NationStates Jolt Archive

Honestly, I believe that if the Church would stop being so narrowminded and dogmatic and allow priests to get married, not only would there be more priests in the church but the molestations they are accused of would become less frequent.

Kids wouldn't be molested as much if they just let the priests get married.

Do you actually believe they would do so? After all, it's the sensible and intelligent thing to do, but it goes against tradition.

Personnally, I'm convinced they'll go with tradition over common sense any day.

Honestly, I believe that if the Church would stop being so narrowminded and dogmatic and allow priests to get married, not only would there be more priests in the church but the molestations they are accused of would become less frequent.

Kids wouldn't be molested as much if they just let the priests get married.

Sorry but pedophillia is not cured by female contact.

The church is NOT narrowminded! What's so narrowminded about lathering you in a soft blanket of guilt and condemning you to a life of eternal damnation for not doing EXACTLY as they say?

The church, IMHO, attracts paedophiles to the priesthood because they are expected to be celibate. This is good cover for someone who doesn't want to marry or date. Paedophiles have no interest in a relationship with an adult.

i don't think they should be allowed to marry....that way they will never have poor little offsprings to indoctrinate into the church, and that can't be bad... :)

The church, IMHO, attracts paedophiles to the priesthood because they are expected to be celibate. This is good cover for someone who doesn't want to marry or date. Paedophiles have no interest in a relationship with an adult.

That's exactly my point. The church would then attract more "normal" people versus pedophiles.

That's exactly my point. The church would then attract more "normal" people versus pedophiles.

But that won't weed out these people. The Chruch was not hiding these people for 40+ years because they were short on Priests.

Even if they had the ability to marry, that would not of prevented these people from joining the Priesthood.

No, I think pedophiles see the whole celibacy thing as an excuse for them to join the clergy. Without this as an excuse, the attraction towards it disappears.

No, I think pedophiles see the whole celibacy thing as an excuse for them to join the clergy. Without this as an excuse, the attraction towards it disappears.

eh?

Attraction does not end because you vow to be celibate. The human body still functions. Do you really belive that a Priest won't notice a stunning woman?

Priests still go to confessions. ;)

EEEW!

Ahem, that is my opinion of the talk of pedofiliacs actually being attracted to the job so they can get "oppertunity" and since they have no interest in adult relationship.

*yick*

Anyhow, I have major issues with the Catholic Church on the whole. I don't mind Catholics, I love Catholics and I have many Catholic friends. They're cool people. The Church, however, I have issues with. If you want to hear me rant, send a telegram.

-R. S. of UC

eh?

Attraction does not end because you vow to be celibate. The human body still functions. Do you really belive that a Priest won't notice a stunning woman?

Priests still go to confessions. ;)

You make sense but that's now what I meant. I mean pedophile's attraction towards joining the clergy to use celibacy as an excuse will dissappear.

EEEW!

Ahem, that is my opinion of the talk of pedofiliacs actually being attracted to the job so they can get "oppertunity" and since they have no interest in adult relationship.

*yick*

Anyhow, I have major issues with the Catholic Church on the whole. I don't mind Catholics, I love Catholics and I have many Catholic friends. They're cool people. The Church, however, I have issues with. If you want to hear me rant, send a telegram.

-R. S. of UC

I was raised catholic but as of right now I dont go to church. But I do believe in a god and pray occasionally. I'm just not hung up on all the "dont eat meat on fridays and dont have sex before marriage" bullcrap that they spoon feed you since birth. I figure God, whatever shape or form God is, wants everyone to be happy, so i figure I go about doing that.

Orthodox let their priests marry, they always did even when the Catholic and Orthodox were together. . . . .
The arguement here is that all the apostles in the bible had to leave their wives to preach for God, the Orthodox say that Priests don't need to stay single, but the monks, Bishops, and the ones that devout their lives to Christ with all their heart, mind and soul. (PS erase the past 1000 years of ecclesiastical tradition and union with us) and for all the protestants . . .Read Frank Shaeffer, dancing alone. He used to be a famous protestant theologian. .. .but he started to study and learn . . . . .truth

Personnally, I'm convinced they'll go with tradition over common sense any day.
It isn't as if it is without precedent.

Priests still go to confessions.;)
Even the Pope goes to confession ;)

If anyone has a full-proof solution to the problem, I would really like to know how so solve the Catholic Church situation. And it has to be one which the Church would accept.

Really, does anyone think the Church could tell how a future priest will end up in his priesthood? There is no way to predict how people are going to act.

And what's up with blaming the whole Church for the sins of some people. That's just stereotypical and naive.

what ever happened to conservative christians? I've seen people who "rise above" the original sin. If you Pray, Read the bible and maybe fast for discipline strictly, you will easily rise above and not be a slave to sin. . . . Its possible i've seen it done, even with young people

Catholics aren't encouraged to read the Bible but study under the supervision of a suitable teacher (I think.)

If anyone has a full-proof solution to the problem, I would really like to know how so solve the Catholic Church situation. And it has to be one which the Church would accept.

Really, does anyone think the Church could tell how a future priest will end up in his priesthood? There is no way to predict how people are going to act.

And what's up with blaming the whole Church for the sins of some people. That's just stereotypical and naive.

Because the Church has had an active program of hiding the crime and shifting Priests around for 40+? years.

A work mates husband is Irish. He visted and came home a moody SOB. After a few days he finally told her that the Priest from his childhood village/town kidnapped, tortured and molested his best friend.

The Church's response. Don't tell anybody about this and we will deal with him.

They moved him to a Parish in Canada.

The fact they covered up the crimes and kept shifting them around makes them responsible and deserve all the blame they get.

Because the Church has had an active program of hiding the crime and shifting Priests around for 40+? years.

A work mates husband is Irish. He visted and came home a moody SOB. After a few days he finally told her that the Priest from his childhood village/town kidnapped, tortured and molested his best friend.

The Church's response. Don't tell anybody about this and we will deal with him.

They moved him to a Parish in Canada.

The fact they covered up the crimes and kept shifting them around makes them responsible and deserve all the blame they get.
And didn't even warn the new parishes even.

Well at least many clergy have spoken out against this crime (including many bishops and even one cardinal I think).

what ever happened to conservative christians? I've seen people who "rise above" the original sin. If you Pray, Read the bible and maybe fast for discipline strictly, you will easily rise above and not be a slave to sin. . . . Its possible i've seen it done, even with young people

"Original sin" is a construct created by Augustine and propogated by Anselm partially due to a mistranslation of a single word in the Bible.

meh i'll have to look that up, but how do you explain going back to "Gods Likeness"?

Convincing the Church to change is like convincing a rock to move.

You make sense but that's now what I meant. I mean pedophile's attraction towards joining the clergy to use celibacy as an excuse will dissappear.

Actually, it won't. Celibacy is traditional, so a paedophile priest can just claim they don't agree with marriage for clergy- unless you want to force them to marry and have the missus(unless they accept gay marriage/women priests) to report regularly to a commitee. You also have the problem of a married Pope, which might be thought to bring up issues.

Honestly, I believe that if the Church would stop being so narrowminded and dogmatic and allow priests to get married, not only would there be more priests in the church but the molestations they are accused of would become less frequent.

Kids wouldn't be molested as much if they just let the priests get married.

I'm Protestant, so I agree. Do you ever hear of Protestant priests molesting children? No. It should be obvious that molestation would stop if they would just let priests get married. Now, if the priest is gay...let him have his boyfriend or whatever. And while we are at it, let's allow women priests in Catholic churchs, too.

I'm Protestant, so I agree. Do you ever hear of Protestant priests molesting children? No. It should be obvious that molestation would stop if they would just let priests get married. Now, if the priest is gay...let him have his boyfriend or whatever. And while we are at it, let's allow women priests in Catholic churchs, too.

Actually I remember a radio show that talked about this(NPR I think and I can't remember the date or the show) but there is a group that monitors violence against children and the guy said all the major Western Religions have had incidents. He even mentioned Islaml.....

Pedophillia is not solved by marriage.

Many many incidents involve married men....

Convincing the Church to change is like convincing a rock to move.
Still the church does change. They even accept evolution now.

For me the real question is: "How can people who believe in a god do such things?". Recently child pornography has been found in a school for priests in Austria. How can people who have such a faith that they want to make a profession of it, do such things? You can't say that it changed during there lives, as in Austria they were still studying to become a priest (i think it's 3-4 years, not sure).

--
"If you love God, burn a church"
Jello Biafra (ex-Dead Kennedys singer)

I was raised catholic but as of right now I dont go to church. But I do believe in a god and pray occasionally. I'm just not hung up on all the "dont eat meat on fridays and dont have sex before marriage" bullcrap that they spoon feed you since birth. I figure God, whatever shape or form God is, wants everyone to be happy, so i figure I go about doing that.

This is a disturbing bit of moral relativism. Well prior to Christianity, Aristotle spoke of happiness, but it was something closer to the Christian ideal than to anything of your apparently hedonistic view. You cannot, without reeking of intellectual dishonesty, claim that God wants you to be happy but then decide for yourself what God means by "happy". What if, as Augustine said, the truest free will is [doing the] will of God? This means then, it would seem, that, as Aristotle and Aquinas both indicate, the last end of human existence is good, is God. Unless you know what God's definition of happiness is, you cannot simply say that you're trying to be happy because God wants you to be and then pay no regard to those things that in fact may be along the lines of what God expects of you.

This is a disturbing bit of moral relativism. Well prior to Christianity, Aristotle spoke of happiness, but it was something closer to the Christian ideal than to anything of your apparently hedonistic view. You cannot, without reeking of intellectual dishonesty, claim that God wants you to be happy but then decide for yourself what God means by "happy". What if, as Augustine said, the truest free will is [doing the] will of God? This means then, it would seem, that, as Aristotle and Aquinas both indicate, the last end of human existence is good, is God. Unless you know what God's definition of happiness is, you cannot simply say that you're trying to be happy because God wants you to be and then pay no regard to those things that in fact may be along the lines of what God expects of you.

What gives you the audacity to preach to me. I am not hedonistic, I am a common sense moralist. The fact is, God DID NOT write the bible, humans did. If you honestly believe that a voice came out of the heavens to speak to people that is your business, don't push that load of crap out to me. YOU do NOT know what God wants you to do, you only know what people who say they know "Him" tell you.

God never spoke to me and told me what to do and I highly doubt he has spoken to you. So what does that mean? Your opinion is just as worthless as mine.

So in all fairness, EAT ME.

I was raised catholic but as of right now I dont go to church. But I do believe in a god and pray occasionally. I'm just not hung up on all the "dont eat meat on fridays and dont have sex before marriage" bullcrap that they spoon feed you since birth. I figure God, whatever shape or form God is, wants everyone to be happy, so i figure I go about doing that.


I would respond to this by saying that God does want you to be happy. I believe the no meat on Friday is foolish and is definately not part of the Bible, but the no sex before marriage is pretty clear cut.

God wants us to be happy through His love, and loving one another. Screwing is not necessarily loving. Kindness, love, peace and spreading His Word of Hope gives me joy. I set about that personally. If you believe in Him, why not follow His commands? (in that I refer to actual Biblical commands by God)

-R. S. of UC (yes yes, the same dude)

Even the Pope goes to confession ;)
And with that big hat, think of the possibilities :eek:

I would respond to this by saying that God does want you to be happy. I believe the no meat on Friday is foolish and is definately not part of the Bible, but the no sex before marriage is pretty clear cut.

God wants us to be happy through His love, and loving one another. Screwing is not necessarily loving. Kindness, love, peace and spreading His Word of Hope gives me joy. I set about that personally. If you believe in Him, why not follow His commands? (in that I refer to actual Biblical commands by God)

-R. S. of UC (yes yes, the same dude)


What if having an active, yet safe sex life, makes me happy?
Wouldnt that be alright too?
As long as the sex never becomes the whole of my purpose, what harm is there?

According to Catholic teaching, the Pope is infallible and makes up the rules, and the laity basically exist to do what they`re told. This means that only the pope could potentially reform the church, and as popes are appointed by the cardinals, who in turn are appointed by popes, there is almost no opening for change.

Priestly celebacy is stupid, but I don`t think it necessarily produces peadophilia. I think peadophiles became priests because in traditionally devoutly Catholic countries like Ireland it meant that they had automatic power and respect and could not be suspected or questioned. In Ireland in the 60s or 70s the few people who did speak out on this were just ostracised by their communities.

Honestly, I believe that if the Church would stop being so narrowminded and dogmatic and allow priests to get married, not only would there be more priests in the church but the molestations they are accused of would become less frequent.

Kids wouldn't be molested as much if they just let the priests get married.
yeah, because married men don't molest kids. it's not like over half the child molestation cases in America involve currently married men, or anything. it's not like 85% of child molestations are committed by men who have been married at one point or another. nope, nothing like that...just let men marry, that'll stop them...

I'm Protestant, so I agree. Do you ever hear of Protestant priests molesting children? No. It should be obvious that molestation would stop if they would just let priests get married. Now, if the priest is gay...let him have his boyfriend or whatever. And while we are at it, let's allow women priests in Catholic churchs, too.

