NationStates Jolt Archive

A couple of days ago, I happened upon Metzia's (I think) "Ask a Muslim" thread. While I didn't post any questions, I found a lot of my questions answered. So, realizing that my own religion of Roman Catholicism is also often misunderstood, I would like to invite anyone that has any questions about Catholics or their beliefs to ask, and I'll answer ot the best of my ability.

PLEASE keep it civil and controlled. Thank you.

Is the pope still considered infallible?

I have asked this question to friends who went to catholic prep schools, in french to people in france and in italian to people in italy.

I shall put it to you:

Why is the Pope Catholic?

Is the pope still considered infallible?

That's a tough one. I'd say that the general consensus is "no." I think we've learned way too much from the middle ages and the corrupt popes we had back then. But you'll still find quite a few people who think so.

I have asked this question to friends who went to catholic prep schools, in french to people in france and in italian to people in italy.

I shall put it to you:

Why is the Pope Catholic?

Well, that's an interesting way to phrase the question... for a long time, he wasn't Catholic. He was just Christian. Until the Great Schism where the Greek Orthodox church split apart, and later on the Reformation, there was only one denomination - Christian. The Pope is Catholic because what is known today as "Catholic" is the unbroken tradition from the original Christianity, and the various Protestant and Orthodox denominations broke off from the Catholicism. One of their reason for that was that they didn't like the authority of the Pope. So none of them set up a single Pope-like leader. Therefore, the Pope must be Catholic. I hope that answers your question...

Actualy, from the pope's point of view as his canonical view he will still be considered infallible, its the peple who dont beleive who have the problem (lack of faith)

Anyway, heres my question, in the mass there is a man who blesses the wine and the bread, he is called a sacrificial priest.

So, just what is he sacrificing?

And why, as christ was the final sacrifice.

Which also mean that theres no need for a sacrificial priest anymore because Jesus was also the final priest and sacrifice is no longer needed.

Actualy, from the pope's point of view as his canonical view he will still be considered infallible, its the peple who dont beleive who have the problem (lack of faith)

Anyway, heres my question, in the mass there is a man who blesses the wine and the bread, he is called a sacrificial priest.

So, just what is he sacrificing?

And why, as christ was the final sacrifice.

Which also mean that theres no need for a sacrificial priest anymore because Jesus was also the final priest and sacrifice is no longer needed.

I've actually never heard of him being called a "sacrificial priest." I've always just heard "priest." As such, I can't quite answer your first question. EDIT: Now it hits me. He is symbolically performing the same sacrifice that Jesus performed for us at the Last Supper and his death. I know that the Mass itself seems strange to many non-Catholics, because it's VERY steeped in symbolism and tradition. Most Catholics don't understand all of it. [/EDIT] We perform the sacrament of the Eucharist like that because it allows us all to become closer to Jesus. We are symbolically allowing him to enter into us in an individual way so we can effectively carry out his will. That's how I was taught, anyway.

And yes, you're right about the Pope thing. That's why I said it was a tough question, but he asked what the people believe, and for the most part, the people have lost faith. That's why I said no.

The Pope is Catholic because what is known today as "Catholic" is the unbroken tradition from the original Christianity, and the various Protestant and Orthodox denominations broke off from the Catholicism. One of their reason for that was that they didn't like the authority of the Pope. So none of them set up a single Pope-like leader. Therefore, the Pope must be Catholic. I hope that answers your question...

No.

The Catholic Dogma has almost no basis in Biblical scripture.
from Celebate Priests to Confession.

Christening.

Praying to Saints and the Virgin Mother and Angels.

None of these things has any scriptural basis.

Neither does a Pope.

And no none of the Apostles were ever Pope--check the time line of the ROman Catholic Church.

It traces it's History back to the 600s.

The Protestant split was because of corruption in the Mother Church and the lack Theological foundations for Church pratices.

Actually the idea of the Pope being infalible is a realativly recent doctrinal position, only formalised inthe 18th or 19th century. Furthermore the Pope is not even always infalible in regards to doctrine, but only when he formally declares it, which is rarely, I believe John Paul II only did it a couple of times.

