Question on the Statement of Faith for OBOB

[Martinius]

Catholics already know that there is no debate concerning official Catholic teachings. They are simply to be obeyed. Was it Therese the Little Flower that said that "understanding comes later".

Table of the Lord. Was that the liberal Catholic board? That's what's being suggested for OBOB? For it now to be liberal and not the members who are loyal to the Magesterium? Oh dear. (Clutches miraculous medal in lieu of pearls)

Many Catholics, including theologians and those pesky nuns, apparently haven't gotten that message.

I was not suggesting that OBOB become a forum like "Table of the Lord", but that there be a place for that type of discussion, where ALL are welcome and there are few, if any, restrictions on what can be discussed. What we are doing here is eliminating the ability to discuss anything of real substance...is that due to some unreasonable fear that the Church cannot defend itself? I wonder.

 

[Basil the Great]

I consider it a credit to OBOB, that it seems more open to visitors than most subforums here.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Catholics already know that there is no debate concerning official Catholic teachings. They are simply to be obeyed. Was it Therese the Little Flower that said that "understanding comes later".

Table of the Lord. Was that the liberal Catholic board? That's what's being suggested for OBOB? For it now to be liberal and not the members who are loyal to the Magesterium? Oh dear. (Clutches miraculous medal in lieu of pearls)

We debate stuff all the time.

I do not understand your point

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Open this up.

Free the protestants

Death to the imperialist something or other.

etc.

 

[Martinius]

Matters of Dogma can not be debated. The Lords Table was shut down for lack of use. Five years and only an average of 0.44 posts a week with more than 15 posts. Around an average of one thread a week in five years with any responses at all. For a faith community area that's pretty low.

Not having access to that sub-forum any longer, I can't look at the numbers, but I would humbly suggest that a review of that forum over the last couple of months would have shown a much higher rate of postings. There were several of us, literally driven off the OBOB site, who started threads and began discussions on the "Lord's Table" sub-forum. There was even participation by OBOB members, which some there didn't like, but that I and others defended and welcomed. Then it was abruptly shut down, without any consideration of communicating with those who were active participants.

Catholics can debate with each other on matters of free opinion or on application of Teachings as long as they are not advocating an application the Church says can not happen.

Anyone who self identifies as a Catholic in union with Rome. That includes all Liturgical Rites and groups in Union with Rome. We do not Icon hunt. Some Catholics wear the Black Cross, some the Catholic Icon. Members here are those who are in union with Rome and would self define as such.

I told my pastor I could no longer be completely in union with Rome, and he said that was perfectly fine, join the club. I asked him if I should leave the Church, which I would do if he thought that I could not in good conscience remain. He said "stay". The priest I discussed this with previously said the same. They still consider me a "good Catholic" (at least two priests and a bishop have called me that)...go figure.

Not everything is covered by Dogma, there is much left to discuss...including the application of that which is dogma. Just because something is true does not mean that those who whole it as true might not have equally valid ways of going about implementing the Truth in their lives. I can provide a list of dogmatic grades of certainty if you want. But there is much that is free opinion. Just not what many want to be free opinion.

And those people get to define the debate, with nowhere for the rest of us to freely discuss vital issues. Oh, well.

Thanks for the explanation of "posting in fellowship". It is, as I suspected, like discussing what clothes your kids should wear to Mass, or where you can find a Catholic Church in a particular area. I don't mind those kind of questions and discussions, but if that is all there is to discuss our brains will atrophy.

As you can tell, I am blowing off steam, since I really liked this forum when I first joined. It was much better than the other Catholic forums I have been on. But it seems to be changing for the worse...sorry to see that happen.

Thanks again for your thorough response.

 

[Antigone]

I'm one of those people who often get reported simply for posting as a non-Catholic in a Catholic subforum. I try very hard not to argue Catholic doctrine, even if I disagree with it. Yet every now and then I get reported. I usually manage to get these reports turned around, because I've been a fairly unproblematic member of OBOB for years. Several of my posts have been reinstated as well.