Heard of plenty

This is from the boston globe

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/archives/051192_porter.htm

While there are no data on the incidence of sexual misconduct among specific religious denominations, several surveys indicate that between 10 and 15 percent of clergy from Protestant and Catholic denominations report having sex with members of their parish or congregation.

"I see evidence of sexual misconduct in every part of the country and in every denomination," said Karen Lebacque, a professor of Christian ethics at the Pacific School of Religion who has studied the issue.


One of the reasons church officials may be viewing the problem with greater seriousness is their heightened legal liability from a spate of lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by priests. Since 1985, the Catholic Church is estimated to have paid out more than $350 million in damages, health care, and legal expenses involving cases of priests abusing children and adolescents, according to Jason Berry, a Catholic journalist and author of a soon-to- published book, "Lead Us Not Into Temptation."

While some of the larger Protestant denominations have paid out millions of dollars in similar abuse suits, officials in these denominations -- which have much smaller memberships in the United States than the Catholic Church -- say their legal fees do not come close to the Catholic Church's damages.

also found this intresting

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_03_04.html


With at least 78% of the 172 clergy perpetrators whose sexual proclivities could be determined engaging in homosexuality, the Christian clergy were statistically more apt to engage in homosexuality than were non-clergy perpetrators, only 37% of whom practiced homosexuality. Broken down by religious factions, of 57 Protestant clergy perpetrators (excluding Eastern Orthodox priests), at least 34 (60%) engaged in homosexuality. Of 116 Catholic clergymen perpetrators, at least 95 (82%) engaged in homosexuality. Protestant clergy were thereby statistically less apt to engage in homosexuality than Catholic clergy, but more apt to do so than non-clergy. Even adding Rabbis to the mix Ñ of whom 4 of 6 engaged in homosexuality Ñ would not change the fact that a higher fraction of Judeo-Christian leaders engaged in homosexual molestation than did non-clergy.

In terms of numbers of children victimized, non-clergy perpetrators raped 5,080 children, while the 189 clergy (8.7% of all perpetrators) victimized 572, or 11% of the total. Clergy raped at least 2.3% of the 2,206 children victimized by heterosexuals, and at least 14.5% of the 3,446 children raped by homosexuals. These numbers are consistent with the notion that there seem to be higher rates of homosexual molestation among the clergy than among the non-clergy.



Just intresting

(Im not trying to prove one more then the other) just the fact that it happens all over :)

yeah, because married men don't molest kids. it's not like over half the child molestation cases in America involve currently married men, or anything. it's not like 85% of child molestations are committed by men who have been married at one point or another. nope, nothing like that...just let men marry, that'll stop them...

I'm just saying i believe it would decrease them, not completely stop them. And you can't say it won't happen. We'll never find out unless The Church decides to change it.

Honestly, I believe that if the Church would stop being so narrowminded and dogmatic and allow priests to get married, not only would there be more priests in the church but the molestations they are accused of would become less frequent.

Kids wouldn't be molested as much if they just let the priests get married.

I think that if Atheists would just accept the word of Jesus they would be saved. ;)

Now i am curious as to find out why people believe they can tell the Catholic Church how to run its business, but that for me to make such a crass remark about Atheists is insulting?

Now:

The Catholic church believes that 1) women are not capable to lead in the church as priests.

2) That clergy should be celibate.

Since these are pretty much core tenets, taken from the Bible itself. Oddly enough, the belief espoused is that everyone should be celibate in order to fully concentrate on his or her relationship with God; Paul recognized that this would drive many from the fledgling church (and indeed, it could not sustain a body of worshippers more than a few generations!), which led to his writing, "Better to marry than to burn."

An explanation can be found here: http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/better_marry_than_burn.htm

Now... the connection between pedophilia and priests is based on a small segment of the population, and it is really unfair to paint all of them with the same brush.

How many educators commit crimes?
How many police officers commit crimes?
How many firefighters commit crimes?
How many homemakers commit crimes?
How many multimillionaires with their own businesses commit crimes?

The fact is, in ANY segment of the population you look at, you are going to find deviant behavior. There are even children as young as ten and eight committing murder these days. Does this mean all children are evil??

You punish the hell out of those who commit crimes. If they are priests, they ought to be defrocked and sent to jail -- just like an educator who commits statutory rape has his license revoked and goes to jail.

Calling Catholic priests pedophiles as a whole is every bit as prejudiced as saying that all Muslims are terrorists, all blacks are criminals, and all Southerners are members of the KKK.

Calling Catholic priests pedophiles as a whole is every bit as prejudiced as saying that all Muslims are terrorists, all blacks are criminals, and all Southerners are members of the KKK.

I sure as hell didn't. Who did?

Catholics aren't encouraged to read the Bible but study under the supervision of a suitable teacher (I think.)


Incorrect. There must be at least three different Bibles in my home; every Catholic I know has at LEAST one and is encouraged to study it. (Generally, there is the big fancy FAMILY BIBLE in which all weddings, deaths, births are noted, and usually each person has his or her own Bible to read, make notes in, et cetera.

Perhaps you meant another sect?

Honestly, I believe that if the Church would stop being so narrowminded and dogmatic and allow priests to get married, not only would there be more priests in the church but the molestations they are accused of would become less frequent.

Kids wouldn't be molested as much if they just let the priests get married.

The Church has been around for roughly 2000 years. Could you find some more historical facts supporting that it has only attracted pedophiles or is it just the latest crop that has been corrupt. Or how about this, how many child molestation cases has there been in the rest of the world and not the US?

The Catholic Church has deviated from the True Word of Jesus Christ. It is dogmatic in all way possible, only pretending to worship Christ. The office of the papacy is one of the largest blasphemies on Earth. The pope is human, henceforth falliable. The office of the papacy is the Antichrist. The Catholics of the world are being decieved to believe a lie.

no matter what, there will be sick priests. the Church only covered up these sickos due to a severe lack of priests. i think that was a VERY bad choice, they should have expelled them straight away for committing an evil like this.

as for the protestant who defended his religion, you'll find sickos in YOUR church too. don't try and act like we're worse than you, consider how many catholics there are compared to protestants. there's over a BILLION now, and the amount of incidents? compare it to the amount of incidents from protestants and how many protestants there are.

i've never come into contact with ONE incident in Scotland in my life, there haven't been ANY in the areas where i've lived from the South to the North.

Catholicism is a great thing, it encourages peace and understanding. the problem comes not from the church but human nature: wherever there is power there will be those who seek to usurp and abuse it. we can't forget that it was US who started the crusades, a series of "holy wars" that were anything but.

catholicism is a good thing, PEOPLE are the problem.

Come visit Hell where you can visit said perverted priests and interview them on their own opinions. Of course you won't be allowed to leave once you get here. Don't let that dissuade you however, in fact bring the whole family. Its wonderfully hot down here.

The Catholic Church has deviated from the True Word of Jesus Christ. It is dogmatic in all way possible, only pretending to worship Christ. The office of the papacy is one of the largest blasphemies on Earth. The pope is human, henceforth falliable. The office of the papacy is the Antichrist. The Catholics of the world are being decieved to believe a lie.

Pretending to worship Christ? O yeah, I'm just pretending to be human. It is the Catholic belief that the pope is guided with the Holy Spirit to act as the representative of God on earth.

If the Church is to succumb to every, or even most, of the people's ideas of how the Church should be, then it would be more human. The people in the time after Jesus' death set the traditions on how to run the Church. If the Church keeps changing, it'll be farther set away from the groundwork that was made nearly 2,000 years ago. I think that's the reason why the Church rarely make any changes at all.

Pretending to worship Christ? O yeah, I'm just pretending to be human. It is the Catholic belief that the pope is guided with the Holy Spirit to act as the representative of God on earth.

If the Church is to succumb to every, or even most, of the people's ideas of how the Church should be, then it would be more human. The people in the time after Jesus' death set the traditions on how to run the Church. If the Church keeps changing, it'll be farther set away from the groundwork that was made nearly 2,000 years ago. I think that's the reason why the Church rarely make any changes at all.

Do me a favor, study the history of the church and then come back and try and tell me that the people in the time immediately after Jesus' death "set the traditions" that you use now. Most of the "traditions" the Catholic Church so strongly adheres to were set hundreds of years after Christ's death, many were set during the Dark Ages, and some were even decided last century.

i've never come into contact with ONE incident in Scotland in my life, there haven't been ANY in the areas where i've lived from the South to the North.


Not to say that it definitely has happened, but considering the way the church hierarchy has handled things, you wouldn't know if any incidents had happened in your area. The church just would've paid off the kid and moved that priest to a different parish.

I'm just saying i believe it would decrease them, not completely stop them. And you can't say it won't happen. We'll never find out unless The Church decides to change it.
sure, it's possible...but all our current research suggests it is extremely unlikely. if you are interested in decreasing the chance that children will be molested by religious leaders then allowing those leaders to marry is not the course to take.

Do you ever hear of Protestant priests molesting children?

Yes.
http://www.reformation.com/index.html

I'm Protestant, so I agree. Do you ever hear of Protestant priests molesting children? No. It should be obvious that molestation would stop if they would just let priests get married.


http://reformation.com/CSA/variousabuse.html

http://www.freep.com/news/religion/prot5_20020405.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex1.htm " Public bias: The public may view sexual abuse by priests very differently from similar crimes by Protestant clergy. The Roman Catholic Church is generally seen as a monolithic organization with a clearly defined rigid hierarchy. Thus a case of abuse becomes a "Roman Catholic scandal" rather than a local parish problem. A similar molestation in a Protestant church would probably be viewed as a local problem isolated to a single congregation, because of the decentralized nature of most Protestant churches. "

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20020303edjenk03p6.asp

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918042/posts "Religious leaders were grouped into Roman Catholic priests, non-Catholic Christian clergy, and non-Christian clergy. There were 116 Catholic perpetrators: 95 who engaged in homosexuality and who violated 229 children; 17 who engaged in heterosexuality and who raped 24 girls; and 4 who engaged in sex with at least 4 children of unspecified sex.

There were 61 non-Catholic Christian clergy who molested the underage. Those who engaged in homosexuality included four clergywomen (Church of Christ, Protestant, 2 Pentecostals) and 35 clergymen (one each from 7th Day Adventist, Salvation Army, Evangelical Free, and Greek Orthodox; and 9 Protestants, 8 Pentecostals, 2 Lutherans, 4 Episcopalians, 2 Methodists, and 6 Baptists). These 39 'homosexuals' raped 229 children. Twenty one 'heterosexual' clergymen raped 31 girls (2 Seventh Day Adventists, 2 Church of Christ, 8 Protestants, 6 Pentecostals, and 3 Baptists). One additional Episcopal clergyman raped a child of unspecified sex.

In addition, 4 Rabbis homosexually raped 10 children, 2 Rabbis heterosexually raped 2 girls, a Mormon pastor who engaged in homosexuality violated 3 boys, 3 Mormons heterosexually raped 10 girls, and a (male) Buddhist monk raped a boy.

Overall in this set, clergywomen accounted for 6.7% of non-Catholic Christian clergy molesters, but 10.3% of homosexual molesters Ñ suggesting that clergywomen may be disproportionately homosexual."

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/breakingfaith.html

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/101/story_10185_1.html

http://www.thelinkup.org/abuse-women/worldmag.html

Sister Kettle, I thank you for pointing out the mote in my eye... let's do something about the beam in yours.

The Catholic Church has deviated from the True Word of Jesus Christ. It is dogmatic in all way possible, only pretending to worship Christ. The office of the papacy is one of the largest blasphemies on Earth. The pope is human, henceforth falliable. The office of the papacy is the Antichrist. The Catholics of the world are being decieved to believe a lie.

You haven't read your New Testament very carefully.... since Peter was the first Pope. (the rock I build the new church on?)

You haven't read your New Testament very carefully.... since Peter was the first Pope. (the rock I build the new church on?)

You haven't studied your history very carefully, since there was no Pope until hundreds of years after Peter died.

You haven't studied your history very carefully, since there was no Pope until hundreds of years after Peter died.
Depends on your of 'Pope' I suppose, clicky! (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm)

Depends on your of 'Pope' I suppose, clicky! (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm)

Exactly - that's what the Catholic Church claims. However, the only thing that makes it even sorta kinda close to historical is that those men were all the bishop of Rome - not the Pope. Up until Rome decided it was in charge (hundreds of years after Peter died), there were about five major cities - each with a Bishop of equal power within the church. In fact, letters show that the first Roman Bishop to be called "pope" by other Bishops denounced them and stated that he was no higher than they. The Catholic Church is blatantly lying when it claims that the office of "Pope" has been around since Peter.

Exactly - that's what the Catholic Church claims. However, the only thing that makes it even sorta kinda close to historical is that those men were all the bishop of Rome - not the Pope. Up until Rome decided it was in charge (hundreds of years after Peter died), there were about five major cities - each with a Bishop of equal power within the church. In fact, letters show that the first Roman Bishop to be called "pope" by other Bishops denounced them and stated that he was no higher than they. The Catholic Church is blatantly lying when it claims that the office of "Pope" has been around since Peter.

Mien Gott! Look! Another crazy Protestant with a "The Pope is the AntiChrist" theory.