Actually the idea of the Pope being infalible is a realativly recent doctrinal position, only formalised inthe 18th or 19th century. Furthermore the Pope is not even always infalible in regards to doctrine, but only when he formally declares it, which is rarely, I believe John Paul II only did it a couple of times.

Yes, he did only do it a few times. It's overall a rare occurence.

I will also pose this question to you?


Please resolve this with a particualr Catholic practice: Matthew 23:9

I would quote from the Missile--but that book means nothing, so I will stick with the Bible for references to Christianity.

No.
The Catholic Dogma has almost no basis in Biblical scripture.
from Celebate Priests to Confession.
Christening.
Praying to Saints and the Virgin Mother and Angels.
None of these things has any scriptural basis.
Neither does a Pope.
And no none of the Apostles were ever Pope--check the time line of the ROman Catholic Church.
It traces it's History back to the 600s.
The Protestant split was because of corruption in the Mother Church and the lack Theological foundations for Church pratices.

As far as I know (like an atheist would know anything about Catholicism) Peter was the first pope. The rest of the organization sprang up later, but it did spring up. In any case, he said it was drawn from traditions, not scriptures. Christianity isn't just what's in the bible, its what every Christian leader has ever said it was. Constantine's a perfectly legitamate basis.

However, the Roman Catholic Church (and its line of tradition) is hardly the first. To claim that would be forgetting the Armenians, Ethiopians, Coptics, etc., groups that arose before Rome had legalized Christianity and before the east-west schism.

HI there, u posted this:

Well, that's an interesting way to phrase the question... for a long time, he wasn't Catholic. He was just Christian. Until the Great Schism where the Greek Orthodox church split apart, and later on the Reformation, there was only one denomination - Christian. The Pope is Catholic because what is known today as "Catholic" is the unbroken tradition from the original Christianity, and the various Protestant and Orthodox denominations broke off from the Catholicism. One of their reason for that was that they didn't like the authority of the Pope. So none of them set up a single Pope-like leader. Therefore, the Pope must be Catholic. I hope that answers your question...

I have to disagree with your reasons on why they broke away.the roman church was established around 500a.d. so that they could find a way to control the christians who followed Jesus as born again beleivers. The romans, church and government had to find a way to bridle them as it were.

Henceforth the Roman Catholic Church, Please keep in mind at this point that the word Catholic actually means "universal". So they were roman universal believers.

As for the main reason who they broke off from the Catholic church was due to the written text.

Heres a history lesson for you.

The old testament was written in Hebrew and the new in Greek/ arameic, so, when the church went and translated the bible into latin that was when the problems started. Because there is words in latin that you just cant get to fit into the hebrew or the greek, so they make up their own words to fit is, which they could manipulate to control the people. So when they done this they made quite a lot of mistakes in the book.

However, A man came along called Martin Luther and decided that he wuold go back to the original manuscripts of the hebrew and the greek/arameic and start from scratch and bring about an english version, seeing as the english version hade the vocalulary to get a proper translation.

In action to this, the Roman church decided to do the same, however, they made one flaw, instead of going back to the original language they just translated the latin bible into english, henceforth this just carried over the same mistakes.

From this and a trial of martin luther taking place (at the diet of worms) he was asked to renounce his books and burn them and he replied "i cannot do this with all good conscience, however, if you can show me one error in any of what i have written i will recant".

The catholic hierachy were not able to do so with his books, which led to people leaving the catholic church and broadening out as prodestants.

So, i wait your responce

I appreciate your interjection, but no--this is a myth that has been spread bythe Catholic church to justify their doctrine.

At no point does Christ empart upon Peter any special status.
He was never elevated beyond an ordinary man.

He did his work and died--several Hundred years later--his name was Hijacked.

Here's another question for the Roman Catholic: how often do you have to deal with people who think you need to base everything on the bible? :rolleyes:

Seriously, Skibereen, they're Catholics . Unlike for you, for them the bible is not the sole authority.

No.

The Catholic Dogma has almost no basis in Biblical scripture.
from Celebate Priests to Confession.

Christening.

Praying to Saints and the Virgin Mother and Angels.

None of these things has any scriptural basis.

Neither does a Pope.

And no none of the Apostles were ever Pope--check the time line of the ROman Catholic Church.

It traces it's History back to the 600s.

