:iagree: Great post (all of it). I particularly like this summary. Very well put. I wanted to join the RCC ten years before it actually happened. Ten long years. There is no rush. This thread has given you lots of material to read and think about. The Scott Hahn books are a great start for learning about the things that you list above. Take your time and do your own research before you take it out to people whose opinion you already know quite well. Give your husband and everyone else time. People adjust, but they need time and space. And they do need to feel and believe you are not rushing into anything without thinking. That is fair enough of them to ask. Whatever you do, it should not come about because of fear or pressure. I think you will not find those methods to be the way of the ancient Churches (They learned that the long, hard way). God bless!

Thank you! That is what I thought too. I recall another interesting tidbit, but maybe you know more. One of the ways the Jews decided what to include and what to leave out was that they chose only texts for which there was a Hebrew original copy - not ones that were only available in Greek. That meant that the Christian cannon had some that the Jewish cannon did not (and why the Protestant Bible doesn't have them as well). BUT later on some of those books were found in their original Hebrew. Wish I could remember more specifics. We went over this in our RCIA class, which was taught by someone who went much deeper into things than they usually do for RCIA. It was a huge blessing to me. I am a bad student with too much public school under my belt. I understood it at the time and processed it well, but I have forgotten much. In other words, I learned it for the test. :tongue_smilie:

The Hebrew Scripture was also Oral Tradition before it was written. And when Jesus lived it was likely that all his teaching came directly from the Oral Tradition. He did not read off a Kindle. :D The Jews set down a cannon of books after Christ's death more or less to make a distinction from the newly forming Christians - leaving out some books that would have been used by Jesus. This Jewish Cannon is the cannon that the reformers used as well. Am I getting that right folks? Correct me if I am wrong. (Again, over my head! Sinking! Help! Blurb Blurb Blurb...) The Anabaptist way of thinking is common to many Protestant faiths. They all claim to and desire to jump straight back to "the beginning" somehow, but there is no objective record of it. I think it is an understandable desire, to get back to the basics. But time flows forward, not back. Simply put, the RCC and the EO have records and an apostolic heritage to point to, for what it is worth.

About how the sexual revolution influenced the sex abuse scandals... Here is a start: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=749 These two go together: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/the-pattern-of-priestly-sex-abuse/ http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/the-pattern-of-priestly-sex-abuse-cont/ This topic is vast, complex, and controversial. But the basic idea is not that hard to grasp unless you are really looking to obscure it. The traditional sense of family and sexuality was being subverted in many ways, some of them were so deliberate and bold it would shock most of us to our core, and that influence was felt and is felt everywhere.

You should hope for more from the Church, and that is why it is so painful. But that is also why an evil force would attack it more vigorously, is it not? I don't know how you research things, but I no longer expect that any source is unbiased. Therefore, what I usually do is seek out both sides of any issue to get their own view (both sides of an argument). Read what the Church says and read what others say. Know that some of those others have axes to grind. That is the best I think anyone can do. Also, I would not think that there is a blanket answer here. All these incidents were unique, and there were many people involved over a span of time - mostly years ago. There were massive cultural influences going on at the time - a sexual revolution not originating in the Church was sweeping the West. They had to face the issues as individuals - those people who were doing the abuse and those faced with trying to decide how to handle it, and they made individual choices. Each and every one deserves unique judgement. Nothing simple here, and that is why the Church seems to have acted so slowly. They took it gravely serious, and that takes time. Taking time is NOT popular in the West. As if instant justice is possible.

To help you understand the Christian view of suffering in the world in general, I recommend reading C.S. Lewis - especially The Problem of Pain.