Oy, I read a book that said that in my school. I swear, thanks to you people, I'm more Catholic then ever. Don't do that holier than thou attitude, it's really not loved here. We're all Christians, leave it there...

And about the Priest thing, did you know Jehovah's Witnesses raped little boys and girls too? They threatened to excommunicate those who sued too. Wow, Catholics are evil :rolleyes:

Orthodox let their priests marry, they always did even when the Catholic and Orthodox were together. . . . .
The arguement here is that all the apostles in the bible had to leave their wives to preach for God, the Orthodox say that Priests don't need to stay single, but the monks, Bishops, and the ones that devout their lives to Christ with all their heart, mind and soul. (PS erase the past 1000 years of ecclesiastical tradition and union with us) and for all the protestants . . .Read Frank Shaeffer, dancing alone. He used to be a famous protestant theologian. .. .but he started to study and learn . . . . .truth

TRUTH? Have you ever compared the Ten Commandments in the Catholic Bible to how it's written in every other edition, including the original Hebrew?

Mien Gott! Look! Another crazy Protestant with a "The Pope is the AntiChrist" theory.

Yes, because that's exactly what I said. *Looks back incredulously at what you quoted, then pats you lightly on the head.* That's right, is says ... somewhere in there that I think the Pope is the AntiChrist.

I didn't say that the Pope was the AntiChrist, nor did I say I have anything against Catholics. I simply stated a historical fact - there was no office of the Pope until around the time the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church split. This was hundreds of years after Peter died.

If you want to believe that God meant for Peter to be the pope and to pass the papacy on, that's fine with me - just don't claim that "that's the way it's always been," because it's not.

Oy, I read a book that said that in my school. I swear, thanks to you people, I'm more Catholic then ever. Don't do that holier than thou attitude, it's really not loved here. We're all Christians, leave it there...

You read a book that said what? That the pope was the antiChrist? Funny, I've never seen anything but Jack Chick tracts that suggest any such thing. And considering that you're the one putting on an attitude and misinterpreting everything I've said, I think that your holier than thou comment is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black.

And about the Priest thing, did you know Jehovah's Witnesses raped little boys and girls too? They threatened to excommunicate those who sued too. Wow, Catholics are evil :rolleyes:

Again, never said Catholics are evil. Funny how you read things into a post that never even came remotely close to saying any such thing.

Still the church does change. They even accept evolution now.
Yah, now it isn't heresy. But it took them what, 200 years to acknowledge it to the point where supporting evolution wouldn't make you a heretic.

Yah, now it isn't heresy. But it took them what, 200 years to acknowledge it to the point where supporting evolution wouldn't make you a heretic.

Of course, it took them over 1000 years to come to the conclusion that not only was Christ the product of a virgin birth, but so was Mary. Otherwise, her tainted womb would have tainted Christ. I'm just waiting for how long it takes them to go back down the line for her entire lineage....
And, of course, saying that Mary was not the product of a virgin birth is heresy - so I guess you just trade one for the other, kind of.

The OFFICIAL TITLE of the POPE:

VICARIVS FILII DEI
"vicar (second) to the son of God"

V = 5
I = 1
C = 100
A = 0
R = 0
I = 1
V = 5
S = 0

F = 0
I = 1
L = 50
I = 1
I = 1

D = 500
E = 0
I = 1
--------------
666

Honestly, I believe that if the Church would stop being so narrowminded and dogmatic and allow priests to get married, not only would there be more priests in the church but the molestations they are accused of would become less frequent.

Kids wouldn't be molested as much if they just let the priests get married.

It won't make a difference. Pedaphiles are attracted to any profession where contact with kids is required like teaching, coaching, priesthoods (any Church or religious order), etc.

Exactly - that's what the Catholic Church claims. However, the only thing that makes it even sorta kinda close to historical is that those men were all the bishop of Rome - not the Pope. Up until Rome decided it was in charge (hundreds of years after Peter died), there were about five major cities - each with a Bishop of equal power within the church. In fact, letters show that the first Roman Bishop to be called "pope" by other Bishops denounced them and stated that he was no higher than they. The Catholic Church is blatantly lying when it claims that the office of "Pope" has been around since Peter.

Exactly. Depends if you consider Pope to be the title of the Bishop o fRome or the World head of the Church.

VICARIVS FILII DEI
"vicar (second) to the son of God"

V = 5
I = 1
C = 100
A = 0
R = 0
I = 1
V = 5
S = 0

F = 0
I = 1
L = 50
I = 1
I = 1

D = 500
E = 0
I = 1
--------------
666

Wow, I'm impressed with your basic maths skills and ability to attach random numbers to each letter.

Exactly. Depends if you consider Pope to be the title of the Bishop o fRome or the World head of the Church.



Wow, I'm impressed with your basic maths skills and ability to attach random numbers to each letter.

He's using roman numerals except the Romans had no concept of zero so this math is wrong by Roman standards too.

I = 1
V = 5
X = 10
L = 50
C = 100
D = 500
M = 1000

PS There is no 0 AD or O CE ...

Exactly. Depends if you consider Pope to be the title of the Bishop o fRome or the World head of the Church.



Wow, I'm impressed with your basic maths skills and ability to attach random numbers to each letter.

Need to go back to grade school, anyone? Were you sick all the many days that roman numerals were discussed?

He's using roman numerals except the Romans had no concept of zero so this math is wrong by Roman standards too.

No... by roman standards the other letters had no numerical values, so a zero or "null" value is associated with them (null set = no numerical values at all, including zero). So the sum of the numbers that are numbers is correctly given as 666.

Need to go back to grade school, anyone? Were you sick all the many days that roman numerals were discussed?
I didn't think it was worth my while looking at which numbers corresponded to which letters.

PS. Being British, I never went to grade school.

No... by roman standards the other letters had no numerical values, so a zero or "null" value is associated with them (null set = no numerical values at all, including zero). So the sum of the numbers that are numbers is correctly given as 666.

1. Do you have proof?
2. Why do you feel that 666 is an important number?

I didn't think it was worth my while looking at which numbers corresponded to which letters.

PS. Being British, I never went to grade school.



1. Do you have proof?
2. Why do you feel that 666 is an important number?

0. so you decided to just declare them random without putting any thought into it, huh?

PS. whatever you have there instead, but of course you knew that.

1. I can google up the rules of roman numerology just as easily as you can, but those of us who did go to school in the western world know those rules, so I declare your challenge pointless. Sort of like "OK show me a REPUTABLE site that says that water molecules consist of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom" ...it's just an excercise in stupidity, and I will not be your spotting partner.

2. I feel no such thing. Only I know, as you likely do yourself, that the Bible, including the ROman version, refers to 666 as the number of the name of the Anti-Christ.

Do I believe in the Anti-Christ? Doesn't matter... Catholicism does.

Honestly, I believe that if the Church would stop being so narrowminded and dogmatic and allow priests to get married, not only would there be more priests in the church but the molestations they are accused of would become less frequent.

Kids wouldn't be molested as much if they just let the priests get married.

Are you Catholic?

Whilst the origins of the celibacy oath may be for other reasons, I believe that priests should not be allowed to marry. They should be married to the Church and the faith.

I don't think that celibacy is the cause of child molestation. The Church has its share of paedophiles but then so does every nation (about 6% of priests are estimated to paedophiles according to channel 4 when they did a programme a few months ago) and the Church is so large it could be considered a 'nation'.

Oh, and one way to increase the number of Priests is to allow the ordination of women....something which you failed to mention.

Exactly. Depends if you consider Pope to be the title of the Bishop o fRome or the World head of the Church.

The official title is Bishop of Rome and he is also sometimes referred to as the Vicar of Rome, I believe.

No... by roman standards the other letters had no numerical values, so a zero or "null" value is associated with them (null set = no numerical values at all, including zero). So the sum of the numbers that are numbers is correctly given as 666.

Zero is neither logically nor mathematically the same as null. Zero is a numerical value and is simply not included in the null set.

If you try hard enough you can connect any two things, like the Kennedy and Lincoln assassinations (look it up). It's sad that anyone took the time to bother. I don't think the bible suggests that anti-christ will rule on earth for 1700 years. Why do so many people find it necessary to fill reasonable and interesting discussion with hateful and silly rhetoric?

(Not Catholic, nor do I believe that the pope has a more special relationship with God than I do)

"What if having an active, yet safe sex life, makes me happy?
Wouldnt that be alright too?
As long as the sex never becomes the whole of my purpose, what harm is there?"

First of all, no sex life is "safe." Even the best combinations of contraceptives make for 1 in 1000 chance of failure, and many of them are 1 in 100 or even less. Second, what if raping people makes me happy? What if murdering people makes me happy? What if destroying the lives of the impoverished so I can make huge amounts of money makes me happy? Sure, all those things would be just dandy, if it weren't for the fact that the Bible specifically commands all Christians of all walks to not do any of it. These are not vague references either, like Paul commanding women to cover their heads in church (it could just mean long hair, anyway). Many of them explicitly talk about never having sex at all unless you feel completely sure that you cannot survive without it, and cannot restrain your lust. Then God has given us marriage as our only outlet. Personally, I don't think I could live my entire life without, plus I find girls very attractive. I intend to get married myself, but I want to try to live by God's law. It is for the very sins that you describe that Jesus died so we wouldn't all burn. It is not what makes you happy. It is rarely what makes you happy. In my experience, it is often the hardest, most painful, and least enjoyable option that is really the one you ought to do.

But, regardless of anything in the above I have said, that is totally between you and Jesus. You and He have to work it out. Listen to His Words and think about them.

May God bless you and all the people who wonder with wisdom, and bless me with humility, because Lord, you know I need it.

-R. S. of UC

0. so you decided to just declare them random without putting any thought into it, huh?

Bingo.

PS. whatever you have there instead, but of course you knew that.
;)

1. I can google up the rules of roman numerology just as easily as you can, but those of us who did go to school in the western world know those rules, so I declare your challenge pointless.
I am not asking you to prove that I = 1 etc, but A = 0.

2. I feel no such thing. Only I know, as you likely do yourself, that the Bible, including the ROman version, refers to 666 as the number of the name of the Anti-Christ.
Which some see as code for the Emperor Nero, and what Crowley saw to mean Sunshine, or something.

The official title is Bishop of Rome and he is also sometimes referred to as the Vicar of Rome, I believe.
Vicar of Christ I think.

I may be a lapsed Catholic, but somethings don't leave.

i don't think they should be allowed to marry....that way they will never have poor little offsprings to indoctrinate into the church, and that can't be bad... :)

*sigh*

You can hardly talk I bet you will indoctrinate any body you can into being against the Catholic Church.

Vicar of Christ I think.

I may be a lapsed Catholic, but somethings don't leave.

Lol, that's it! I couldn't quite remember....anyway, we're all lasped Catholics.

O.K. you got me... to say that A = 0 is oversimplification. A simply has no numerical value in the roman system. Same results.

Actually, I don't know that the Anti-Christ plays all that prominent a part in Catholic dogma. Most of the clergy I've spoken with seem to view the Book of Revelation with some degree of skepticism. Besides, people place far too much stake in a simple number. Now if some world leader tries to have it tattooed on my forehead, that's another story, but until then, its just a collection of numerals to me.

Actually, I don't know that the Anti-Christ plays all that prominent a part in Catholic dogma. Most of the clergy I've spoken with seem to view the Book of Revelation with some degree of skepticism. Besides, people place far too much stake in a simple number. Now if some world leader tries to have it tattooed on my forehead, that's another story, but until then, its just a collection of numerals to me.
From conversations I have had with a priest and a Theology teacher, it seems to be that Catholics view it as a coded message. Unfortunately there wasn't enough time or the resources to show this.

O.K. you got me... to say that A = 0 is oversimplification. A simply has no numerical value in the roman system. Same results.

No, because having no numerical value is different to having a value of zero.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Of course, it took them over 1000 years to come to the conclusion that not only was Christ the product of a virgin birth, but so was Mary.

This statement is incorrect. If you study Church history, you will find that numerous references to the "immaculate" nature of Mary's conception were made by prominent Catholic theologians as early as the 2nd century A.D. Theologians such as St. Iraneus (2nd cent.), St. Ambrose (4th century), and St. Augustine (4th century) made many such references.

Of course, it took them over 1000 years to come to the conclusion that not only was Christ the product of a virgin birth, but so was Mary.

This statement is incorrect. If you study Church history, you will find that numerous references to the "immaculate" nature of Mary's conception were made by prominent Catholic theologians as early as the 2nd century A.D. Theologians such as St. Iraneus (2nd cent.), St. Ambrose (4th century), and St. Augustine (4th century) made many such references.
With Immaculate meaning that Mary was born without original sin rather then without sex.

Also iirc this only became actual dogma in the 19th Century (1870's?), when it was proclaimed Ex Cathedra by the then Pope.

From conversations I have had with a priest and a Theology teacher, it seems to be that Catholics view it as a coded message. Unfortunately there wasn't enough time or the resources to show this.



No, because having no numerical value is different to having a value of zero.

Yeah... instead it's the quality of not being a number at all. ;)

Yeah... instead it's the quality of not being a number at all. ;)
Zero is a number. If something isn't a number, it isn't a number, no semantics can get around that.