The Protestant split was because of corruption in the Mother Church and the lack Theological foundations for Church pratices.
Actualy it is untrue to say none of the apostles was ever pope, since the pope was originally just the Bishop of Rome, a position held, traditionally, by Peter the first Bishop of Rome. Additionaly the practice of christening, assuming you are refering to babtism which is the onl contects I have ever heard it used in, is based on the baptism of Jesus, by John the Baptist. Futhermore while you are correct in saying the practice of praying to saints, is not based on scripture it is based on the practise of the eary christians in venerating the martyrs.

No.

The Catholic Dogma has almost no basis in Biblical scripture.
from Celebate Priests to Confession.

Christening.

Praying to Saints and the Virgin Mother and Angels.

None of these things has any scriptural basis.

Neither does a Pope.

And no none of the Apostles were ever Pope--check the time line of the ROman Catholic Church.

It traces it's History back to the 600s.

The Protestant split was because of corruption in the Mother Church and the lack Theological foundations for Church pratices.

Matthew 16:18 - "And I tell you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
That looks a basis to me... whether or not he called himself "Pope" doesn't change the spirit of the passage.

As to the prayer to the Saints, Mary, etc. At the time the New Testament was written, they weren't yet saints. They were barely even dead. They were, however, martyrs, and every relgion honors its martyrs.

Is it necessary to confine a faith to the very limited parts that are part of the "Bible"? Sacred texts extend far beyond what is "canon." Our faith is about more than the words of the Bible alone. If it wasn't, we would pretty much be fundamentalists, wouldn't we? (We're not, btw). I didn't say everything we did has a biblical basis either, did I? And, if you aren't using a Catholic bible, then the Scripture is slightly different for you, as we have about 10 more books than Protestant bibles do..

The corruption you refer to was already admitted, see my first response. Notice also that no Protestant denomination has a single Ponitifical leader.

However, A man came along called Martin Luther and decided that he wuold go back to the original manuscripts of the hebrew and the greek/arameic and start from scratch and bring about an english version, seeing as the english version hade the vocalulary to get a proper translation.


You claim to know about history? Quick history lesson: what language did Martin Luther speak? What country did he live in?

Here's another question for the Roman Catholic: how often do you have to deal with people who think you need to base everything on the bible? :rolleyes:

Seriously, Skibereen, they're Catholics . Unlike for you, for them the bible is not the sole authority.
Rex--your an Atheist, therefore I would not suppose to base anything on the Bible--save for maybe one hell of a book report.

Catholics claim to be Christian--one can not be Christian and not Base everything on the Bible--they can do it literally--Metaphorically---but they must do it.

The entire basis of Christianity is the Bible.

Thats like saying I will learn spanish--but only the parts with no Latin--it isnt possible to learn.

You cant be Chrisitian with out the Bible--

Seriously, I am not asking you to be believe--but at least hold people to their own standard.

Any belief system that abandons the very tenets of that system is no longer the old system--it is new and not the former.

Duh.

Here's another question for the Roman Catholic: how often do you have to deal with people who think you need to base everything on the bible? :rolleyes:

Seriously, Skibereen, they're Catholics . Unlike for you, for them the bible is not the sole authority.
Exactly, there are three important aspects to Catolic teachings 1. the Bible 2. Tradition 3. tradition.

Here's another question for the Roman Catholic: how often do you have to deal with people who think you need to base everything on the bible? :rolleyes:

Seriously, Skibereen, they're Catholics . Unlike for you, for them the bible is not the sole authority.

All the time, actually. If we only based things on the Bible, then we would technically be fundamentalists. And that's generally bad.

Rex--your an Atheist, therefore I would not suppose to base anything on the Bible--save for maybe one hell of a book report.

Catholics claim to be Christian--one can not be Christian and not Base everything on the Bible--they can do it literally--Metaphorically---but they must do it.

The entire basis of Christianity is the Bible.

Thats like saying I will learn spanish--but only the parts with no Latin--it isnt possible to learn.

You cant be Chrisitian with out the Bible--

Seriously, I am not asking you to be believe--but at least hold people to their own standard.

Any belief system that abandons the very tenets of that system is no longer the old system--it is new and not the former.

Duh.