My problem with the current rules is this:

I could make the exact same posts I make now under a Catholic icon and there would be no grounds for reporting me. Clearly, the problem isn't what I post.

I changed my icon because I don't think I believe enough Catholic doctrine to accurately call myself Catholic, and I think it's disrespectful and dishonest towards the church and other Catholics.

However - I am still registered as a Catholic and I never argue against Catholicism in public. Technically, I could change back my icon and I wouldn't be lying. People wouldn't have any reason to report me anymore. I wouldn't like it, but it'd solve the problem.

It's that paradox that bothers me.

 

[AMDG]

I'm one of those people who often get reported simply for posting as a non-Catholic in a Catholic subforum. I try very hard not to argue Catholic doctrine, even if I disagree with it. Yet every now and then I get reported. I usually manage to get these reports turned around, because I've been a fairly unproblematic member of OBOB for years. Several of my posts have been reinstated as well.

My problem with the current rules is this:

I could make the exact same posts I make now under a Catholic icon and there would be no grounds for reporting me. Clearly, the problem isn't what I post.

I changed my icon because I don't think I believe enough Catholic doctrine to accurately call myself Catholic, and I think it's disrespectful and dishonest towards the church and other Catholics.

However - I am still registered as a Catholic and I never argue against Catholicism in public. Technically, I could change back my icon and I wouldn't be lying. People wouldn't have any reason to report me anymore. I wouldn't like it, but it'd solve the problem.

It's that paradox that bothers me.

Maybe it's *how* the post is worded? More "I" statements (like "*I* feel" or "*I* think"), instead of "you" statements ("*you* shouldn't feel that way" or "*you* shouldn't believe") tend to be softer and seem less confrontational. And I have found over the years, that it often helps not to have a "chip on one's shoulder" when posting--not saying that you do, of course. (I'd include a little cute emoticon to show that I'm not being mean, but you told me not to do that.)

 

[MikeK]

Maybe it's *how* the post is worded? More "I" statements (like "*I* feel" or "*I* think"), instead of "you" statements ("*you* shouldn't feel that way" or "*you* shouldn't believe") tend to be softer and seem less confrontational. And I have found over the years, that it often helps not to have a "chip on one's shoulder" when posting--not saying that you do, of course. (I'd include a little cute emoticon to show that I'm not being mean, but you told me not to do that.)

Did you miss the part about her posts being reinstated? That is evidence indicating that the content was not the problem, the lack of an icon was.

 

[AMDG]

Many Catholics, including theologians and those pesky nubs, apparently haven't gotten that message.

You mean the folks who have no authority?

 

[Winter]

I do not want to see decent people who do not have the Catholic cross excluded from discussions and debates on general issues. Nor do I want to see anybody excluded from discussions or even debates about church teaching as long as their contributions are not attempts to tear down what the church teaches. It would be a shame to lose people like LoAmmi and Antigone; they are positive contributors who benefit us all.

Exactly. My thoughts as well.

 

[Martinius]

You mean the folks who have no authority?

Let's see, how much authority within the established church of his time did Jesus wield? That's right, none. There is legal authority that comes from being part of the Magisterium, and then there is the moral and spiritual authority that comes from obeying and following the Word of God. When Jesus spoke as "someone with authority" that did not mean he had an office or commission granted by the temple priests; it meant he was filled with the Spirit and spoke the truth.

Jesus questioned the commands and rules of the leaders of his church quite frequently and openly, and doing so certainly contributed to his being crucified. Yet so many here want to control or limit what can be discussed, where it can be discussed, and who can discuss it. I often wonder what they are so afraid of?

 

[Davidnic]

AMDG...do you expect Bishops to mod this forum. If not, I am confused by your authority comment.

 

[AMDG]

Theologians and especially we, followers of Jesus still have no authority. The Church is not a democracy. No "majority rules." We receive our "marching orders" from the Magisterium--from authority.