I don't see the problem with having celebate priests, just organized religion thats puts pressure on people. As for the peadophillia thing if they are not in the church they're gonna go elsewhere, if they're in the church we can use that to our advantage (i'm not saying bomb the vatican and kill them but it's easier to keep an eye on them this way and i'm sure the majority enter the church to avoid the temptation and don't want to become peados)

Zero is a number. If something isn't a number, it isn't a number, no semantics can get around that.

Exactly. So the number of "Vicarivs Filii Dei" is 666.

Exactly. So the number of "Vicarivs Filii Dei" is 666.
No, it is 666+A+R+S+F+E. Which is useless, except for the fact that you can make ARSE out of it.

Unless of course you can point to a part of the Bible which tells us to look out for 666+A+R+S+F+E, or F666ARSE or any other permutation you can think of.

No, it is 666+A+R+S+F+E. Which is useless, except for the fact that you can make ARSE out of it.

Unless of course you can point to a part of the Bible which tells us to look out for 666+A+R+S+F+E, or F666ARSE or any other permutation you can think of.

*shows you a Bible with suspicious looking crayon markings in the last book* :)

Seriously, this is like the "grade school" thing... somebody here is just being deliberatley obtuse.

Seriously, this is like the "grade school" thing... somebody here is just being deliberatley obtuse.
OK, I admit I was being obtuse about the grade school thing.

This anti christ thing I am not. Your maths is flawed, which mean your The Pope is the Anti-Christ theory is too.

The official title is Bishop of Rome and he is also sometimes referred to as the Vicar of Rome, I believe.

Doesn't change the fact that the church hierarchy likes to claim that the office of the Pope has always been around as it is in in its current form - and that the Pope was always the official head of the entire church. All the people they call popes up until the East-West split were were normal everyday bishops who just happened to be the Bishop of Rome. They were not in charge of the entire church. And that's all I'm saying.

OK, I admit I was being obtuse about the grade school thing.

This anti christ thing I am not. Your maths is flawed, which mean your The Pope is the Anti-Christ theory is too.

My "maths is flawed"??? I just don't get you people... O.K. calling it "maths" is a little charming... but then using "maths" as a singular word??? Honestly, why we named the language after you people is quite beyond me! ;)

No problem with my math... if I give you one apple and three oranges and five apples and two bricks the total number of apples you have is six. The numerical value of vicarivs filii dei is still 666, regardless of what non-numbers you are left to ponder.

Oh... you forgot the obvious: FEARS.

There are some more here:

http://www.remnantofgod.org/666.htm

Of course I doubt you will "see the significance" of any of them.

no matter what, there will be sick priests. the Church only covered up these sickos due to a severe lack of priests. i think that was a VERY bad choice, they should have expelled them straight away for committing an evil like this.
as for the protestant who defended his religion, you'll find sickos in YOUR church too. don't try and act like we're worse than you, consider how many catholics there are compared to protestants. there's over a BILLION now, and the amount of incidents? compare it to the amount of incidents from protestants and how many protestants there are.
i've never come into contact with ONE incident in Scotland in my life, there haven't been ANY in the areas where i've lived from the South to the North.
Catholicism is a great thing, it encourages peace and understanding. the problem comes not from the church but human nature: wherever there is power there will be those who seek to usurp and abuse it. we can't forget that it was US who started the crusades, a series of "holy wars" that were anything but.
catholicism is a good thing, PEOPLE are the problem.
Ah, corruption is everywhere; politics, religion, etc. To say that Protestant priests are better than Catholic priests is false without giving specific examples.

Me, personally? I'm Protestant, and I take pride in that not just because our priests can marry, but because of the freedom that's allowed everywhere. Freedom to interpret the Bible however you wish; don't have to confess sins to priests who are ready to phone up everyone they know about what you did right after you leave; don't have to attend marriage classes. But even with all of this, what really determines corruption is the people and how much power they have, and all religious figures have power. The Catholic Church does have more power than the Protestant Church, true; but it doesn't matter, since they're both major religious organisations. Religion has always been divided by two things; Power and Money, and the two are interchangable. It's the result of so many things, like the Holocaust; Jews have more money than Christians, so they stay Jewish, and Hitler realises that they have money and banks and shops when the rest of the Germans are piss-poor and primarily Christian. And then it all goes downhill from there. This has been going on since the beginning of organised religion.

I also think it's an unfair assumption that every Catholic priest goes around raping small children. I'd assume at least ONE decided to not rape small children.

The point? Protestantism may be freer, but everyone likes to rape small children.

The pope is the Anti-Christ? Funny, I thought it was Nero, what with all the prosecuting of Christians he did... Ah well.

With Immaculate meaning that Mary was born without original sin rather then without sex.

Also iirc this only became actual dogma in the 19th Century (1870's?), when it was proclaimed Ex Cathedra by the then Pope.

Which, as I said, would be over 1000 years. Lots of things were mentioned by people in the church, but were not widely believed until the Church declared it the TRUTH. And that didn't happen until the 19th century.

There were prominent Catholic theologians that claimed that Christ popped out of Mary's side instead of going through the birth canal too, but that isn't Catholic dogma today.

What are you guys talking about priests have always been allowed to marry?
Look at the uniate churches in the catholic faith, their priests are allowed to marry and they're 100% catholic.

Although I do believe all sects of priests should be allowed to marry, not necessarily because of pedophilia scandals, these occur in schools and in our own homes but because the only reason the church forbade marriage was to deal with nepotism. I think that the best bet would be to allow priests to marry, but bishops and higher rank shouldn't marry.

Also I think that women should be allowed to be deaconesses (as their is a precedent for it) but not as priests. (sorry if that seems a bit sexist it's not meant to be).

Oh yea and what I think is one must respect the bible and church traditions, since society changes one book doesn't have all the answers. (Just means to achieve those answers.)

Ya know, about this whole Pope = Antichrist thing... Is there a possibility it's just a mad coincidence? It's a longshot, but entirely possible. And then you'd either feel guilty or be incredibly stubborn.

But I honestly have no clue.

Ya know, about this whole Pope = Antichrist thing... Is there a possibility it's just a mad coincidence? It's a longshot, but entirely possible. And then you'd either feel guilty or be incredibly stubborn.

But I honestly have no clue.

Check da link... heck of a lotta coincidences.

Check da link... heck of a lotta coincidences.
I noticed. Still, it's not the first time something happened like this. Ever heard of the Bible Code?
EDIT: For one, I don't think all of these titles have been around since Revelations.

Also I think that women should be allowed to be deaconesses (as their is a precedent for it) but not as priests. (sorry if that seems a bit sexist it's not meant to be).

Sorry, but sexism is really the only way to view it. You obviously believe that there is something better about males that allows them to be close to God that females don't have.

[QUOTE=Kaiakoura]
Also I think that women should be allowed to be deaconesses (as their is a precedent for it) but not as priests. (sorry if that seems a bit sexist it's not meant to be).
QUOTE]

I am a Lutheran. In my church, pastors can get married, and women can be pastors. Does that mean my pastor is any less a pastor than a male?

In fact, the Roman Catholic church is so anti-marriage and sexist that here was their list of requirements for Lutherans to take communion (not exact words):
1) All female pastors are to be fired.
2) All pastoral marriages are to be annulled.
3) The Lutheran church must set up a clergical hierarchy similar to the catholic system.

Note to Catholics: There is a world outside your church.

[QUOTE=Kaiakoura]
Also I think that women should be allowed to be deaconesses (as their is a precedent for it) but not as priests. (sorry if that seems a bit sexist it's not meant to be).
QUOTE]

I am a Lutheran. In my church, pastors can get married, and women can be pastors. Does that mean my pastor is any less a pastor than a male?

In fact, the Roman Catholic church is so anti-marriage and sexist that here was their list of requirements for Lutherans to take communion (not exact words):
1) All female pastors are to be fired.
2) All pastoral marriages are to be annulled.
3) The Lutheran church must set up a clergical hierarchy similar to the catholic system.

Note to Catholics: There is a world outside your church.
Nice. The biggest problem with anti-sexism, though, is that, in George Orwell's grammatically incorrect words, it becomes so that "some are more equal than others." In the end, women have more power. Minorities try to pull this off all the time; if you refuse favours to minorities in public services, you may just have to do it anyway because you were only refusing it to them "because I'm black." Or something equivalent to that, and possibly a different minority. But it happens a lot.

I'm going to try to answer these in the order I found them in this thread.

The Church should NOT have hidden pedophile priests from the law. They should have been punished, and we are now seeing that problem rectified.

Catholics ARE encouraged to read the bible. # 131 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) says " And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life. Hence access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Chrisitian Faithful."

CCC133 says "The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. 'Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ'"

Catholic Priests can be married. The Catholic Church consists of 23 rites. Many of these rites allow their priests to marry. The Latin rite does not (with a few exceptions, such as converted, married (male) Clergy.)

Some of the first popes were married. The reason the church changed this (keep in mind that married clergy is not a Dogma of the Catholic Church, rather it is a discipline that can be changed at any time) is because of the fear of the Papacy becoming inherited like a traditional Monarchy. This happened in at least one case that I know of, maybe more.

For those who are Christians out there keep the words of Mt. 19:11-12, 1 Cor 7:1-7, 1 Cor 7:32-38 in mind when discussing celibacy.

The Church doesn't believe in Evolution, nor does it deny it. It says that it is for science to study, and that science and religion ultimately point to Truth. It does have a stipulation along the lines of believing that at some point mankind fell from grace.


The Austrian (I thought it was Australian) Child Porn Scandal was horrible. Thank God that the local bishop stepped in and that the Pope stepped in as well to immediatly rectify the situation.

No Meat on Fridays Days of fasting are mentioned many times in the bible. The Catholic Church's position here is not unbiblical. Check out Neh. 9:1, Esther 4:3, Esther 9:31, Psalm 35:13, Jeremiah 58:6, Jer. 36:9, Dan 9:3, Luke 2:37, the list goes on and on.

The Pope is infalliable on matters of faith and morals when speaking with his full apostolic authority (ex cathedra). But he does not neccesarily "make the rules." The Magesterium (the bishops) also have infalliabilitly when speaking on faith and morals as a group. That means that more people get in on the decision making process and therefore reform is possible. The place where we seem to get stuck on is that some things Catholics don't think need reforming such as our belief in the sinfulness of homosexual acts, contraception, abortion, Euthanasia (sp?) and a host of other issues.

The only people in power in the Catholic Church are Catholics This is an important point because outsiders, who do not accept Catholicism have no right to say what we should believe, what disciplines we should change and the like.

Papal Authority is not a blasphemy. This is a big topic so I will not post it here, but will make another thread on it. There is alot of biblical backing for it. I will put a link here when I have typed it up.

The traditions of the Catholic Church have been in place from the formation of the Church in some form Since I think the main objection here is to Papal Infalliability I will post some of the words of Early Churchmen.

Tertullian said, "But if Peter was reproved because, after having lived with teh Gentiles, he separated himself from their company out of respect for persons surely this was a fault in his conversation, not in his preaching." (In reference to where St. Paul reproved St. Peter. Shows that the preaching was correct, even if the message was unclear.

St. Leo The Great said, "The Lord has suffered us to sustain no harm in the person of our brethren, but has corroborated by the irrevocable assent of the whole brotherhood what He had already laid down through our ministry: to show that, what had been first forumlated by the foremost See of Christendom, and then received by the judgment of the whole Christian world, ahd truly proceeded from Himself: that in this, too the members may be at one with the Head." (Foremost See of Christendom being Rome)

The line of Apostolic Succession of Popes is clearly documented up to Peter. The website shown in a previous post about this is correct. It is possible to trace a Pope's "spiritual ancestry" back to the time of Christ in an unbroken line.

The five cities you mentioned did indeed have "superbishops" so to speak. they are called Patriarchs, and they are still around. They are leaders of specific rites (these are generally regional.)

There is nothing wrong with the Catholic "version" of the ten commandments. They can be found in both Exodus and Deuteronomy. They are not numbered in either. Frankly, I don't see where you're trying to go with this.

Catholics don't believe Mary's mother was a virgin at Mary's birth. We do however believe that she was conceived without original sin. (Immaculate Conception) Don't tell Catholics what they believe if it's not what the Church teaches. That's lying and casts YOUR beliefs in a bad light.

Pope-666 correlation is bunk. Look around on the internet a bit. You can make any number of things turn out to say 666. This really is coincidince. You need some kind of real evidence before you pull this kind of thing.

These are the pope's titles.Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor to the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Province of Rome, Sovereign of the Vatican City, and Servant of the Servants of God.

Catholics believe in the Book of Revelation However we don't neccesarily think it is literal. The use of prose and metaphor is quite clear in this book and it should be read as such. It is still Truth, though.

Catholics generally don't define a doctrine until a major heresy pops up and becomes popular among the people This is why we still see doctrines being defined to this day. That is also why the Immaculate Conception wasn't defined until recently as well. It was never really questioned in the Church before then.

Catholic Priests are and will continue to be MEN Men and women are different. This means that they have different, but complimentary roles. Just as a man can not give birth, a woman cannot be ordained as a priest. The Women's Liberation Movement (although a good thing on the whole) has caused women to think that their place in life is something forced upon them, and that any notions about the role that one's sex should play in life are purely societal. No thought whatsoever is apparently given to the possibility that God made men and women different because he WANTED them different.