We don't "abandon" anything. We just don't RESTRICT ourselves to just what's in the Bible either, because let's face it, the people who compiled and authored it were human. There's more to the religion than this single, albeit VERY important book.

Also, the very basis of Judaism is the Tanakh, but there's a lot more to it than JUST that, isn't there? Or there's more to Islam than solely the Quran.

Matthew 16:18 - "And I tell you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
That looks a basis to me... whether or not he called himself "Pope" doesn't change the spirit of the passage.

As to the prayer to the Saints, Mary, etc. At the time the New Testament was written, they weren't yet saints. They were barely even dead. They were, however, martyrs, and every relgion honors its martyrs.

Is it necessary to confine a faith to the very limited parts that are part of the "Bible"? Sacred texts extend far beyond what is "canon." Our faith is about more than the words of the Bible alone. If it wasn't, we would pretty much be fundamentalists, wouldn't we? (We're not, btw). I didn't say everything we did has a biblical basis either, did I? And, if you aren't using a Catholic bible, then the Scripture is slightly different for you, as we have about 10 more books than Protestant bibles do..

The corruption you refer to was already admitted, see my first response. Notice also that no Protestant denomination has a single Ponitifical leader.

Actually Yes it needed to limit it to the Bible--unless you know of some other Prophets?

Second--Lets quote Scripture Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

How many different translations do you want of that? I have it in both Greek and Hebrew as Well as the 25 other English bibles.

What is it you call priests again?

Rex--your an Atheist, therefore I would not suppose to base anything on the Bible--save for maybe one hell of a book report.

Catholics claim to be Christian--one can not be Christian and not Base everything on the Bible--they can do it literally--Metaphorically---but they must do it.

The entire basis of Christianity is the Bible.

Thats like saying I will learn spanish--but only the parts with no Latin--it isnt possible to learn.

You cant be Chrisitian with out the Bible--

Seriously, I am not asking you to be believe--but at least hold people to their own standard.

Any belief system that abandons the very tenets of that system is no longer the old system--it is new and not the former.

Duh.

So because you probably can't even read the language of the original bible (sorry if you can, my mistake) you're not a Christian either, right?

Christianity is usually defined as following JC, not following the bible. To early Catholics is was defined as following the pope. You can't just arbitrarily decide on a definition and say that's what a religion is because if people claim to be of that religion and don't follow that definition then guess which one's wrong? Words mean what people use them for. It's called Semiotics.

And you did not deal the with the Idolatry practiced by praying to Mary and the "Saints".

Rex--your an Atheist, therefore I would not suppose to base anything on the Bible--save for maybe one hell of a book report.

Catholics claim to be Christian--one can not be Christian and not Base everything on the Bible--they can do it literally--Metaphorically---but they must do it.

The entire basis of Christianity is the Bible.

Thats like saying I will learn spanish--but only the parts with no Latin--it isnt possible to learn.

You cant be Chrisitian with out the Bible--

Seriously, I am not asking you to be believe--but at least hold people to their own standard.

Any belief system that abandons the very tenets of that system is no longer the old system--it is new and not the former.

Duh.
Actually concidering the New Testament was written after christianity had all ready started to spread, and that the Bible as we know it today wasn't canonized with all its books until the fourth century, and concidering their are numerous books which had been writen that were rejected when the New Testement was finaly canonized, it is whollly inacurate to say christianity has to be based on the Bible. After all it had been around for over three hundred and seventy years by the time the Bible even entered int the mater.

So because you probably can't even read the language of the original bible (sorry if you can, my mistake) you're not a Christian either, right?

Christianity is usually defined as following JC, not following the bible. To early Catholics is was defined as following the pope. You can't just arbitrarily decide on a definition and say that's what a religion is because if people claim to be of that religion and don't follow that definition then guess which one's wrong? Words mean what people use them for. It's called Semiotics.

You can not follow the JC without the Bible--following the Pope does not make you Christian.

There is no Historical evidence to support the Catholic claims that Peter was the first Pope. All they have is that single line--which is not ever used in contest.

Peter was a proven living man--they have his letters. and relatively accurate record of his life. He was not the founder of the Catholic church in any form.

Or there's more to Islam than solely the Quran.

