6th graders ?s -- warning, only for those curious about us Catholics

[RJT]

I help out in our parish, mostly finance committee -things like that. I received this e-mail (edited) from our pastor today. I thought I would post it here, so those not familiar with our religion would get some insight into some “elementary” ways of our Faith. I think if you make it through this some of you might be surprised to find us different than how you might have imagined. Especially questions # 4,5,7,10,11,12,13,22,24.

"Recently, our students from Grade Six of … School wrote some questions to me. I
intend to meet with that class on Friday, September 23rd. Their questions are interesting.
I am happy to answer them. Here is a look at their questions & my answers. Enjoy!

From the desk of Father Larry …, Pastor

September 22, 2005

Dear Friends,

The sixth graders at …recently presented some questions for me to answer. Here are their questions and here my answers:

1. Q. When was our church built?

A. In 1923 and 1924.

2. Q. What is Father Larry’s favorite
sport?

A. Baseball.

3. Q. Where did Father Larry go to college?
…

4. Q. What does Revelation 13 mean?

A. Revelation is the last book in the New
Testament. 13 is the 13th chapter. The Book
of Revelation uses much symbolic language. It is
an example of apocalyptic literature. It is about
the first beast symbolizing the Roman empire and
the seven heads symbolize the emperors. The
second beast is about false prophets. Followers
of Jesus who lived during the time of
persecutions had difficult choices to make –
either worship Jesus or the emperor.

5. Q. What is Father Larry’s opinion of
the death penalty?

A. I am against it. The Catholic Church is
against it, too.

6. Q. Why do we have pictures of Bible
stories on the windows of the church?

A. These stories were very important for the
people who built our church.
The stories are important for us, too. Showing
the stories on beautiful windows helps us think
about the stories and helps us think about God.

7. Q. If you are fasting and you chew gum,
is it breaking your fast?

A. No, but nobody should ever chew gum in church.

8. Q. How many priests have we had
throughout the church’s history?

A. More than I can count in the Church throughout
the world. At our parish, we’ve had about 34 through the
years. This includes Pastors and
Assistant or Associate Pastors plus some priests
who were temporary
Administrators.

9. Q. How old is our Parish?

A. It will be 100 years old in 2006.

10. Q. Does God let us forgive whenever
we want to?

A. God hopes that we’ll choose to forgive instead
of choosing to be unforgiving. It isn’t always easy to
forgive. We need to pray that God
will help us forgive. Sometimes, it takes
us a while to forgive. We have to keep trying to forgive, with God’s
help.

11. Q. Does Father Larry like President
Bush?

A. It is important for us to pray for our
leaders, no matter who they are.


12. Q. Does Father Larry think the
President is doing the right thing in Iraq?

A. I don’t have the same information the
President has available to him, so
it is difficult to answer that question. I do
believe we need to pray for peace everywhere.


13. Q. Does Father Larry think we are
doing the right thing in New Orleans?

A. I hope and pray that some very knowledgeable
people do everything possible to make intelligent
plans to help that city rebuild.

14. Q. Did you always want to be a
priest?

A. I thought about it when
I was young. I wasn’t always sure this was what
I should do. It became clearer to me as time passed.


21. Q. Have the Browns ever made it to the
Super Bowl?

A. They won NFL Championships before the game was
named the Super Bowl. The last time they won the
NFL Championship was in 1964. The Browns never
won a Super Bowl. The only way members of the
team ever made it to a Super Bowl game was if
someone gave them a ticket or they bought one.

22. Q. Is taking steroids a sin?

A. If we are not as respectful to our bodies as
we should be, it is sinful.
Taking steroids according to a doctor’s orders
for health reasons
is not sinful.

24. Q. How often does Father Larry believe
athletes should be tested for drugs?

A. I believe a panel of doctors who are more
qualified than I am should help
answer that question.


27. Q. Can a person chew gum & still
receive Communion?

A. People should not chew gum in church.

28. Q. How long ago was Jesus crucified?

A. Nearly 2000 years ago. Remember, He rose from
the dead on the Third Day!


34. Q. I think we should have a
celebration for the 100th Anniversary of the
Parish.

A. I agree. That’s why we had an Ice Cream
Social on 9-11-2005. There
will be more celebrations. Keep reading the
church bulletin, please.