The Church is the Body of Christ, not building or parishes. Out of my depth (again), but I think His Holy Spirit acts through the Church but its effects are wide and far reaching. Prayer is going on all the time for everyone, and I do mean everyone. It would not really be a Catholic discussion until this came up now would it. :tongue_smilie: Please go to some Catholic websites, including the Vatican, to get some perspective on this. The media, on the whole, is not even handed. The same things go on outside the Catholic Church all the time - in public schools for instance, yet individuals get the blame (as they should) and the organization as a whole is not held liable very much. If a child in a public school is abused, do we immediately hold the president responsible? Hardly. Maybe we should. But it is because we have such high hopes for the Church that we are so devastated when she fails us. It breaks our hearts whereas no expectation is held for other organizations. They get a pass. This is not hard for me to understand at all. Remember, Judas was one of the Twelve. Evil was in the Church from the beginning, and so it remains. There is little else I can say, except that Good is also there. When all we remember is the evil people in the Church, then we cooperate with evil, and we do a terrible injustice to all the people who are doing so much good. The Church teaches us all through her errors, so perhaps children everywhere will be better protected now. Over history she has made many mistakes and has had to be held accountable - an ongoing process. She has matured, too, admitted wrongs and made restitution imperfectly. But I see no other organization in history that has improved its character over time as much as the Catholic Church and remained so intact, still the same organization. Amazing, really.

Such a luxury to do this when we could all be dying for our faith as they are in parts of the world. God forgive us for our ingratitude. :sad: Peace be with you...

Right, right, I understand. But we humans also tend to think that down is "lesser" or "inferior," and that understanding clouds the whole thing, which is my point. If it leads to someone thinking the RC Church perceives it that way, then that would be very inaccurate and lead to misunderstanding. It is not an authority issue, and when we used the term "turning upside down" we get those flawed ideas about authority mixed into it. And I don't even think the Orthodox Churches' problem with it is understood along those lines. It is more complex than that. But I have seen many people who are pondering RC or Orthodox try to grasp the idea by deciding which church has the authority within the Trinity "right" (the "flow" being understood as "who is the boss"). I don't think that is a good way to understand the Trinity, and I don't think it is an accurate way to understand the Great Schism. Make no mistake, Authority is a big issue clouding all of our understanding of religion in so many ways it is hard to describe. But that is not a problem inherent in the nature of God. Very confusing. I said I would drop this. Forgive me. ;)

Uh... the Protestants made us do it??? :tongue_smilie: I really don't know the history on that point. 'Tis a good question, and I imagine it has to do with the liturgy, too. We do end up on the right (in the right), however. :D (Just Kidding!) I love, love, love the ancient Churches, the sacred Tradition, the liturgy and the Hope that they hold. Be blessed, my friend!

:lol: Of course they weren't! They were humans after all. The real question is this: Do you believe the Holy Spirit could protect the Church - His Bride? He said it would prevail against the gates of Hell. He did not say it would be populated with perfect people the whole way through. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not filled with perfect people who follow God's word to the letter, but neither are any of the Protestant faiths that I have explored. They all digress into their own human foibles. So why choose one of them over that which is more ancient? Those faiths have kept their way through 2000 years of pressure to change. But they have changed very little on important issues. Amazingly little, I think. Between the East and West, so little as to make outsiders scratch their heads in confusion. :D

Do you have a link for this? I have not seen this in Catholic theology and it seems grossly oversimplified and misleading. In Catholic theology the Holy Spirit is "on par" with God. Please note the very last line of this link: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101sbs.asp God is not a picture. There is no top and bottom. But I agree with Mommaduck that this way of thinking drove the Church apart and a lot of it was cultural and political - and it still is. :confused: But this is very off topic and truly is way beyond the scope of this discussion, so I will not elaborate further on this point.