In order of the Lutheran Church to be in Communion with the Catholic church it would have to agree to everything found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. (You mistakenly said for a lutheran to receive communion--A Lutheran may not receive communion in the Catholic Church unless they are on the verge of death and agree to Church teaching on the sacraments.) To be in communion with the catholic church it is true that Women could not be clergy. It is not true that Lutheran Pastors who wish to become Catholic Priests would have to get their marriage anulled, they might not be able to be in the Latin Rite, but many other Catholic Rites would be open to them. I do not know about how Lutheran hierarchy would have to be set up except that it would have to consist of Bishops who are in Communion with the Pope.

I would be more than happy to discuss Catholicism on an individual basis. T-gram me and we can exchange email addresses.

In Him, through her,
Pio Magnus

Honestly, I believe that if the Church would stop being so narrowminded and dogmatic and allow priests to get married, not only would there be more priests in the church but the molestations they are accused of would become less frequent.

Kids wouldn't be molested as much if they just let the priests get married.
yeah but most of the suggested assaults were in the 70s- 80s?

Priests CAN be married.

Doesn't change the fact that the church hierarchy likes to claim that the office of the Pope has always been around as it is in in its current form - and that the Pope was always the official head of the entire church. All the people they call popes up until the East-West split were were normal everyday bishops who just happened to be the Bishop of Rome. They were not in charge of the entire church. And that's all I'm saying.

I don't think that is true, for example:

St. Augustine was sent to England as a missionary by Pope Gregory I in 597 and had the same role as Pope John Paul II does today (infact, he probably wielded more power over the Church and other things than Pope John Paul II does now).

The REAL problem with the catholic church, in fact any religion, is they get caught up in the mysticism. Thats why religion is declining. It was fine for serfs in straw huts who could believe that they had to be good or the beast would drag them into the abyss. Nowadays though that doesn't wash.

The catholic church gets caught up in numbers, resurections, bread wine and crosses forgeting what the bibles message is. When Jesus was here he didn't run around telling people how great his religion was. He went around helping people (if you believe the stories). Priests shouldn't marry, they should devote their entire existance to emulating Jesus' example of social service.

I am a non-practising catholic, I know many many catholic people, I am in the process of returning to the religion because at long last they are seeing the light. 'God's work here on earth must truly be our own.'

This is what it really means to be a catholic, not going to church every week, praying every day or saying rosary. It's about following the example of Jesus as it is recorded, the sad thing is many catholics miss the whole point of his time here.

The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. It has been providing social aid (in many forms) on every contininant (save Antarctica) and has assisted countless people both financially, medically and spiritually.

I agree that at times the Church does not appear to be on a "charitable kick" all the time. The fact is local Churches are the ones with this problem. My parish was (and still is, although that is changing with our new priest) more concerned with itself than with how it could help others. The Church on the whole has been doing it's part to help the people for 2 millenia.

Although the views of Catholics and protestants are often at odds, I think it is important to remember that both sides are striving towards Christ.

In Him, through her,
Pio Magnus

The REAL problem with the catholic church, in fact any religion, is they get caught up in the mysticism. Thats why religion is declining. It was fine for serfs in straw huts who could believe that they had to be good or the beast would drag them into the abyss. Nowadays though that doesn't wash.

The catholic church gets caught up in numbers, resurections, bread wine and crosses forgeting what the bibles message is. When Jesus was here he didn't run around telling people how great his religion was. He went around helping people (if you believe the stories). Priests shouldn't marry, they should devote their entire existance to emulating Jesus' example of social service.

I am a non-practising catholic, I know many many catholic people, I am in the process of returning to the religion because at long last they are seeing the light. 'God's work here on earth must truly be our own.'

This is what it really means to be a catholic, not going to church every week, praying every day or saying rosary. It's about following the example of Jesus as it is recorded, the sad thing is many catholics miss the whole point of his time here.
Yay.

As for priests devoting their entire existence to emulating Jesus, I honestly think that's up to the priest himself. In my opinion, it should be their choice. Sure, if they marry, they cannot devote as much time to God, but, as proven by the USSR, modern Man cannot function properly when providing only to the community and not to oneself. We're too selfish for that.

I'd think female priests would possibly be okay, but I believe every stereotype based on race or culture or gender has a reason for coming into play.

"Just because the gypsies were all thieves and nomads doesn't mean every gypsy was a thief and a nomad." It's a cultural thing. While not absolutely true, it's obvious that SOME gypsies will be thieves and/or nomads. While I do not, at this time, quite understand why females cannot perform all the functions of a man (aside from the obvious), I am forced to somewhat agree with it because it evidentally had a reason.

And I think a LOT of things could add up to 666. Even so, I'd like to see some examples; not because I truly believe the Pope is the Antichrist (I don't; why would the Antichrist be committed TO Christ?), but because it's always good to back everything up, lest some fanatic jump in and say since you haven't made proof that this is true, it's definitely not.

On a side note, do bands of Gypsies still exist?

Some examples of "666" that mean nothing: The two skinny lines at the beginning, middle, and end of every barcode are the same as "6" in binary code: 666.

Lucent Technologies moved one of their branch offices to 666 fifth ave, Manhattan

The Book of Matthew has a verse 6:66

One of the phone prefixes in massachusettes is 666!

the letter W is the 6th letter of the hebrew alphabet! WWW! LOOKOUT! We ARE ALL wearing the mark of the beast by using the internet!

PioMagnus, thank you for your insightful comments. It is a pleasure to hear a voice of both knowledge and reason.

And now, a word from your local voice of ignorence and madness:

What makes you think they mean nothing?

I don't think that is true, for example:

St. Augustine was sent to England as a missionary by Pope Gregory I in 597 and had the same role as Pope John Paul II does today (infact, he probably wielded more power over the Church and other things than Pope John Paul II does now).

Ok, now give me something much, much earlier. 597 is about 550 years after Paul, right? Gregory was considered a pope in much the same way that popes are today.

However, as late as Leo at the Council of Chalcedon, only about half the church thought of Leo as any sort of authority over other bishops, and he certainly wasn't acting as a pope. In fact, Leo may have been the "pope" who told everyone not to call him pope because he wasn't any better than them - but I would have to go back through some of my older books to find that. It may have been someone slightly earlier than Leo.

Of course, nothing changes the fact that there was no "pope" as we know of the title until hundreds of years after Christ.

I will start with Church Fathers speaking on Peter's supremecy and move on from there. (All Emphasis mine)

Tertullian:

Peter alone do I find--through [the mention of] his 'mother-ini-law'--to have been married. monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the church, which, built upon him, was destined to appoint every grade of her Order from monogamists. the res, while I do not find them married, I must of necessity understand to have been either eunuchs or continent

Still Tertullian:

'But,' you say, 'the church has the power of forgiving sins.' this I acknowledge and adjudge more [than you; I] who have the Paraclete himself in the persons of the new prophets, saying, 'The church has the power to forgive sins; but I will not do it, lest they commit others.' 'what if a pseudo-prophetic spirit has made that declaration?' Nay, but it would have been more the part of a suberter on the one hand to commend himself on the score of clemency, and on the other to influence all others to sin. Or if, again [the pseudo-prophetic spirit] has been eager to affect this [sentiment] in accordance with 'the Spirit of truth,' it follows that 'the spirit of truth' has indeed the power of indulgently granting pardon to fornicators, but wills not to do it if it involve evil to the majority.

I now inquire into your opinion, [to see] from what source you usurp this right to 'the church'

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, 'Upon this rock will I build my church,' 'to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdon'; or, 'Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens' (Mt. 16:16-18), you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every chruch akin to Peter; what sor of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intntion of the Lord, conferring [as that intention did] this [gift] personally upon Peter? 'On you' HE says, 'will I build my church'; and, 'I will give to you the keys,' no to the church; and, 'Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound,' not what they shall have loosed or bound.


St. Clement of Alexandria

Nor does the kingdom of heaven belong to sleepers and sluggards, 'but the violent take it by force' (Mt. 11:12). Therefore on hearing those words, he blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Savior paid tribute, quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? 'Lo, we have left all and followed Thee' (Mt. 19:27; Mk. 10:28)

Now I will switch from Peter's Premacy to the Premacy of the Bishop of Rome, whose chair Peter founded.

St. Irenaeus:

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for their were many still remaining who had received insturctions from teh apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome depatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the traditon which it had lately received from the apostles.

St. Cyprian:

Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men, when no one had been made so before him, when the place of Fabian that is , when the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant; which being occupied by the will of God, and established by consent of all of us, whosoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the church who does not hold the unity of the Church.

St. Augustine:

For, if the order of succession of bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom, as representing the whole Church, the Lord said: 'upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' (Mt. 16:18). For, to peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacleus Evaristus, to Evaristus Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus hyginus, to Hyginus Anicetus, to Anicetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus, to Zephyrinus Calistus, to Calistus Urban, to Urban Pontian, to Pontian Antherus, to Antherus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus, to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Eutychian, to Eutychian Gaius, to Gaius Marcellus, to Marcellus Eusebius, to Eusebius Melchiades, to Melchiades Sylvester, to Sylvester Marcus, to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius, to Siricisu Anastasius

The above not only speaks of the Premacy of Peter, but also shows his successors. These are all Bishops of Rome.

The Popes always attributed Premacy unto themselves by issuing edicts to other bishops.

St. Clement of Rome:

You, therefore who laid the foundation of rebellion, submit to the presbyters, and accept chastisement for repentance, bending the knees of your heart.

Still St. Clement of Rome:

For you wll afford us joy and gladness if you obey what we have written through the Holy spirit and get rid of the wicked passion of jealousy, according to the plea for peace and harmony which we have made in this letter. We have sent trustworty and prudent men, who have lived among us irreproachably from youth to old age; the ywill be witnesses between you and us.

St. Leo the Great

'Lay hands hastily on no one, and do not share in other mens sins' (I Tim. 5:22) What is to lay on hands hastily but to confer the priestly dignity on unproved men before the proper age, before there has been time to test them, before they have deserved it by their obedience, before they have been tried by discipline? And what is to share in other men's sins but for the ordainer to become such as is he who ought not to have been ordained by him.

Still St. Leo the Great:

My respect for the Nicene canons is such that I never have allowed nor ever will allow the institution of the holy fathers to be violated by any innovation. For although the desserts of individual prelates are sometimes different, yet the rights of their Sees are Permanent: and although rivalry may perchance cause soem disturbance about them, yet it cannot impair their dignity.

The comment about Leo not considering himself any kind of authority is very clearly rejected in the above passage. Sorry.

In Him, through her,
Pio Magnus

I will start with Church Fathers speaking on Peter's supremecy and move on from there. (All Emphasis mine)

*snip*


First of all, most of those quotes were people specifically associated with the Roman church during their time. You leave out the very relevant fact that *every* church used to trace the line of *every* priest (and especially bishops) back to an apostle. In the early church, it didn't matter which apostle, as long as your priesthood could be traced back to some apostle. Yes, Peter was the apostle in question for the Roman church, and obviously those associated with that church are going to refer to him as having been directly annointed by God. By the time of Augustine, the Roman church was trying to enforce what it saw as its supremacy over the others, so Augustine would of course see the Roman bishop at the time of being more important than any other. (Of course, I personally believe that just about all of what Augustine said was complete bunk - but that's personal belief and the Catholic Church obviously disagrees with me, but come on "Babies sin because they cry."????)

As for Leo, I specifically stated that I could not remember if it was him, or someone one or two "popes" before him that made statements about not being "pope" over any other bishop. Not that the quote you used proves anything when thought about in the context of the church at the time. It mentions more "holy fathers" which today you may see as being "popes" but he may have seen as being "bishops." It also mentions each "holy father's" authority over his (individual) See, thus suggesting that the term holy father refers to more than one person, not just the pope.

I will try and find the name of the actual guy I was thinking about later, but I make no guarrantees since most of my notes and things are packed up. However, if you read up on the Council of Chalcedon, you will find that only the Roman church followed Leo unconditionally. Some of the others did defer to him on certain matters, but much of the church saw him as exactly what Roman bishops had always been - just another bishop.

None of this really matters of course to the point at hand, which is that the Roman bishop did not have any more power over the church than the bishop in any of the other 4 major cities until long after Peter was gone. So while you may believe that the Roman bishop should have always had supreme command (so to speak), it really just isn't true historically.

For a Biblical example of Peter making an ex-cathedra (ie infallible) statement, look in the first half of Acts for the council of Jerusalem (I don't have a Bible with me and can't give the exact location). The council (composed of a large number of apostles) is debating the topic of unclean foods and making no progress. Peter steps in and gives his two cents, and the council accepts his decision without discussion. That is how papal infallibility works. Peter clearly had a higher position than the other apostles who were at the council.

