mass. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Fast

What is the difference between "mass" and what used to be called in the Baptist church, "preaching" or worship service. Is a sermon involved in Mass?

[JoeT777]

[QUOTE=cozyk;1514618]

Since you indicated a wanting to learn about Catholic, I’ll expand a little on fasting just in case some Catholic hasn’t already done so. It’s a discipline – you do remember discipline, it’s like the drill sergeant says, there are three ways to do something and all but the latter are wrong; there is the right way, the wrong way and a Marine’s way. okay, the Catholic way.

In the Catholic Church of the United States discipline of fasting is not eating for 24-hours. Permitted are water and one light meal at around midday.

Is this new? Did fasting used to mean, no food...period? If so, when and why did it change?

I don’t know when it changed, but it’s gotten a lot less stringent in its observance since Vatican II (1964). It may be just childhood memories, but the priest would give us special penance when fast was broken. But, it’s not important when or why it was changed because it’s considered a discipline of the faithful.

Fasting is considered both an act of penance and an obligation. In the United States fasting is all the days of lent; Fridays of Advent; the Ember Days; the vigils of Christmas and Pentecost along with the day of Assumption (Aug. 14) and All Saints day
I'm confused. I thought someone told me a few posts back that there was a time where Catholics fasted for a whole month? Did I mis-read something?

Yes, you’re missing that lent is 40 days.

The old and those with health conditions are not obligated to participate. Equally important to the Catholic is fasting from the previous midnight till mass the next day. Nothing can be eaten or drunk one hour before Mass. [url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen
Does this mean, no breakfast on Sunday morning? ]

yes and any midnight snacks you might be planning.

Also, don't some churches have mass on Saturday night? That means they would not have eaten since midnight the night before.

It’s on Saturday but it’s not really Saturday, it’s real early Sunday. The Jews day was from sunup to sundown. So, after sunset on Saturday it’s really Sunday.

What is the difference between "mass" and what used to be called in the Baptist church, "preaching" or worship service. Is a sermon involved in Mass?

The difference in the Southern Baptist or any other Protestant service is the real presence of Christ. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. (John 6)

The REAL Presence friend! The REAL Presence is the difference.

JoeT

[arcura]

CozyK.
1. The pope is held in high esteem because he sits in Peter's chair which was appointed by Jesus Christ.
He is the leader of 1 billion Catholics world wide. No other group has such a leader.
2. Yes there are some Catholics who do not agree with all Church teachings. They are called cafeteria Catholic because the like to pick what they want to believe.
Jesus warned us about lukewarm people like that.
3. The Church believes that birth control is a no-no because married people are supposed to have children as God so decides. It is up to God how many children a couple should have is the belief.
4. Priest celibacy is a discipline. A priest is supposed to be Christ-like. Jesus never married. His mission was to serve the people while he was here and not be distracted by having a wife and family.
5. An annulment is for those whose marriage was not a unity that falls within fully doctrine Church and thus was not a Catholic marriage under God.
A civil marriage is not a sacrament instituted by God and therefore not a holy union.
6. Yes there were some priest who violated their celibacy and some abused children.
Yes some bishops did move them around which was and is against Church rules.
Now days the axe has fallen on them. They are cut off from practicing as a priest and the Bishops have been disciplined. It was a shameful episode in Church history and steps have been taken to hopefully not let it happen again.
All I have mentioned is a brief answer to your question. A full answer would take volumes of work.
If you want more info on any one of them please start a new thread so that others can add to what you want to know and understand.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[cozyk]

CozyK.
1. The pope is held in high esteem because he sits in Peter's chair which was appointed by Jesus Christ.

That explains the first pope. What about the rest?

He is the leader of 1 billion Catholics world wide. No other group has such a leader.
Isn't that a lot of power for one man. How do they get qualified?

2. Yes there are some Catholics who do not agree with all Church teachings. They are called cafeteria Catholic because the like to pick and choose what they want to believe.
Jesus warned us about lukewarm people like that.



3. The Church believes that birth control is a no-no because married people are supposed to have children as God so decides. It is up to God how many children a couple should have is the belief.

But it's not really up to God if you use the rhythm method is it? And isn't that method approved by the church? I promise I am not being smart, just trying to understand, and plug all the holes. And wouldn't God want us to use our common sense combined with the science available to us to behave in a responsible manner.

Do you think the pope will ever look into this matter and change it to not be so strict like some other changes that have been made?
Is it YOUR belief or just the church's belief?
Am I to assume that all Catholics that are not "lukewarm" Catholics" have not used birth control throughout their marriage.
And another thought I had was that if God decides how many children you have, what happens to free will? These are all things that run through my mind. Do REAL, (not the lukewarm Kind) Catholics ever question the wisdom of the church or the pope, or do they just accept what they are told?