Nitpick: actually in the case of Islam the Quran is infallible and meant to be taken literally. Catholicism is not Islam.

To Skibereen and Jesus is Life:

Catholics do not have to follow the bible, they have to follow their own complicated doctrinal systems. They are allowed to do that because they make their own rules. Get over it.

Actually Yes it needed to limit it to the Bible--unless you know of some other Prophets?

Second--Lets quote Scripture Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

How many different translations do you want of that? I have it in both Greek and Hebrew as Well as the 25 other English bibles.

What is it you call priests again?

Well, granted, I don't know why we call priests "father." However, that's a relatively minor point in the religion.

Not Prophets, as that generally refers to Old Testament figures. But there are works by men of great faith that hold substantial weight. Take either of Saint Augustine's two books. OR Saint Thomas Acquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles . Should we disregard them because those men didn't live in the year 33? That's awfully closed-minded and it's not good for one's understanding of God. I don't remember Jesus ever claiming that nobody after him would have a connection to God that allows them to understand more about faith than other people.

If we can't base things on more than the Bible, that's like saying that everything America does should be limited solely to what's in the Constitution. Ultimately, it's dumb.

Nitpick: actually in the case of Islam the Quran is infallible and meant to be taken literally. Catholicism is not Islam.

Granted, I got a little hasty on my comparison.

There's so much misinformation in this thread already, we need an authority of some sort.

http://www.catholic.com/default.asp

Keep in mind, when judging a church (or anything else) it's important to understand how they view themselves, not just get your information from those outside the church or even opposed to it.

And no offense to the OP, his intentions are good but I do not believe his knowledge is airtight enough to fully explain some of the more involved questions dealing with church practice.

Words mean what people use them for?

Semiotics? More like semantics.

This is not a question of semiotics. You shgould be ashamed of muddling up an already mudding subject like the suppositions of Barthes and Morris with your inane use of their ideas.

And you did not deal the with the Idolatry practiced by praying to Mary and the "Saints".
It is not idoltry since they are not worshiped, when one prays to the saints one is merley requesting that they, being exempliary individuals close to God, intercede with the Lord on our behalf. Its no diferent then a Protestant asking their Bible Group to pray for them. It hasn't allways bee this way and it did become riddled with superstition at times such as during the Middle Ages, but all christians were guilty of that during those times.

And you did not deal the with the Idolatry practiced by praying to Mary and the "Saints".

Ok, any Catholic knows this. It's not idolatry. Mary and the other Saints cannot do anything on their own. However, since they're in heaven, they can talk to God and intercede on our behalf. It's hardly idolatry to ask someone to help you by pleading your case to the Lord.

A couple of days ago, I happened upon Metzia's (I think) "Ask a Muslim" thread. While I didn't post any questions, I found a lot of my questions answered. So, realizing that my own religion of Roman Catholicism is also often misunderstood, I would like to invite anyone that has any questions about Catholics or their beliefs to ask, and I'll answer ot the best of my ability.

PLEASE keep it civil and controlled. Thank you.

How true is this? (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp)

There's so much misinformation in this thread already, we need an authority of some sort.

http://www.catholic.com/default.asp

Keep in mind, when judging a church (or anything else) it's important to understand how they view themselves, not just get your information from those outside the church or even opposed to it.

And no offense to the OP, his intentions are good but I do not believe his knowledge is airtight enough to fully explain some of the more involved questions dealing with church practice.

Ha, no offense taken. I'm not an expert, I just thought I'd try to do what I could. I'd have to agree, I still do have a lot to learn

You can not follow the JC without the Bible--following the Pope does not make you Christian.

There is no Historical evidence to support the Catholic claims that Peter was the first Pope. All they have is that single line--which is not ever used in contest.

Peter was a proven living man--they have his letters. and relatively accurate record of his life. He was not the founder of the Catholic church in any form.

1. Does Jesus even say anything about the bible? No, he never saw one!
2. Peter was the founder of the Catholic Church in the same way that Jesus was the founder of the Christian Church: both started after the founded died. By founder they don't mean "started every single tradition" or even "knew such a thing as so-and-so church would even ever exist, merely that their story is part of Church dogma. Note that I say part: a religion only has to follow every dictate in a book if they declare that to be the case. Catholicism does not. Islam and some Protestant branches do. Catholicism is neither Islam, nor Protestant. Give up already.