Jesus is God. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and Jesus made Peter the head (and since Jesus is God, He would know that Peter would not live forever, therefore Jesus' authority was to be passed down through the office (that's why the Pope is called the successor of Peter and not just the successor of the Pope before him. )

In addition, Jesus gave the Holy Spirit (Third Person of the Trinity) to watch over the head of His Church to make sure that His Church is guided in the right way. This wasn't given to the theologians or the people.

You don't like to conform to God's Church? Don't think that's an option for a devout Catholic.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I don't think you read the OP as carefully as you should have. The proposed revision would allow anyone to post in a "which recipe is best?" thread, but restrict matters of faith to Catholics only.

Wouldnt that be fellowshiping?

Let me get to the heart of this - they will be allowed to debate in the political arena - [oy] but not our faith.

I kind of hoped that we could avoid the American politics arena.

 

[Davidnic]

Wouldnt that be fellowshiping?

Let me get to the heart of this - they will be allowed to debate in the political arena - [oy] but not our faith.

I kind of hoped that we could avoid the American politics arena.

The change would mean this: A post that opposed Catholic teaching or mocks Catholics would be a violation no matter who makes it...Catholic or not. A post that supported or did not oppose Catholic teaching or mock Catholics would not be a violation...no matter who makes it, Catholic or not.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Let's see, how much authority within the established church of his time did Jesus wield? That's right, none. There is legal authority that comes from being part of the Magisterium, and then there is the moral and spiritual authority that comes from obeying and following the Word of God. When Jesus spoke as "someone with authority" that did not mean he had an office or commission granted by the temple priests; it meant he was filled with the Spirit and spoke the truth.

Jesus questioned the commands and rules of the leaders of his church quite frequently and openly, and doing so certainly contributed to his being crucified. Yet so many here want to control or limit what can be discussed, where it can be discussed, and who can discuss it. I often wonder what they are so afraid of?

According to my class on the OT - Jesus would have been considered a prophet raised up - and accordingly a prophet was not always an office that was 'put in place' by the priesthood. Some were 'paid for' prophets that didnt prophesy at all.
Elijah, and the few others were by no means prophets given an office... so the Jews could very well seek Jesus.
The Pharisees were jealous of Him - and why the parable of the King sending His Son finally [after he sent other messengers who were killed] because they would listen to him - but he was also killed.

 

[MikeK]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how what you're saying relates to who should be allowed to debate whether the Metrodome was cooler than the Astrodome in OBOB.

Theologians and especially we, followers of Jesus still have no authority. The Church is not a democracy. No "majority rules." We receive our "marching orders" from the Magisterium--from authority.

Jesus is God. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and Jesus made Peter the head (and since Jesus is God, He would know that Peter would not live forever, therefore Jesus' authority was to be passed down through the office (that's why the Pope is called the successor of Peter and not just the successor of the Pope before him. )

In addition, Jesus gave the Holy Spirit (Third Person of the Trinity) to watch over the head of His Church to make sure that His Church is guided in the right way. This wasn't given to the theologians or the people.

You don't like to conform to God's Church? Don't think that's an option for a devout Catholic.

 

[Fantine]

Hooray for open mindedness. 70% supporting the change.

I apologize for misjudging many of you, albeit in my heart. You have left me pleasantly surprised.

 

[Tigg]

Gracious! I voted open it up everywhere - the 2nd one. I don't report except for inappropriate content. If I don't like a thread I don't respond and go elsewhere. I have noticed in the past good discussions going on fine till someone gets nasty or a bee in their bonnet and it gets closed. Which I would prefer just ignoring the sons of bees! I hate having discussions stopped cause ya ain't a Catholic. Even if I don't participate but am reading them. I do recognize that some can be real nasty but mods do a good job. Not much help at all am I! Ahh well...que sera, sera

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I voted for the political forum only. However, I think that we ought to tolerate any non-Catholic poster or posting who posts in support of Catholic teaching (that is in favour of, not against), if they are actually trying to present actual orthodox Catholic teaching to clarify it or ask to have it clarified.

HOWEVER, if they're trying to debate against it: It needs to be stopped or nipped in the bud.