Me, personally? I'm Protestant, and I take pride in that not just because our priests can marry, but because of the freedom that's allowed everywhere. Freedom to interpret the Bible however you wish;

So basically you enjoy the freedom to use Scripture quotes to justify whatever you wish, ie moral relativism. Somehow I doubt that God is a moral relativist.

don't have to confess sins to priests who are ready to phone up everyone they know about what you did right after you leave;

I have never heard of a Catholic that claimed this is a problem. Priests are not supposed to tell anyone what they hear in confession - do you have evidence that a large number of priests to use the confessional as a gossip source?

don't have to attend marriage classes.

The marriage classes promote discussion about financial, housework, sexual, and parenting expectations, among other things. It is used to identify potential sources of marital instability before the actual marriage takes place. How do you see this as a bad thing?

I'm rather amazed that Sola Scriptura hasn't come up yet.

For a Biblical example of Peter making an ex-cathedra (ie infallible) statement, look in the first half of Acts for the council of Jerusalem (I don't have a Bible with me and can't give the exact location). The council (composed of a large number of apostles) is debating the topic of unclean foods and making no progress. Peter steps in and gives his two cents, and the council accepts his decision without discussion. That is how papal infallibility works. Peter clearly had a higher position than the other apostles who were at the council.

Keep reading. It is James that has the final say, not Peter. Peter gives his opinion, everybody is silent for a bit, and then James says ok, we're all in agreement, this is what we're going to do and then Paul leaves and goes to do it.

If one person in Congress stood up and made a great speech, and then no one else could dispute what was said and the vote went that person's way, would they necessarily be in a higher position than the others?

I noticed. Still, it's not the first time something happened like this. Ever heard of the Bible Code?
EDIT: For one, I don't think all of these titles have been around since Revelations.

Coded messages that people have "found" in Shakespeare are why there are many theories stating that William Shakespeare did not write his plays; rather that Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford), Christopher Marlowe, and even Queen Elizabeth herself wrote them.

I tend to believe the same thing of this coded proof as of Druthulu's: it's rubbish. Or haven't you all seen the e-mail where President's names are rearranged into funny anagrams?

Coded messages that people have "found" in Shakespeare are why there are many theories stating that William Shakespeare did not write his plays; rather that Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford), Christopher Marlowe, and even Queen Elizabeth herself wrote them.

I tend to believe the same thing of this coded proof as of Druthulu's: it's rubbish. Or haven't you all seen the e-mail where President's names are rearranged into funny anagrams?

Post that e'mail for us here please. :) It sounds interesting.

I am interested in interesting things, such as synchronicity and "coincidences" that seem to make patterns. I think JP2 is a great guy, even if the name that he assumed on taking office, and several of the historical titles of that office, do add up to "666" which symbolizes the earthly representitive of opposition to God's rule. It's also pretty neat that his mitre is taken from the headwear of ancient Dagonite priests. He's a pretty cool guy for a Pope, and he has made apologies for many of not all of the Catholic Church's worst historical crimes. If he tries to stamp my hand, however, my opinion of him will change.

And yes I have heard of the Bible Code. I find it interesting.

Post that e'mail for us here please. :) It sounds interesting.

Here are two versions of it --

http://www.fun-with-words.com/anag_names.html
http://www.tiggysribticklers.com/tig378.htm

Dempublicents,

Are you Protestant or Orthodox?

Dempublicents,

Are you Protestant or Orthodox?

I guess I would be protestant if I had to place myself under a label other than Christian. I don't really think that any particular denomination has everything right, so I'm more of a "listen to what everyone has to say, check it out historically and Biblically, reflect and pray on it, and then come to conclusions."

I learned most of what I know of church history from books and from a prof who was also an ordained Baptist Minister (not Southern Baptist though, thank God), but he really wasn't your typical minister one way or another.

Either way, please understand that I am not in any way attempting to attack your faith. You may believe that Peter was meant to be the first head of the church and that all the other Roman bishops in succession were also supposed to wield that power. I won't dispute your belief in that (although I must respectfully disagree - as I don't think any human being should be the "head" of the church). All I am saying is that, historically, there has not been a "pope" as we know it from the church beginnings. All of the major theological decisions up until around the middle ages were made by councils and each of the major bishops had proponents of his particular view (kind of like Congress =).

Slowly, over time, the Roman bishop began to wield more and more power. Many other Sees began deferring to him and eventually Rome itself began propagating this belief. Eventually, the Roman bishop was seen as the head of the Catholic Church (well, not the Orthodox part that had split, but you know what I mean) above and beyond the rest of the bishops. My only point is that, wrong or right, it's not "the way it's always been" which is often the explanation the leaders of the church use.

The Council of Nicea recognised Rome as the primatial see. That gets us back to the year 300 or so. Give me a little time to get my sources and I should be able to get earlier.

The Council of Nicea recognised Rome as the primatial see. That gets us back to the year 300 or so. Give me a little time to get my sources and I should be able to get earlier.

The Council of Nicea condemned Arianism. It was actually the emporer of Rome at the time that suggested the result of the council, that the Father and Son be declared "consubstantial." There were actually very few bishops from the West there at all. There was certainly no decision made as to any See being in charge. It was simply an argument about the divinity of Christ. In reality, the whole council was really more an argument within the parts of the church that would later branch off and become the Orthodox church. The West just saw it as an affirmation of what they already were teaching based on Tertullian.

Even later, into the 400's, there was a council at which Leo's Tome (which directly related to the issue at hand) was not even read.

Dru, good to see you again. (For the people who don't know him, Dru's a bit of an oppositional guy. Doesn't matter if you end up agreeing with him or not, he will get you to think.)

Ok, for this whole 666 thing: Nifty. I like coincidences. However, I think the coincidence would be a lot stronger if all the letters were given numerical values that could be added to the number in question. I'm surprised you didn't bump the letters to Greek or Hebrew alphabets and work from there.

Lots of things contain 666. One I'll add is Barney, a 'Fluffy Purple Dinosaur' (that might not be the right qoute, but there is one that works). Convert u's to v's and do the math. Conclusion: 666=Pope, 666=Barney. Tiny logical leap: Pope=Barney=Internet. That's right, the Pope is the Internet, as played by Barney.

The way I see it, it's just games. Which are important, but not for the reasons some people might ascribe to them.

>>I'm Protestant, so I agree. Do you ever hear of Protestant priests molesting children? No.<<

Yeah, I never did hear about it when several of my Methodist friends were sexually abused for several years by the local Methodist *youth minister*, the son of a Methodist pastor. That really got almost no news coverage, actually. Funny how that works.

In contrast, I spent a great deal of time alone with my Catholic priest as a child. Weekly Bible lessons; he was practically an uncle. I fell from the Church for a time and haven't re-established that relationship. I never got touched to a degree beyond ruffled hair and my occasionaly hugging him.

Conclusion: Pedophiles are attracted to jobs that get them in contact with children. People who geniunely care are also attracted to these jobs. Luck of the draw, really. A friend of mine is a Methodist pastor; she's truly a wonderful woman.

>>It should be obvious that molestation would stop if they would just let priests get married.<<

Not true. Numerous statistics take the validity from this claim. It simply doesn't work that way.

>>Now, if the priest is gay...let him have his boyfriend or whatever. And while we are at it, let's allow women priests in Catholic churchs, too.<<

No. I'm bisexual, this isn't an easy for issue for me, I'll tell you that much. But it can't be this way. Priests cannot have boyfriends; it violates the nature of the religion. (BTW, I'm not some repressed, shackled torture victim; I'm fairly open about my sexuality. I'm also competely celibate and single. The issue is too complex and important for me to act without understanding the full ramifications of my beliefs.)

Women shouldn't be priests in the Catholic Church; the various orders of nuns provide very well for spiritually devout women, as the monkhoods do for men who don't necessarily want to preach. The sisterly orders should have a larger voice in the Church than they do, I agree, but not priesthoods.

:D

I have thus far been keeping a watchful eye on the topic, relegating myself to more audience than participator.

Posted once so far, hoping to incite riotous debate concerning Sola Scriptura, much to no avail, I fear.

So, I shall ask directly. Which people are going to argue the case for Sola Scriptura?

It does, and must, always lead back to this.

(Do not get me wrong, the historicity of the Church is amazingly important as well. The study of the Papal office and how it came to be is incredibly necessary in this area as well, also how councils were created, the study of Petrine Primacy [as opposed to Pauline], etc... etc... However, Sola Scriptura, along with Sola Fide, are dominantly part of Luther's split from the Church [doctrinally] - and the basis of Protestantism.)

Now, you may say you're a Protestant and don't really care for all those doctrines and what-not, however you still will have to argue for the case of Sola Scriptura unless you do believe their can be extra-Biblical sources for the ruling of the Christian Faith (and if you believe it is so, which sources do you subject yourself to then and by what authority?).

The Holy Roman Catholic Church - It sits upon the three legged stool of: The Church, Sacred Tradition, and Holy Scripture

Protestantism - Tries to sit their bum on a stick (I'm sure that'll get 'em going :p ): only Holy Scripture

So, let us discuss, do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

If yes - Why?

If no - What else do you believe is an authoritive ruling of faith - and why?

The REAL problem with the catholic church, in fact any religion, is they get caught up in the mysticism. Thats why religion is declining. It was fine for serfs in straw huts who could believe that they had to be good or the beast would drag them into the abyss. Nowadays though that doesn't wash.

The catholic church gets caught up in numbers, resurections, bread wine and crosses forgeting what the bibles message is. When Jesus was here he didn't run around telling people how great his religion was. He went around helping people (if you believe the stories). Priests shouldn't marry, they should devote their entire existance to emulating Jesus' example of social service.

I am a non-practising catholic, I know many many catholic people, I am in the process of returning to the religion because at long last they are seeing the light. 'God's work here on earth must truly be our own.'

This is what it really means to be a catholic, not going to church every week, praying every day or saying rosary. It's about following the example of Jesus as it is recorded, the sad thing is many catholics miss the whole point of his time here.

Thankyou for saying that, basically, I am heretic. You don't realise but the point of the rosary, for example, is to help you think and contemplate the life of Jesus (which is why you think of the mysteries etc when praying the rosary, have a read of this (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13184b.htm) and it should give you an idea as to what roasry beads are all about). By contemplating Jesus' life and works surely that helps us to live as Jesus did.

Oh, and the mysticism is one of the main reasons why I am drawn to the Church. God is mystical, we can not ever fully know what God is all about, you get me.

Ok, now give me something much, much earlier. 597 is about 550 years after Paul, right? Gregory was considered a pope in much the same way that popes are today.

However, as late as Leo at the Council of Chalcedon, only about half the church thought of Leo as any sort of authority over other bishops, and he certainly wasn't acting as a pope. In fact, Leo may have been the "pope" who told everyone not to call him pope because he wasn't any better than them - but I would have to go back through some of my older books to find that. It may have been someone slightly earlier than Leo.

Of course, nothing changes the fact that there was no "pope" as we know of the title until hundreds of years after Christ.

Have a read of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I)

Have a read of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I)

Ok?

Technically, wasn't the 1st pope supposed to be Peter (up to his execution)?

Technically, wasn't the 1st pope supposed to be Peter (up to his execution)?

If you define "pope" as "bishop of Rome," then, yes - that is most likely true. If you define "pope" as "head of the entire church," then, no. The papacy as we know it didn't develop until hundreds of years after the early church developed.

So, I shall ask directly. Which people are going to argue the case for Sola Scriptura?

Not me. I believe the Scriptures, having been written by humans, are inherently flawed. Meditation, prayer, and even a little bit of logic are to be used in determing truth vs. Truth and mistake vs. dvine inspiration.

Now, you may say you're a Protestant and don't really care for all those doctrines and what-not, however you still will have to argue for the case of Sola Scriptura unless you do believe their can be extra-Biblical sources for the ruling of the Christian Faith (and if you believe it is so, which sources do you subject yourself to then and by what authority?).

Meditation and prayer requesting guidance. Um, by God's authority I suppose.

Petrine Premacy,

No offense, I too like arguing against Sola Scriptura but the fact is that we are currently debating about another subject. Feel free to contribute on Petrine Premacy (sorry, I couldn't resist), but untill it naturally evolves onto the subject of sola scriptura its pretty much just thread hijacking. Again, no offense meant, just trying to stick to the subject at hand.

-pm

Irenaeus:

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition"

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was , but a [I]primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

Petrine Premacy,

No offense, I too like arguing against Sola Scriptura but the fact is that we are currently debating about another subject. Feel free to contribute on Petrine Premacy (sorry, I couldn't resist), but untill it naturally evolves onto the subject of sola scriptura its pretty much just thread hijacking. Again, no offense meant, just trying to stick to the subject at hand.

-pm

I respect what you say, however I do voicefully object to such an accusation (I know you didn't mean it offensively, I assure you). The original discussion in this topic was about the Catholic Church's recent scandal of pedophilia, however it has evolved into a new topic - Church historicity and more precisely, the nature and evolution of the Papal office.

I am merely steering it to a new direction, and not hijacking it. No one has to participate in the topic I presented (as is noticeable from the first time I mentioned it in passing), for free-will (not the doctrine, we'll save that for another time) is easily presentable here. I have no way to strongarm someone into discussing it, and I figured if no one raised reply to my voice again, I'd merely drop it.