When we were exploring all of this an Orthodox leaning friend explained that it elevated the Father and the Son over the Holy Spirit, in a sense, and that might be what Mommaduck means by "turning it on its head." However, I have since come to think that that is a rather man-made concept. One cannot be elevated above or below the other. That idea in and of itself is filled with a fear that is simply not the character of God at all. It is definitely something that would cause humans to fret though. They worry about who is or is not elevated over whom all. of. the. time. It is, perhaps, our biggest pre-occupation, and it is also the cause of the fall. The entire concept became completely comprehensible to me when I read Theology of the Body for Beginners (West). It also helped me understand the Trinity and why Catholics are so ardently against contraception, a huge stumbling block for Protestants. Whether or not you come to agree with their argument, it is very compelling, and I think it might help people to see why Catholics and the Pope defend the teaching the way they do. I highly recommend this little volume. In a nutshell love must be shared to be expressed, so love "proceeds" from the Father and the Son because they are in perfect relationship. Out of that perfection flows Love (the Holy Spirit). But it is not like one comes before/after the other or is more important or anything like that. Those ideas just do not apply to God. The human family is the earthly, imperfect image of that relationship. It is the more complete idea of Man being in the image of God - not man alone but rather man in relationship. The very identity of the Triune God is a relationship of pure love. I am no theologian, and I have no doubt butchered all this. But I am really just explaining how I came to comprehend the filioque and the teachings from a Catholic perspective. I probably should not even post this given the depth of the issue. But it does come up and it hasn't been attempted thus far. I refer others to the book for a better explanation. I think that the RC Church might have given up the notion and gone back to the other wording at some point had the addition been found to be inaccurate or untrue given what is at stake. But that did not happen. Anyway, this understanding is how I came to find peace with the Great Schism. Just my 2 cents.

You should do a search for the threads on this topic. Asta has done an excellent job of answering your question, and I think the threads still stand. It is a hot topic though. :001_huh: I hope we will be able to follow what happens to this pilot. Sometimes the media doesn't follow up on important stories, and this one is important. Thanks for posting it!

There is a big difference between keeping a doctor or a mechanic if you found out about this behavior; although, personally, I would still use someone else given that integrity matters to me. But Presidents? No. They may still be able to steer the ship, we may profit in some ways, but some vital cargo goes straight over the edge and there is a price to pay. I believe we have seen that price in terms of how our youngsters view sexuality since that administration. I believe there is a price on how we think of marriage and how women should be treated. You can mentally compartmentalize, but the actual effects of things in reality do not compartmentalize just because you can. (general you)

Ummm... I thought there already was such a divide. It's called California and Texas. :lol::lol::lol: Love A&W. Love Lois Lowry books. Happy belated Thanksgiving to you and yours!

HEY! Get in line. I am still waiting for responses on the two other threads. Take a number! ;) I can't believe this discussion lives on.

Dd flew out of a major city but not the major airport, and she said it was completely empty. It was an early flight. There were no pat downs or scanning going on. She arrived at a smaller airport and was met by the media and interviewed. They asked how it went and she said it was a non-issue because it did not happen. They asked her feelings about the measures, and she told them our family all felt the same way about the new measures, that they were an invasion of privacy. And then they asked what she was thankful for... and she said, being together, especially since it appears that is going to get harder and harder.

Thank you. I'll have to do that. The video of the little boy who had his shirt pulled off is a similar idea. I think the little boy was resisting being touched, so his father removed his shirt so the TSA agents could SEE he did not have anything under it and not have to touch him. We teach our kids not to allow strangers to touch them, after all. Some will say this is like a doctor visit, but I don't think so. What does the little boy learn about authority? Unfortunately there are a lot of nice people working for the airlines who will rot along with them. And there are other unintended consequences. The environment has been deteriorating for a long time, and if they keep going in this direction well trained pilots (such as those coming from the military) will make other choices. They will have to take what they can get where pilots are concerned if things get even worse. There is more than one way to reduce the safety of flying. ;)