35. Q. I think we should raise funds for
hurricane victims.

A. I agree. We’ve raised some funds. We should
raise more. How will you do it? Send donations
to Hurricane Victim Assistance, Catholic
Charities…

36. Q. Who pays for all the furnishings in the
church?

A. Good people who contribute to the church. We
need offerings to provide furnishings, maintain
the property & buildings, pay people who work at
the church & school, pay utilities, and to do all
the work of the church and the school. We depend
on the loving generosity of people. We need
you!

I hope everyone learned some interesting things
by reading the questions and answers. I enjoyed
this, & I hope you did, too!

Your friend,

Father Larry..."

RJT

[sexdrugsmoney]

Although the thread title scared me seeing as though it mentioned 6th graders and catholics in the same sentance, I did read the entire post. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I found the questions most peculiar, from silly childike issues such as 'gum' etc to 'war in Iraq'.

Frankly I'm disappointed one kid didn't address the issue of paedophiles within the church or the Da Vinci code and some secret Vatican underground groups. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

All jokes aside, I fail to see the point?

Cheers,
SDM

[RJT]

The point:

4 - Some on this forum have no clue on how to read the Bible.
5 - I am sure some don’t realize the death penalty is not part of our religion
7 - We aren’t as dogmatic as people think.
10 - the topic of forgiveness on this forum viz a viz Christianity is totally unlike the answer here
11 - We don’t pray for God to intervene and let us win the war.
12 - Pray for peace - self explanatory
13 -I probably shouldn’t have listed this in my #s that are relevant here
22 - gives information to those who don’t know how “sins” are determined - We don’t follow a list of sins
24 - a stretch to list in in my #s but to show how anyone should think - if you don’t know something then defer the answer to someone who does know (not the same as Sklanskys point that because the tops scientists…probability that…religion …bogus

The other questions were included merely for levity.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
The point:

4 - Some on this forum have no clue on how to read the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

So 'Holy Mother Church' says "this means this" and suddenly they have a patent on interpreting divine scripture?

Hmm, must be why Mary is only a small player in the NT yet she gets more praise than Jesus at times in Catholicism?

[chezlaw]

I enjoyed it.

[ QUOTE ]
28. Q. How long ago was Jesus crucified?

A. Nearly 2000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

The email is dated 2005, have I missed something?

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point:

4 - Some on this forum have no clue on how to read the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Holy Mother Church says "this means this" and suddenly there have a patent on interpreting divine scripture?

Hmm, must be why Mary is only a small player in the NT yet she gets more praise than Jesus at times in Catholicism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you have to argue about everything?

All I meant in #4 was to show some here on the board that the Bible is not meant to be read strictly literally. If ones reads it as such it is like reading “Moby Dick” and then saying Melville wrote a story about a whale.

The whole post was meant to show those unfamiliar with my religion that we Catholics - even 6th graders learn - aren’t dogmatic autocrats who simply believe that if we don’t eat meat on Friday we will get into Heaven . And to show (by inference) that we do not believe that the 3 week old baby in Africa who just died from AIDS goes to Hell. That isn’t our religion.

Lighten up.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I enjoyed it.

[ QUOTE ]
28. Q. How long ago was Jesus crucified?

A. Nearly 2000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

The email is dated 2005, have I missed something?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

Are you saying He is still being crucified metaphorically?

Not exact dates, but say He was born in the year 1 ( I think most scholars think it was like 3 b.c or 3 a.d, can’t remember) Lived 33 years so died in year 34. 2005- 34 equals 1971 years ago, ergo almost 2000 years ago.

Glad you enjoyed it.

Regards,

RJT

[chezlaw]

ah! good point
(hit myself on head)

chez

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point:

4 - Some on this forum have no clue on how to read the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Holy Mother Church says "this means this" and suddenly there have a patent on interpreting divine scripture?

Hmm, must be why Mary is only a small player in the NT yet she gets more praise than Jesus at times in Catholicism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you have to argue about everything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's the internet ... we're supposed to. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]

All I meant in #4 was to show some here on the board that the Bible is not meant to be read strictly literally. If ones reads it as such it is like reading “Moby Dick” and then saying Melville wrote a story about a whale.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you read Rev 13 literally? Nobody on this forum is claiming a giant beast will rise out of the ocean like Godzilla.

You said:

"Some on this forum have no clue on how to read the Bible."

Your words come across as if you think that the Catholic interpretation is right and that any other is clueless.

Perhaps you wrote those words in haste?