4. Priest celibacy is a discipline. A priest is supposed to be Christ-like. Jesus never married. His mission was to serve the people while he was here and not be distracted by having a wife and family.
But there was only one Jesus, and he was God in the flesh. We are all supposed to be Christ-like. You can be Christ-like and have a normal man/woman relationship at the same time. Can you address my questions about God making woman to be man's mate, as in Adam and Eve?

Do you wish I would stop asking questions and just accept? If I did, I would just be settling again for beliefs that I did not believe in. That is where frustration with religion sets in and I don't want that.


5. An annulment is for those whose marriage was not a unity that falls within fully doctrine Church and thus was not a Catholic marriage under God

So do you have to prove that your marriage was "not a unity that falls within fully doctrine Church" as you say? What if it did fall within unity, etc. You don't get your annulment and the church will declare you an adulterer if you remarry?


A civil marriage is not a sacrament instituted by God and therefore not a holy union.

So does this mean civil married couples that divorce will have no problem marrying a second time, and being recognized by the church?

6. Yes there were some priest who violated their celibacy and some abused children.
Yes some bishops did move them around which was and is against Church rules.
Now days the axe has fallen on them. Were these people prosecuted for allowing this to continue? Not just cut off from practicing but faced criminal charges?
They are cut off from practicing as a priest and the Bishops have been disciplined. It was a shameful episode in Church history and steps have been taken to hopefully not let it happen again.

All I have mentioned is a brief answer to your question. A full answer would take volumes of work.
That is okay, I don't expect volumes. As long as I can continue asking questions. When it resonates as truth with the God that I love and respect , I'll have my satisfaction.

If you want more info on any one of them please start a new thread so that others can add to what you want to know and understand.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I saw this AFTER I had typed my follow up questions. Sorry, I'll start a new thread with any more questions I may have. Am I wearing you out? I appreciate all your efforts.

[arcura]

CozyK,
I'll answer number 1 and hope you do open a new thread of the rest and for any more questions you may have on number one.
Each new pope is a product of apostolic succession as indicated in the book of Acts where after prayer to the Holy Spirit the remaining 11 chose a new apostle to take the place of Judas Iscariot.
The Church believes that it is guided by the Holy Spirit and is so inspired for many things such as promulgating Holy Scripture books into the bible we have today.
So a man who has the call from God to become a monk or priest goes on with study and guidance to become one. Over time (guided by the Holy Spirit) his superiors (that is his bishop with the OK from the pope) he is advanced to become a bishop,
He can advance even farther to become and archbishop and a cardinal.
After much prayer a new pope is elected by the College of Cardinals.
Technically speaking a monk or a mere priest could be elected pope if the Holy Spirit so moved the College of Cardinals to do so.
Yea pope does have great power as leader of 1 billion members BUT each pope is supposed to be a great servant (shepherd) of the huge flock as Jesus so instructed His apostles and disciples to be humble servants. That is like I believe Pope John Pail II was.
I do firmly believe that the Holy Spirit DOES work with the Catholic Church in such and other matters.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[arcura]

CozyK
Here are a couple of sites for people who have lots of tough questions about Catholicism to ask.
AskACatholic.com - About Us

This one is also very good.

Welcome

Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

cozyk,

1. All bishops, not just the Pope, are successors of the Apostles. Just as the Apostles chose their successors (an authority they received from Christ), so too they passed on to their successors the authority to choose theirs, and so on. Christ vested this authority in his Church and it is exercised by those who have been chosen to lead the Church. (Of course, the ultimate "leader" of the Church is Christ himself. When I speak of bishops as leaders, I mean to allude to Scripture, where we are instructed to obey the stewards, shepherds, bishops who have been appointed to instruct the faithful.)

3.. Of course, many Catholics have questions, and there is nothing wrong with that. Catholics are not expected to be thoughtless brutes. At the same time, though, we are expected to obey legitimate ecclesiastical authority (the bishops). We are instructed to do so in the NT (I'll spare you lists of passages, as these may best be reserved for another thread, if you still feel like starting one).

As for birth control: The Church abjures the use of artificial birth control. Natural birth control (sometimes called the "rhythm method") is fine. Married couples are expected to be open to the possibility of procreation--a choice which is ultimately to be reserved to God alone (i.e. whether offspring do in fact come along).

4. No, I don't wish that you'd stop asking questions. I do think Fred's idea, which you seem to like too, to start a new thread would be a good idea, though.