The only problem I see with this is it is also kind of reactionary unless the end goal is to stop the procedures somehow. IF there are abuses is not really the point. The system is fundamentally invasive and problematic despite whether or not abuses take place (and they will). It should be rejected on the face of it, flat out, because it doesn't have a net balance benefit to make up for the wholesale loss of freedom and other disruptions to our way of life, and because resources allocated to this cannot be allocated to something that might actually work. It is an expensive, false sense of security. This makes it look like the measures are perfectly okay as long as they are done "correctly," but there is no correctly. This approach will create a situation where many abuses are never reported, while a few win some kind of legal lottery and get compensated. The lawyers will sure benefit though, won't they? Europe and the middle east are a mess. Why, exactly, should be always copy what they are doing? Besides, My dd and I were in Europe this year and it did not seem to me that their security was any more significant than ours has been for the last 10 years. I don't even recall having to remove my shoes on the way back, but I will have to ask my traveling companions about that. Also, I will double check that with dd since she did more air travel than I did. I do not think she or anyone she saw was x-rayed or patted down though, because she never complained, and she just called me last night fretting about having to do it here tomorrow. This argument is more of the same old, "It is for your own good, just suck it up, okay?" Is that the only argument out there? As for the middle east, it is okay with you if we become more like that? Really? We are not spoiled by freedom. Let the rest of the world give it away, I refuse to do so willingly.

:iagree: Thanks Mejane, for the clarification. I couldn't agree more!

I don't disagree with with this, and I did not say "this administration" was "to blame for everything." I am asking why "this administration" is deploying the technology, because I am not as convinced as you are that it is not a reactionary move. From the article you posted: It is not that clear to me. Why, as I have argued on other threads, should we increase traffic fatalities with these measures? From an economics (not the money kind) point of view, it is illogical unless there is a pure net benefit of saved lives (not political rear end covering), and I cannot see that. I need more than this platitude, I need them to crunch numbers for me. It sounds reactionary to me, and others have also expressed that sentiment on several of these threads. :iagree: Maybe "this administration" did not plan it, but they can stop it. Will they? You need not go to so much trouble defending "this administration" from me. It is their job to defend their policies and convince the American people of the need. They are working on that, and I am listening. I do not plan to Opt Out. But, I am paying close attention, because "this administration" has already passed the point of diminishing returns regarding forcing things on the American people that they do not want. That is true, not because I said so, because the recent election said so. So I am waiting to see if "this administration" can respond to the American people instead of just telling us, "We understand your frustrations, but it is for your own good, get used to it." I don't know though. Also from the article you posted: :iagree: And so is economics.

:iagree: :iagree: Not only that, but shifting people from airlines to roads will likely cause more fatalities making us less safe. Another reason why I am puzzled by the intense push to move forward a measure that will cause more ground travel. :iagree: You bet. NOT Which is why I have argued that these measures seem irrational to me unless there is something that we do not know, which is also something I have argued on other threads. I don't know. The shoe thing was pretty reactionary. Of course the technology has been developing for a long time, but the decision to deploy that technology has happened now. Why? Mejane made a comment in her post that appears to be unhappy about the strategy of having our military "guarding other countries." I was pointing out that our strategy was to fight the terrorism front on its ground instead of ours, not exactly to "guard other countries." I think it has been effective. I do not think that we need to bring back our military troops just to guard airports; I want them to fight terrorism where it is most effective to do so, don't you? But if this administration wants us to believe that this heightened security at airports is really needed, perhaps I am missing something. I would like to know what it is. Or perhaps it is simply that it seems perfectly normal to them that the peasantry should be "handled" this way, and this administration underestimated the negative reaction this would bring. But I am just speculating here. The entire POINT of fighting over there was so that we would not have to incorporate these kind of measures over here, not just that we would avoid more deaths. Saving our way of life is about more than just total fatalities, isn't it? Or have we forgotten that?

Not trying to get you started, honest! :001_smile: But, here's the thing. If we have to move the front line from where we thought it was best to fight (overseas) to here, in order to be safe, that might mean we are losing the battle. I am sad that, after all this time, we have not been so effective over there that we are safe from fear over here. That was the idea of meeting the enemy where they were. If that failed, or if it is failing now, maybe that should be addressed as well. These measures definitely give me the feeling that our national security has degraded somehow. Unless, of course, it really is a reaction to only the underwear bomber. Then it just seems irrational. So which is it?

:lol: Thanks for the laugh. I got the funniest picture in my mind of someone's scanned image holding up the leg of a turkey. :D