Evolution of discussion is natural, and one can not stimatize specific credentials upon dialogue to say "you can only deter so far from the given discussion." There is no formula or equation for such, and "Topic Shift" is entirely feasible in such a situation as Philosophy, Theology, Apologetics, Politics, Economic Studies, etc... etc...

I even made sure to point out in my last post that the study of the Papal office and historicity of the Church is entirely important, and by no means am I trying to perpetuate that it should be dropped.

However, I still am within my liberty to say that it must and will evolve into a discussion on Sola Scriptura which resides on the argument of Authority (that is, by what Authority do we believe these things?).

This being said, forgive me, but I shall continue to discuss Sola Scriptura for as long as there is someone to discuss the topic with. I'm sorry if you disagree with the nature of my insertion of that ethos.

-----------------------------------------

Not me. I believe the Scriptures, having been written by humans, are inherently flawed.

Why?

Meditation, prayer, and even a little bit of logic are to be used in determing truth vs. Truth and mistake vs. dvine inspiration.

So, basically subjectivism? This would certainly account for all the different denominations and cults that persist today. If one can simply use meditation, prayer, and "a little bit of logic", one may arbitrarily decide what is truth. I suppose even an LDS member's "burning in the busom" really is credible then.

Many people meditate and pray, but come to vastly different conclusions. How do you resolve such?

Meditation and prayer requesting guidance.

Which is a great thing, however how do you know you're reliably receiving that guidance without stacking it against a reliable and ineffable Ruling of Faith?

Um, by God's authority I suppose.

How do you know this? Muslims claim their beliefs are by God's authority as well. What makes yours more tenable?

Why?

The nature of the Scriptures themselves shows that they are flawed. In more than one place, Scripture contradicts itself. This alone would prove that (at least in the form we have them today), Scriptures are flawed.

On top of that, I do not believe that God condones slavery, genocide, or the denigration of women. I do not believe that God will find me more unclean if I have a girl child than a boy. These are, admittedly, my personal views on God and are therefore questionable. However, many sources have led me to these conclusions, and barring evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe them.

So, basically subjectivism? This would certainly account for all the different denominations and cults that persist today. If one can simply use meditation, prayer, and "a little bit of logic", one may arbitrarily decide what is truth. I suppose even an LDS member's "burning in the busom" really is credible then.

I believe in a personal relationship with God. I don't think you need a priest/pope/pastor in between. Meditation and prayer, I believe, allow God to lead me closer to the correct conclusions. This is not arbitrary if one truly allows God to lead them. As for an LDS member's "burning in the busom," while I am somewhat skeptical of such things, I would not discredit it completely.

Basically, in my view, God gave us free will because he wanted us to grow and come to him of our own accord. I believe that God will, however, offer guidance if it is requested - much like a parent would. I understand that many are just as skeptical of this belief as I am of people "speaking in tongues," but I know that God does move people if they ask for it.

Many people meditate and pray, but come to vastly different conclusions. How do you resolve such?

I don't believe that anyone will ever have the complete "right" story. We all come from different backgrounds and different presupositions about God and will interpret what we feel based on those. These differences are very hard to change. I believe that all religions have at least a "piece of the puzzle" and feel that Christianity is the closest to truth. In turn, each denomination has different pieces and each human being has different pieces right. As long as I continue to question and pray, I believe I am most likely heading in the right direction.

Which is a great thing, however how do you know you're reliably receiving that guidance without stacking it against a reliable and ineffable Ruling of Faith?

I'm gonna give you a one word answer here, and then I'll expand a bit: Faith.

I may be mistaken, but I believe by Ruling of Faith, you mean things that the church has declared. Having studied the history of the church, the Ruling of Faith (ie. something a bunch of guys got together, debated, and then voted on) just doesn't hold much water for me. Views in the church changed back and forth (often with the person in political power at the time). Some of the conclusions they came to are at direct odds with some I have come to, and that I feel to be right (ie. most of what Augustine said).

I would ask you, why do you feel the need to implicitly trust that the men who made those decisions are ineffable. Just because they said so?

How do you know this? Muslims claim their beliefs are by God's authority as well. What makes yours more tenable?

More tenable? Nothing. I only need defend my faith to myself. I am happy to debate it with others, as this helps me further my own search for truth. I am also happy to share my views with others, as I believe them to be as true as I can possibly make them. However, I don't feel the need to "defend" it against others faiths like Islam. In contrast, I often feel that I can learn something from other faiths.

Irenaeus:

Cyprian of Carthage

I don't dispute that people in the West generally believed that the Roman church held primacy. In fact, no one really questioned that idea until divergent views started blooming between the East and the West and the capital of the Empire began moving around.

However, in the church as a whole, the "pope" was still just a bishop. A highly respected one, but if his vote was different from the majority of any council, he was still overruled. And any and all important decisions were made by council, not by one person. Western theologians often stated that the opinion of the Roman bishop should take precendence over others, but even they did not ascribe to him the power that the pope later gained.

Not me. I believe the Scriptures, having been written by humans, are inherently flawed.Why?

Who was Joseph, father of Jesus', father?

Hi, I saw this thing fly by the forum. I'm Catholic, whats the major beef with the Catholic church.

I wish to rebut the arguments.

Hi, I saw this thing fly by the forum. I'm Catholic, whats the major beef with the Catholic church.

I wish to rebut the arguments.

Scroll up.

Hi, I saw this thing fly by the forum. I'm Catholic, whats the major beef with the Catholic church.

I wish to rebut the arguments.

No one who was speaking anywhere near logically brought up a "beef with the Catholic church," so to speak. We are currently debating the origins of the papacy as it is known today and the idea of Sora Scriptura (this is probably spelled wrong, but I'm too tired to scroll). Feel free to jump right in if you have anything productive to say. =)

So basically you enjoy the freedom to use Scripture quotes to justify whatever you wish, ie moral relativism. Somehow I doubt that God is a moral relativist.
Well, no, I believe that the Bible was written using a lot of metaphor, and Catholicism isn't that open on this. For one, I believe in Evolution; without freedom to interpret, I cannot. Besides, since when has freedom of interpretation been a bad thing? I rarely even quote the Bible.
Also, remember that the Bible was not written by God. It was written by Man and is as flawed as Man.
I have never heard of a Catholic that claimed this is a problem. Priests are not supposed to tell anyone what they hear in confession - do you have evidence that a large number of priests to use the confessional as a gossip source?
No, but there's nothing to stop 'em, really. Maybe it's not a major problem, but it's definitely there.
The marriage classes promote discussion about financial, housework, sexual, and parenting expectations, among other things. It is used to identify potential sources of marital instability before the actual marriage takes place. How do you see this as a bad thing?
It's not a bad thing, but it makes marriage into a very big event. I mean, bigger than it's supposed to be. All I know is it's why my mother left the Catholic church.

Miratha--

Catholicism does believe that the bible is written with alot of metaphor. Catholics read the bible according to the type of literature each book is. For instance the book of Psalms is poetic in nature--so we read it as poetry, understanding there is a lot of figurative language.

The book of numbers is more of a historical book, with much less use of metaphor and prose, so we read it differently. You won't get an argument there.

The Catholic Church does allow someone to believe in evolution. The only stipulations are that God was involved, and that at some point man fell from Grace.

In my whole life, I have never heard of a priest breaking the bond of the confessional. Please post reliable sources pertaining to this situation.

(feel free to not answer this)

What specifically about the Catholic Idea of marriage did your mother object to that caused her to leave?

-pm

Petrine Premacy,

Point taken. Sorry for any offense I may have caused.

-PM

In fact, Leo may have been the "pope" who told everyone not to call him pope because he wasn't any better than them - but I would have to go back through some of my older books to find that. It may have been someone slightly earlier than Leo.

Of course, nothing changes the fact that there was no "pope" as we know of the title until hundreds of years after Christ.
i believe pope comes from the germanic people who converted to christianity as in papa father the pope was their father?

Yeah, I never did hear about it when several of my Methodist friends were sexually abused for several years by the local Methodist *youth minister*, the son of a Methodist pastor. That really got almost no news coverage, actually. Funny how that works.

thats because of the WASPS

No. I'm bisexual, this isn't an easy for issue for me, I'll tell you that much. But it can't be this way. Priests cannot have boyfriends; it violates the nature of the religion. (BTW, I'm not some repressed, shackled torture victim; I'm fairly open about my sexuality. I'm also competely celibate and single. The issue is too complex and important for me to act without understanding the full ramifications of my beliefs.)

Sorry by celibate do you many never or born again or am i just straying?

Women shouldn't be priests in the Catholic Church; the various orders of nuns provide very well for spiritually devout women, as the monkhoods do for men who don't necessarily want to preach. The sisterly orders should have a larger voice in the Church than they do, I agree, but not priesthoods.[/QUOTE]
too true monks and nuns are important they kept christianity alive in the dark ages

Women shouldn't be priests in the Catholic Church; the various orders of nuns provide very well for spiritually devout women, as the monkhoods do for men who don't necessarily want to preach. The sisterly orders should have a larger voice in the Church than they do, I agree, but not priesthoods.[/QUOTE]
too true monks and nuns are important they kept christianity alive in the dark ages

I'm actually fairly impressed with this thread so far. Very mature posts.
As far as that last point, though, I have a bit of a problem. Monks are not Priests. Men can be both. Many in the Catholic Church ARE both. Why can't women, in the same respect, be both Nuns and Priests? As far as I'm aware (as a Catholic), there's nothing spiritually against women becoming Priests. In America they can become Decons and if they can't become Priests yet, there's a proposal for it. With respect, can either of you inform me why the Priesthood is not for women?

Well, no, I believe that the Bible was written using a lot of metaphor, and Catholicism isn't that open on this. For one, I believe in Evolution; without freedom to interpret, I cannot. Besides, since when has freedom of interpretation been a bad thing? I rarely even quote the Bible.
Also, remember that the Bible was not written by God. It was written by Man and is as flawed as Man.

No, but there's nothing to stop 'em, really. Maybe it's not a major problem, but it's definitely there.

It's not a bad thing, but it makes marriage into a very big event. I mean, bigger than it's supposed to be. All I know is it's why my mother left the Catholic church.

yeah but isnt jesus god himself and so he put his faith in the aposltes to lead by example they knew jesus and so they do his bidding

Women shouldn't be priests in the Catholic Church; the various orders of nuns provide very well for spiritually devout women, as the monkhoods do for men who don't necessarily want to preach. The sisterly orders should have a larger voice in the Church than they do, I agree, but not priesthoods.
too true monks and nuns are important they kept christianity alive in the dark ages

I'm actually fairly impressed with this thread so far. Very mature posts.
As far as that last point, though, I have a bit of a problem. Monks are not Priests. Men can be both. Many in the Catholic Church ARE both. Why can't women, in the same respect, be both Nuns and Priests? As far as I'm aware (as a Catholic), there's nothing spiritually against women becoming Priests. In America they can become Decons and if they can't become Priests yet, there's a proposal for it. With respect, can either of you inform me why the Priesthood is not for women?[/QUOTE]

if your refering to me in some part it couldve been deemed women can be misgiuded more easily than men but their have been many female saints etc and one irish took the child of a (subject*)as her own to protect the mother(not sure if that helps).there is nothing wrong with women.

if your refering to me in some part it couldve been deemed women can be misgiuded more easily than men but their have been many female saints etc and one irish took the child of a (subject*)as her own to protect the mother(not sure if that helps).there is nothing wrong with women.

It could be. I'm with you - women should have equal roles in the Church. I was just wondering why *whoever posted it* thinks women shouldn't be priests. I know there's at least a semi-logical reason for it, but I'm unfarmiliar with it.

Here's a funny quote from Robert Anton Wilson's website about how can interpret qoutes from the Bible as related to marriage. haha.

"The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."

Any religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen.38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) "

Sorry but pedophillia is not cured by female contact.

says who? furthermore is it simply paedophilia or a desire for any sexual contact at all, expressed through contact with someone the priest considers non-threatening and unable to point out obvious contradictions like "you have taken a vow of celibacy, you're not supposed to do this" ?

Here's a funny quote from Robert Anton Wilson's website about how can interpret qoutes from the Bible as related to marriage. haha.

"The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."

Any religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen.38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) "

one of the things i like about catholicism is that it doesnt do "fundamentalist" so neatly sidestepping a lot of the obvious anachronisms and contradictions in the bible. I don't see why women can't be priests, but apparently the pope does, and one of the definitions of catholicism is that the pope is god's voice on earth, so what he says goes. If yoiu disagree with the pope, either you put up with it or you aren't catholic, surely?

says who? furthermore The married men (including priest of other sects) who have been convicted of peadophilia
If yoiu disagree with the pope, either you put up with it or you aren't catholic, surely?
Not really. IIRC The Pope is deemed infallible when he speaks on moral and dogmatic issues "from the chair" (ex Cathedra). For example, the Pope would have no authority saying that rare is the best way of cooking steak. Even if it was done ex cathedra.

It could be. I'm with you - women should have equal roles in the Church. I was just wondering why *whoever posted it* thinks women shouldn't be priests. I know there's at least a semi-logical reason for it, but I'm unfarmiliar with it. The reason is Church tradition.