[ QUOTE ]

The whole post was meant to show those unfamiliar with my religion that we Catholics - even 6th graders learn - aren’t dogmatic autocrats who simply believe that if we don’t eat meat on Friday we will get into Heaven . And to show (by inference) that we do not believe that the 3 week old baby in Africa who just died from AIDS goes to Hell. That isn’t our religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet if the Pope says "book x means x" you believe him, despite probably not having read the book yourself.

Furthermore I can't imagine anyone thinking a child will go to hell.

[ QUOTE ]

Lighten up.

[/ QUOTE ]

OOT is that way. --->

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you read Rev 13 literally? Nobody on this forum is claiming a giant beast will rise out of the ocean like Godzilla.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you and I aren’t reading some of the same posts.

[ QUOTE ]
Because it's the internet ... we're supposed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since it is the internet let’s get it on SDM - lol - in no way, shape, or form did I (mean to) suggest that the Catholic version is the only version. (Whether I believe it is or not is irrelevant.)

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore I can't imagine anyone thinking a child will go to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I guess we either read different posts or interpret what is said differently.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet if the Pope says "book x means x" you believe him, despite probably not having read the book yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just made my whole point. Thank you. That is not our religion.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can you read Rev 13 literally? Nobody on this forum is claiming a giant beast will rise out of the ocean like Godzilla.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you and I aren’t reading some of the same posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's literally then?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Because it's the internet ... we're supposed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since it is the internet let’s get it on SDM - lol - in no way, shape, or form did I (mean to) suggest that the Catholic version is the only version. (Whether I believe it is or not is irrelevant.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Your words implied that, thus the confusion.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore I can't imagine anyone thinking a child will go to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I guess we either read different posts or interpret what is said differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see where anyone said a kid is going to hell, surely nobody believes that?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet if the Pope says "book x means x" you believe him, despite probably not having read the book yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just made my whole point. Thank you. That is not our religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that point was made in regard to your statement that people here can't interpret the bible on their own.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
So 'Holy Mother Church' says "this means this" and suddenly they have a patent on interpreting divine scripture?


[/ QUOTE ]

Since Holy Mother Church put the Bible together in the 4th Century and determined exactly which books constituted Divine Scripture, in a word, yes.

[lacky]

1) Pastor's hedge their answers and end up sounding very much like polititions. Makes sense for a public position.

2) don't, under any circumstances, EVER, chew gum in church. Good to know, never know when I might get invited to a midnight mass.

Steve

[ QUOTE ]
Yet if the Pope says "book x means x" you believe him, despite probably not having read the book yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where in this post or any of RJT's posts did he ever say or imply such a statement? I'm quite sure the answer is "he didn't" and this is another SDM special of using an unfounded assumption to smear a poster's credibility. I could learn a lot from your aged wisdom, sir.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet if the Pope says "book x means x" you believe him, despite probably not having read the book yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where in this post or any of RJT's posts did he ever say or imply such a statement? I'm quite sure the answer is "he didn't" and this is another SDM special of using an unfounded assumption to smear a poster's credibility. I could learn a lot from your aged wisdom, sir.

[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely <25

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Georgia Avenue]

[ QUOTE ]
Insert naughty priest joke

[/ QUOTE ]

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you have to argue about everything?

[/ QUOTE ]

And why RJT, do you keep feeding the troll with responses?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you have to argue about everything?

[/ QUOTE ]

And why RJT, do you keep feeding the troll with responses?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the time of my responses, I hadn’t realized what you had already realized. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet if the Pope says "book x means x" you believe him, despite probably not having read the book yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where in this post or any of RJT's posts did he ever say or imply such a statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT said:

"The point:

4 - Some on this forum have no clue on how to read the Bible."

He then went on to say:

"All I meant in #4 was to show some here on the board that the Bible is not meant to be read strictly literally. If ones reads it as such it is like reading “Moby Dick” and then saying Melville wrote a story about a whale."

So it seems RJT follows the interpretation of Father Larry, who as part of the Catholic chain and will no doubt follow the interpretation of The Pope. (if I am wrong regarding the Pope's infallibility to correctly interpret scripture, I emplore BluffTHIS! or RJT to correct me)

[ QUOTE ]

I'm quite sure the answer is "he didn't" and this is another SDM special of using an unfounded assumption to smear a poster's credibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite sure are you? My "special" is it?