It is not idoltry since they are not worshiped, when one prays to the saints one is merley requesting that they, being exempliary individuals close to God, intercede with the Lord on our behalf. Its no diferent then a Protestant asking their Bible Group to pray for them. It hasn't allways bee this way and it did become riddled with superstition at times such as during the Middle Ages, but all christians were guilty of that during those times.
It is idolatry--as the Bible, there goes that crazy christian scripture thing--expressly forbides attempting to commune with the dead--point 1.

Point two--if you are Christian then to whom are you supposed to pray to ?

Not forgeting that Christ named us all--including himself equal brothers under God. So no one is any more closer to God then another.

Vegas Rex an Atheist is as Close to God as the Pope himself, or any other man.

You can not follow the JC without the Bible--following the Pope does not make you Christian.

There is no Historical evidence to support the Catholic claims that Peter was the first Pope. All they have is that single line--which is not ever used in contest.

Peter was a proven living man--they have his letters. and relatively accurate record of his life. He was not the founder of the Catholic church in any form.
And they don't claim that they claim that as I said before the Pope as the BISHOP of Rome is the heir to Peter, who was as the leader of the Christian community of Rome the first Bishop of Rome.
edit: and if the Bible is necesary for a group to be christian that means that no one was christian until the 4th century when the New Testement was compiled, before that IT didn't exist in any formalized form.

1. Does Jesus even say anything about the bible? No, he never saw one!
2. Peter was the founder of the Catholic Church in the same way that Jesus was the founder of the Christian Church: both started after the founded died. By founder they don't mean "started every single tradition" or even "knew such a thing as so-and-so church would even ever exist, merely that their story is part of Church dogma. Note that I say part: a religion only has to follow every dictate in a book if they declare that to be the case. Catholicism does not. Islam and some Protestant branches do. Catholicism is neither Islam, nor Protestant. Give up already.

The Christian Church started with Christ--while he was alive.

Who do to think the Apostles worked for?

It isnt about giving up--I am not wrong.

Words mean what people use them for?

Semiotics? More like semantics.

This is not a question of semiotics. You shgould be ashamed of muddling up an already mudding subject like the suppositions of Barthes and Morris with your inane use of their ideas.

I formally apologize for not knowing what the heck semiotics is. I should not have used the word. I am a bad person.

Nevertheless, words do mean what people use them for. As Catholics claim to be Christian (and would probably be called so by a majority of the world's population) any definition of Christianity has to include them. As for them the bible is not an ultimate authority, Christianity does not require the bible to be an ultimate authority.

Words mean what people use them for?

Semiotics? More like semantics.

This is not a question of semiotics. You shgould be ashamed of muddling up an already mudding subject like the suppositions of Barthes and Morris with your inane use of their ideas.
Shgould? More like Should.

You Shgould be ashamed of playing spelling Nazi when you're just as imperfect.

And the Saints and Mary aren't worshiped, they're venerated. When we "pray to" a Saint or Mary, we actually just ask that they join in our prayers in whatever we're hoping. The other idea behind praying to Mary, especially for sinners, is that the Mother of God may sometimes intercede in Judgement and take pity on the sinner

I mean, think about it. A kid does something naughty....who's he more likely to tell? Mum, who might get mad but ultimately break down and forgive him and give him a cookie, or Dad, who's going to send him to his room, possibly with a very sore behind, and ground him?

Ok, ok you win.

Catholics dont follow Christ they follow the Pope and Peter.
You got me, I stand corrected.

Bible either.

I formally apologize for not knowing what the heck semiotics is. I should not have used the word. I am a bad person.

Nevertheless, words do mean what people use them for. As Catholics claim to be Christian (and would probably be called so by a majority of the world's population) any definition of Christianity has to include them. As for them the bible is not an ultimate authority, Christianity does not require the bible to be an ultimate authority.
Not to mention that concidering that no one followed the Bible the way he is calling for until the time of Luther, that would mean that no one was Chroistian, by the definition he gives, untill the Reformation.

It is idolatry--as the Bible, there goes that crazy christian scripture thing--expressly forbides attempting to commune with the dead--point 1.