The Roman Catholic Church is built on three rulings of Faith:

The Church
Sacred Tradition
Holy Scripture

[/I]too true monks and nuns are important they kept christianity alive in the dark ages

I'm actually fairly impressed with this thread so far. Very mature posts.
As far as that last point, though, I have a bit of a problem. Monks are not Priests. Men can be both. Many in the Catholic Church ARE both. Why can't women, in the same respect, be both Nuns and Priests? As far as I'm aware (as a Catholic), there's nothing spiritually against women becoming Priests. In America they can become Decons and if they can't become Priests yet, there's a proposal for it. With respect, can either of you inform me why the Priesthood is not for women?What? Monks and nuns were those who made those ages dark! Their unreflected faith and their inability to scrutinize the theological and historical origins of Christianity was the main reason why almost all education and achievements of civilization were brought to naught in the Middle Ages. Christianity - Catholicism for the main part - has cost the intellectual and cultural evolution of mankind over a thousand years.

Honestly, I believe that if the Church would stop being so narrowminded and dogmatic and allow priests to get married, not only would there be more priests in the church but the molestations they are accused of would become less frequent.

Kids wouldn't be molested as much if they just let the priests get married.

Ah you had a witch hunt too eh. There aren't that many Catholic priests molesting children, I would even dare say that there aren't more than there would with other people. Usually childmolesters molest their daughters. That's the most common form of Child molestations.

What? Monks and nuns were those who made those ages dark! Their unreflected faith and their inability to scrutinize the theological and historical origins of Christianity was the main reason why almost all education and achievements of civilization were brought to naught in the Middle Ages. Christianity - Catholicism for the main part - has cost the intellectual and cultural evolution of mankind over a thousand years.


Eeeeh Monks and nuns were those who made the dark ages dark...?? That is very very very very very untrue! They call it the dark ages because there weren't many writings found of that day and age, in Europe that is. The dark ages started after the invasion of the Germanic tribes and the fall of the Western Roman empire. The whole administrative system fell together with the Western Romans. Most of the new leaders were Germanics and they didn't have a written culture. Everything was settled by word, even the justice system. Past on from father to son from elder to elder and so on. The very little writings (like futhark, also called runes) were usually only small sentences and were considered magical, because hardly anyone could read and understand.

Thanks to the abbeys and their scriptoria, where mostly bibles were copied, but other works too, writing was kept alive during the Dark Ages. Later on when abbeys florished, noblemen sent their sons to learn to read and write. Eventually in about 1200 the traders in Itally, southern France and Flanders started to put up schools themselves to learn their kin to read and write (which was necesary when trading). Those universities were a pain in the clergymen's ass (to put it crudely) because they hadn't have the monopoly on teaching anymore. Facts remain, the invasion of the Germanic tribes and later on the chaos caused by the invasion of the Magyars and Vikings AND the arabs cutting of the Papyrus suplies over the Mediteranian (shortage of paper, one had to use the very expensive parchment made of lams/sheeps skin) caused the Dark Ages. The dark ages were named by the Classicists who thought the Roman and Greek culture was marvelous (they had many books and writing) but very little writings of the "barbaric" ages shortly after the fall of the Western Roman empire.

Eastern Roman Empire or later Byzantine Empire never had this backdrop and also due to trading of manuscripts with the Byzantine and the Arabs, Europe revived of the almost non-writing culture or Dark Ages.

Thank you...

says who? furthermore is it simply paedophilia or a desire for any sexual contact at all, expressed through contact with someone the priest considers non-threatening and unable to point out obvious contradictions like "you have taken a vow of celibacy, you're not supposed to do this" ?

Maybe, but many pedophiles are married.

In order to understand the male priesthood, it is important to first understand that Catholicism believes in both the authority of Scripture, and the Authority of Sacred Tradition.

People wonder why Catholics don't allow women to be priests. It IS NOT because women are in any way inferior,less-qualified, or unworthy of this sacrament, rather it is because Catholics believe in order to have a valid sacrament three things must be present: Proper Matter, Proper Form, and Proper Intention. If any of the three is not present the Sacrament is not conferred. For instance, if a priest were to try to consecrate a Chocolate Cake for communion, valid matter would not be present. This is where we come into the problem with women's ordination.

The matter for communion would be wheat bread and grape wine, the matter for ordination would be a man.

This is one of the teachings that is derived mostly from Tradition. It's a constitutive element of the Sacrament of Holy Orders---as such no one, not the pope, not the magesterium, not a council, nobody can change that.

The three reasons that the church cannot ordain women is threefold.

1) The Church can't change valid matter.
2) Sacred Tradition, over 2000 yrs worth has NEVER had a woman priest
3) Jesus didn't ordain any women or call any of them to be apostles--thus excluding even the Blessed Virgin Mary, or any of the women (Mary Magdeline, for instance) who followed him as disciples.

I would also like to correct an earlier poster---The Catholic Church does not allow women deacons, not in the US, not anywhere. Holy Orders cannot be conferred upon a woman and as such her "ordination" would be invalid and illicit. The Code of Canon Law confirms this

CCL:

Canon 1024: Only a baptized male validly receives sacred ordination.

Canon 1026: In order for one to be ordained he ought to possess....

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1577: "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination." The Lord jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

Male only ordination is also held by the Eastern Orthodox church.

-PM

In order to understand the male priesthood, it is important to first understand that Catholicism believes in both the authority of Scripture, and the Authority of Sacred Tradition.

People wonder why Catholics don't allow women to be priests. It IS NOT because women are in any way inferior,less-qualified, or unworthy of this sacrament, rather it is because Catholics believe in order to have a valid sacrament three things must be present: Proper Matter, Proper Form, and Proper Intention. If any of the three is not present the Sacrament is not conferred. For instance, if a priest were to try to consecrate a Chocolate Cake for communion, valid matter would not be present. This is where we come into the problem with women's ordination.

The matter for communion would be wheat bread and grape wine, the matter for ordination would be a man.

This is one of the teachings that is derived mostly from Tradition. It's a constitutive element of the Sacrament of Holy Orders---as such no one, not the pope, not the magesterium, not a council, nobody can change that.

The three reasons that the church cannot ordain women is threefold.

1) The Church can't change valid matter.
2) Sacred Tradition, over 2000 yrs worth has NEVER had a woman priest
3) Jesus didn't ordain any women or call any of them to be apostles--thus excluding even the Blessed Virgin Mary, or any of the women (Mary Magdeline, for instance) who followed him as disciples.

I would also like to correct an earlier poster---The Catholic Church does not allow women deacons, not in the US, not anywhere. Holy Orders cannot be conferred upon a woman and as such her "ordination" would be invalid and illicit. The Code of Canon Law confirms this

CCL:



Catechism of the Catholic Church:



Male only ordination is also held by the Eastern Orthodox church.

-PM

There is evidence that some of Jesus apostles were in fact women. Due to ill translation of hebrew and latin scrolls, some names got a male appendix instead of their original female appendix. I once read an article (scientific, not some sleasy tabloid) on the subject and it seemed to me very well illustrated and substructured with facts. But this of course is an insult to Church :D and I don't think many believers would even want to consider the clear evidence because TRADITION...and so on and so on.



Do you know the real reason why Catholic priests can't get married? In the Early Middle Ages priests were able to get married, but church abbolished it for the following reason. If a priest got children, according to Germanic (Frankish) law, the possesions of the father were divided under the children when he died. But if a priest without any children died, the possesions went to church. So Rome prevented priests from getting married in order to inherit land (and they inherited much land :D). (you may question the credibility of this text, but thats how my History professor thought me and what I've learned from my courses, made by very scholared men on the subject)

Many reasons to prevent things are being explained with false reasons (in this case religios reasons) while there always is a hidden agenda with other interests (more worldly interests, like wealth, power and possession). "Priests can't get married, they have to live a life of celibacy in order to hear God's voice more clearly" this sounds right and religious, but if they said: "priests can't get married or we wouldn't get their possessions when they die" it wouldn't really have caught on I think :p

I would also like to correct an earlier poster---The Catholic Church does not allow women deacons, not in the US, not anywhere. Holy Orders cannot be conferred upon a woman and as such her "ordination" would be invalid and illicit. The Code of Canon Law confirms this


I appriciate the insight. I, however, am going to stick to my earlier statement. I am quite sure female deacons exist in the US.

http://www.global.org/Pub/Burke_Female_Deacon.asp

http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/deac_ord.htm

However, according to your post, all Catholic communion must also be in Latin. It was said that only Mass spoken in Latin would result in proper communion. Sometime near the 18th century or so, the Church changed that and stated any language was acceptable. So, like other languages, could females eventually be capable of performing Mass?

First CATHOLIC PRIESTS CAN GET MARRIED!!!! Latin Rite Catholic Priests can not. Some of the 23 rites of the Catholic Church do allow a married priesthood. I've said this before in THIS VERY thread. If you can't get such a basic fact down it casts serious doubts on any points you may raise.

The only instance of females deacons would be deaconesses. These were women who helped with the immersion baptism of women. They did not receive ordination.

The Catholic Bishops of Arizona are Bishop Olmsted (Phoenix), Bishop Kicanas, Bishop Moreno (Tucson). The website Arcadian Mists cited claimed that the bishop who did this was the bishop of Arizona. There is no Bishop of Arizona. There is a Bishop of Phoenix and a Bishop of Tucson. Further, the "Liberal Catholic Church" is not in communion with the Catholic Church.

Even if the mentioned website had a real Catholic Bishop, no bishop has the power to ordain a woman (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis), just as no priest has the power to consecrate chocolate cake and Coca-Cola.

There was such a thing as a deaconess. A deaconess, did not have the roles of a deacon, however. A deaconess was used to assist in Immersian Baptism of women as well as stand by the doors of the church--they were door(wo)men. They did not receive ordination, they were members of the laity.

Another of the websites Arcadian Mists cited was wrong about minor orders. It said that the minor orders were granted outside of the Eucharist. This is not so. I know for a fact that the minor ordination of an Acolyte takes place (and took place) during the Eucharistic Celebration. Again, messing up simple facts does not bode well for the credibility of the site.

I guess it depends on the country. I am an RC and I have never heard of a married Priest.

Interesting info but it serves no purpose as Priests getting married would not have stopped anything in the Pedophilla scandel.

says who? furthermore is it simply paedophilia or a desire for any sexual contact at all, expressed through contact with someone the priest considers non-threatening and unable to point out obvious contradictions like "you have taken a vow of celibacy, you're not supposed to do this" ?

Says just about every head doc in the world.

If the Priest wanted to get laid, he could get a hooker.

They went after children because they wanted children.

Hello again. I'd like to clarify a little bit more on the married priesthood before I go to bed for the night.

I guess it depends on the country. I am an RC and I have never heard of a married Priest.

Mostly it depends on the Rite, as I stated before there are 23 Catholic Rites. However, in the case of the United States it also depends on Country. In the early days when the Latin Rite moved into the U.S. it was worried that the eastern rites would "take over" here (silly, but true) so in order to keep the Latin rite "on top" so to speak they petitioned to Rome to keep the priesthood unmarried in the U.S.

Over time this has been laxed. We now see converted Anglicans who convert to Catholicism and are allowed to be priests even if they are married, however. The standard in the Americas is for an unmarried priesthood.

Further, I would like to dispel a common mistake (even among Catholic Priests and bishops.) The Catholic Church's name is "Catholic Church" not "Roman Catholic Church." Roman Catholic describes a particular rite, namely the Latin Rite. So when speaking of the entire Church you should say "Catholic", but when speaking of the Latin Rite you can say "Roman Catholic"---but to avoid confusion it is probably better to say "Latin Rite."

See ya'll later.

im new around here and a devout catholic.....i do agree that some of the church's rules are slim and narrow minded but they are there to ensure each and everyone of us a place in heaven. Now yes i do agree that if a priest were allowed to marry there would be less catholic molestations but a priest is married to God...thats why he became a priest. thats like sayin a homosexual cant love another man....he can only love women...thank you.

im new around here and a devout catholic.....i do agree that some of the church's rules are slim and narrow minded but they are there to ensure each and everyone of us a place in heaven. Now yes i do agree that if a priest were allowed to marry there would be less catholic molestations but a priest is married to God...thats why he became a priest. thats like sayin a homosexual cant love another man....he can only love women...thank you.
its 10pm, i have no idea what the fruit you are trying to say

Alcrion,

Could you please clarify part of your post for me? What is like saying that a homosexual can't love a man, only a woman?

However, some of your points are incorrect. Paedophelia is a psycholigical disorder. It has little to know relation to a regular sex drive. Female companionship does not cure it.

And further CATHOLIC PRIESTS CAN GET MARRIED! Just not Latin Rite Catholic Priests, and even in the Latin rite there are some exceptions.

Thanks,

PM

What? Monks and nuns were those who made those ages dark! Their unreflected faith and their inability to scrutinize the theological and historical origins of Christianity was the main reason why almost all education and achievements of civilization were brought to naught in the Middle Ages. Christianity - Catholicism for the main part - has cost the intellectual and cultural evolution of mankind over a thousand years.

thats simple not true the monastiries kept alive learning in the west after the fall of the western roman empire they published books translated works taught people the arts set down an orderly society and were an occasional haven for the lost souls of the world and from barbarian raids