What about you in this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3404069&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)? (I never mentioned any deity or religion)

Furthermore this has done nothing to or for RJT's credibility.

[ QUOTE ]
I could learn a lot from your aged wisdom, sir.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the one who claims to be 33 + I doubt you could learn anything from us 'plebs' in SMP (Sklansky excluded), since you are so smart, and accomplished, and ... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Your friend,
SDM /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[RJT]

For those who have any further interest in the matter:

The Pope does not interpret the Bible and then speak infallibly about it. I am sure he interprets the Bible all the time and I would also assume he comes to a better understanding of it every day he reads it - I would guess a deeper understanding than his understanding even the day before. I also know that he will give sermons and talks about the Bible.

“The Pope” (not the current one) has only spoken infallibly 2 times in the history of the Catholic Church. (Btw, these 2 times had nothing to do with the Bible.)

Common misconceptions of the Catholic Church, like this one, is the reason I thought my OP here might be helpful to those who talk about matters of religion, especially Christianity and Catholicism.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
For those who have any further interest in the matter:

The Pope does not interpret the Bible and then speak infallibly about it. I am sure he interprets the Bible all the time and I would also assume he comes to a better understanding of it every day he reads it - I would guess a deeper understanding than his understanding even the day before. I also know that he will give sermons and talks about the Bible.

“The Pope” (not the current one) has only spoken infallibly 2 times in the history of the Catholic Church. (Btw, these 2 times had nothing to do with the Bible.)

Common misconceptions of the Catholic Church, like this one, is the reason I thought my OP here might be helpful to those who talk about matters of religion, especially Christianity and Catholicism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thankyou RJT, I know myself that Catholicism is a huge issue that I would like to know more about, yet perhaps the folly in you and BluffTHIS! trying to explain such a huge issue and of myself seeking to know so much from an outsiders POV and thus critical, is that we cannot do it justice. Yet if it is the correct path of Christianity (ie- it is Christianity, and all other sects are wrong in their worship and interpretation) it is of high importance to anybody who cares about the 'path(s) to God'.

Cheers,
SDM

[RJT]

SDM,

I try not to makes posts or replies to posts that might be construed as trying to proselytize Catholicism or Christianity here on the forum. I offer information relative to my religion if it can help with the discussion - so those who aren’t so familiar with it have a better use of its language so to speak.

This is not to say that I am unwilling to defend my religion if that is the point of any particular post. Simply, I don’t feel it appropriate to do so here “uninvited” or unprovoked.

Since the topic has been so prevalent, I thought I would insert this particular OP because I thought is was light, yet informed the reader.


Regards,

RJT

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
SDM,

I try not to makes posts or replies to posts that might be construed as trying to proselytize Catholicism or Christianity here on the forum. I offer information relative to my religion if it can help with the discussion - so those who aren’t so familiar with it have a better use of its language so to speak.

This is not to say that I am unwilling to defend my religion if that is the point of any particular post. Simply, I don’t feel it appropriate to do so here “uninvited” or unprovoked.

Since the topic has been so prevalent, I thought I would insert this particular OP because I thought is was light, yet informed the reader.


Regards,

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

If person A supposes Book Z could be interpretation x, and person B on the authority of person C says the interpretation of Book Z is interpretation y, and that any person(s) who don't use interpretion y when interpreting Book Z are "clueless", is that not a provocation?

God and religion are so 'intangible' I believe, it's so open as to whether a God exists, then to what religion it has given, and of that religion what is true and what is false, that when any person or organization claims to have a handle on it fully, they or any who follow them who say they have such tangibility but others don't, must expect to be questioned as to how they obtained this tangibility and whether it is justified and accurate or not.

It wasn't your OP, rather your exegesis that invited the criticism, which regarding Catholicism is huge because of its history and its dogmaticism. (of which I don't say followers of Catholicism have per se, but I imagine it's a hard line to walk at times when your beliefs differ from that of your organization)

Cheers,
SDM

[RJT]

SDM

Since it seemed we were getting along fine, I’ll try to explain myself one more time. Unless you need further clarification then let’s drop it. If you still insist I am wrong then I concede.

I made the statement “4 - Some on this forum have no clue on how to read the Bible.”

It is my understanding that you took my sentence to mean that people should read it my way or:

1) How the Catholic church says to read it or 2) How the Pope says to read it or you might have taken it any number of other ways than the way I meant it.