In the meantime: Sure, we are all called to be Christ-like. Bear in mind that not all Catholic priests are celibate, only those priests who enter the clerical state in regions that have a long tradition of celibacy. Eastern rite priests are often married. The Church respects the established customs of different areas. At the same time, clerical celibacy, though not always required, has been strongly encouraged since the early Church, since it is believed to be preferrable for a priest to serve his flock wholeheartedly, without the additional strain of providing for a family.

5.I've recently spoken about annulment on a couple of other threads, so I won't repeat myself here.

6.A number of priests were prosecuted, yes. But the Church doesn't have authority to carry out civil prosecutions.

As Fred has rightly said, a lot more can, and probably should, be said in answer to your questions. It's a little difficult to do here since you've asked a number of questions on different topics all in a single post. Perhaps you might consider taking one or two questions at a time and devoting a thread to each, that way we can probe each one in detail. I suspect this will provide you more satisfactory answers and then you'll be in a much better position to decide what you think about Catholic doctrine on any given subject.

[galveston]

May a non-Catholic comment?
All this makes me think of some history of most "holiness" groups in the early to mid 1900's.
Some, in their desire to get closer to God felt that they should forego various things, such as coffee, soft drinks, neck ties, jewelry, make up, movies, certain clothing and hair styles.
These were personal choices, but some began to teach them as rules so that everyone would have to conform to them.
Of course, they had NO scripture to back most of this up. (There is plenty to label as sin without leaving scripture to do so)
Now when these men preached their own convictions, no one was forced to conform, since everyone was free to understand the Bible for themselves.
Not so in the RC church. When the Pope decides something is sin or should be observed, EVERY Catholic is obligated to do so, regardless of what Scripture may say about it. (The Popes seldom agreed on things between themselves.)
So here is a Scripture for you.

1 Tim 4:1-3
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
(KJV)

[Akoue]

Not so in the RC church. When the Pope decides something is sin or should be observed, EVERY Catholic is obligated to do so, regardless of what Scripture may say about it. (The Popes seldom agreed on things between themselves.)
So here is a Scripture for you.

A couple of things. The claim that Popes SELDOM agreed is just not serious. Say, if you like, that Popes have *sometimes* disagreed; but to say, or even suggest, that Popes *seldom* agree is not to be taken seriously because it's not a serious or informed claim.

1 Tim 4:1-3
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
(KJV)

Right, and Catholics aren't obligated to be vegetarians. Or is this supposed to show that what the Pope says goes, "regardless of what Scripture may have to say about it"? Because, if so, this is where cherry-picking Bible verses can get you into trouble. We know that Scripture has no problem with fasting. We know that Scripture has no problem with episcopal authority. And I'm unaware of Popes who just cavalierly throw Scripture out the window. There is the sense one gets reading many posts about Catholicism at this site that there is some sort of odd antipathy of the Pope toward Scripture. Many posters seem to labor under that misconception, though I can't see why. And I'm unaware of any Pope who's said that in order to be Catholic one has to be a vegetarian.

In any event, though, Catholics aren't sola scripturists. Sola scriptura is a modern invention. And the passage from 1 Tim. That you quote certainly doesn't seem to say that abstaining from something--even (gasp!) meat--as way to be mindful of one's sinfulness and in order to express solidarity with others is a bad or un-Christian thing to do. Christians have been fasting and abstaining, together, at the behest of the bishops, since the first century.

[arcura]

Akoue,
Roght.
Very good post.
Fred

[JoeT777]

The Pope decides something is sin or should be observed, EVERY Catholic is obligated to do so, regardless of what Scripture may say about it. (The Popes seldom agreed on things between themselves.)

You do know what the word discipline means. When you apply it to faith we have an authority that we look to for guidance. (Saying that, I know that you look to yourself for authority – which you should find very subjective – isn't it amazing how a pre-determined outcome can be justified, scripturally or otherwise). Anyway, Catholicism obliges us to fast – it doesn't force you or oblige you (the non-Catholic) to fast – for that matter it doesn't 'force' me to fast.

Failing to observe a fast is usually not a sin, either venial or mortal; in certain cases the penitent is excused for legitimate reasons, one of which can be simply that he needs nourishment for his job. The mortal sin is only committed when failing to observe a fast is done in contempt or disobedience. Fasting is a little inconvenience when you compare it to what is gained. "Fasting cleanses the soul, raises the mind, subjects one's flesh to the spirit, renders the heart contrite and humble, scatters the clouds of concupiscence, quenches the fire of lust, kindles the true light of chastity." ( St. Augustine, Serm. Lxxii (ccxxx, de Tempore)

Oh yes, in addition to the other occasions previously mentioned, fasting is most always done prior to any vigil.

JoeT