You took my sentence and added the assumption that I was telling anyone how to read it or how to interpret it or even who to listen to in how to interpret it.

I explained to you that all I meant was that it is not to be read totally literally. (If my words sounded terse, they were not meant to be. I will concede it is easy for someone to read it as terse.)

You contended that I was foolish to think that anyone on the board would think it should be read all literally.

I think if you do a search back you will find that I am not in error; that there are some here that did not know that some parts of the Bible are allegorical. Perhaps you are right to that point: I might have misinterpreted posts on other threads and that everyone already knew that.


RJT

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
SDM

Since it seemed we were getting along fine, I’ll try to explain myself one more time. Unless you need further clarification then let’s drop it. If you still insist I am wrong then I concede.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we are fine, and I don't mean it to a be "you're wrong" type of game.

[ QUOTE ]

I made the statement “4 - Some on this forum have no clue on how to read the Bible.”

It is my understanding that you took my sentence to mean that people should read it my way or:

1) How the Catholic church says to read it or 2) How the Pope says to read it or you might have taken it any number of other ways than the way I meant it.

You took my sentence and added the assumption that I was telling anyone how to read it or how to interpret it or even who to listen to in how to interpret it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You posted the OP, I asked what was the point?

You posted "4 - Some on this forum have no clue on how to read the Bible.” amongst exegesis on other questions.

That statement implies what I said before, in this post, if you had of said something to the effect of "we catholics interpret Rev 13 this way" - cool, your faith, your interpretation, your choice, everything is sweet.

But when you and/or an organization points to law/scripture etc and says "this means this, disagree and you are 'clueless'" then one has to question such authority.

Scripture is said to be God inspired, yet the interpretations are done by man, who is a 'faulty creature'.

I understand that Orthodoxy in it's history has spent a great deal of time keeping their doctrine in line as many people throughout the church history have piped up and said "x means g" (Think of the Nicolaitanes mentioned in Rev 2, or the Arians in early church history) because failure for some 'conforminty' would have rendered Christianty much like the Gnostics or Essenes.

[ QUOTE ]

I explained to you that all I meant was that it is not to be read totally literally. (If my words sounded terse, they were not meant to be. I will concede it is easy for someone to read it as terse.)

You contended that I was foolish to think that anyone on the board would think it should be read all literally.

[/ QUOTE ]

But nobody is taking Rev 13 literally, Rev 13:1 says:

[ QUOTE ]

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thus my "Godzilla" comment.

Nobody is expecting to turn on CNN tomorrow and see live footage of this huge beast rising out of the pacific, thus nobody can take it literally.

Revelation is perhaps the most mysterious religious text because it is nearly all written symbolically, people interpret those symbols different ways. (One could say the Mark of the Beast may be a Microchip, Seven Day Adventists believe the Mark of the Beast is observing the Catholic changing of the Sabbath to Sunday, John Doe down the street may interpret it as the "internet")

Believe me, there's heaps of interpretations, to some there are interpretations that seem crazy (I find the Mark of the Beast = Internet because of "monitor and keyboard" aka "forehead and hand" totally ridicious myself but that's my opinion) and yet others that seem logical. (like the microchip which is well documented in magazines like Time and New Scientist as going to happen in humanity's future)

[ QUOTE ]

I think if you do a search back you will find that I am not in error; that there are some here that did not know that some parts of the Bible are allegorical. Perhaps you are right to that point: I might have misinterpreted posts on other threads and that everyone already knew that.


RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW I'm sorry if I sounded harsh, there is no "blame" here, just discussion about religion, which may be the only topic worth "arguing" about (apart from great human needs like science, medicine, and law) but we all need to not be haste in judgement - especially me regarding catholicism, I'm sorry.

Cheers,
SDM

[RJT]

SDM

I think I understand where the confusion came from. You read the priest’s answer and thought that I meant - here, this is what it means. I didn’t mean that at all. I meant - look how he answered it. His answer showed that it was symbolic language. His actual explanation of the symbolism (and whether he was right or wrong) was not my point at all.

I think we are cool now.

RJT

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
SDM

I think I understand where the confusion came from. You read the priest’s answer and thought that I meant - here, this is what it means. I didn’t mean that at all. I meant - look how he answered it. His answer showed that it was symbolic language. His actual explanation of the symbolism (and whether he was right or wrong) was not my point at all.

I think we are cool now.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

http://tinypic.com/dy4r4k.jpg

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Cheers,
SDM