Point two--if you are Christian then to whom are you supposed to pray to ?

Not forgeting that Christ named us all--including himself equal brothers under God. So no one is any more closer to God then another.

Vegas Rex an Atheist is as Close to God as the Pope himself, or any other man.
Bible says a lotta things mate.

One question for ya- one word question.....


Dinosaurs.

The Christian Church started with Christ--while he was alive.

Who do to think the Apostles worked for?

It isnt about giving up--I am not wrong.

So Christ told people to believe that he died and was ressurected? Before said things happened? And not that they were going to happen, but that they already happened? Gee, he must've had a screwy sense of time.

If you use your own definition of Christianity (or many others, there are a lot that require belief in death+ressurection) then Christianity had to have started after JC's death. If you want to change your definition, press 1, now.

Edit: NVM, he accepted the concept, albeit belligerently. Let's get back to questions. Here's two: are all Catholics required to believe the same things, religiously speaking? Same interpretations, etc.? Also, what do you think of Dante's inferno. Accurate? Or not at all?

Simonist']Shgould? More like Should.

You Shgould be ashamed of playing spelling Nazi when you're just as imperfect.

And the Saints and Mary aren't worshiped, they're venerated. When we "pray to" a Saint or Mary, we actually just ask that they join in our prayers in whatever we're hoping. The other idea behind praying to Mary, especially for sinners, is that the Mother of God may sometimes intercede in Judgement and take pity on the sinner

I mean, think about it. A kid does something naughty....who's he more likely to tell? Mum, who might get mad but ultimately break down and forgive him and give him a cookie, or Dad, who's going to send him to his room, possibly with a very sore behind, and ground him?

Idiot!!! Semiotics and Semantics are two different words-- I was calling what he was calling semiotics--semantics. Loser, only dumbasses who have nothing at all to attempt to contribute to the conversation becasue of lack of intelligence correct other posters spelling. It is annoying and unimpressive.
I dont do spell check because I am certain my fellow debaters can infer through context. They seemd to do fine--sorry you couldnt keep up on the short bus.

So Christ told people to believe that he died and was ressurected? Before said things happened? And not that they were going to happen, but that they already happened? Gee, he must've had a screwy sense of time.

If you use your own definition of Christianity (or many others, there are a lot that require belief in death+ressurection) then Christianity had to have started after JC's death. If you want to change your definition, press 1, now.
I gave up....EDITED--bam--while I stand by my points--you did catch me in a semantic mistake. Good show.

Bible either.
I wish people would pay attention to me :rolleyes:
Catholic doctrine is based on three count them three things
1. The Bible, yes we use the bible we just suplement it.
2. Tradition, these are the practices that developed as part of the christian faith around the time of its formation they are unchangble.
3. tradition, these are traditions and practicesthat have developed over the ages the Catholic church has existed. These are open to changes laid down by church councles.

Loser, only dumbasses who have nothing at all to attept to contribute to the conversation......
Oh, so I'm the only Catholic you're letting off the hook with this whole believing thing? That's kind of you. But I believe I did have more to add to the conversation, but wait, oh yes....you're too busy flaming near and far to take any mentionable notice :rolleyes:

That's a tough one. I'd say that the general consensus is "no." I think we've learned way too much from the middle ages and the corrupt popes we had back then. But you'll still find quite a few people who think so.
The Pope wasn't considered infalible until the First Vatican Council- a mere centure before he Vatican II. Definitly not the middle ages. It is still a church teaching.

I wish people would pay attention to me :rolleyes:
Catholic doctrine is based on three count them three things
1. The Bible, yes we use the bible we just suplement it.
2. Tradition, these are the practices that developed as part of the christian faith around the time of its formation they are unchangble.
3. tradition, these are traditions and practicesthat have developed over the ages the Catholic church has existed. These are open to changes laid down by church councles.

I paid attention to you.

I wish people would pay attention to me :rolleyes:
Catholic doctrine is based on three count them three things
1. The Bible, yes we use the bible we just suplement it.
2. Tradition, these are the practices that developed as part of the christian faith around the time of its formation they are unchangble.
3. tradition, these are traditions and practicesthat have developed over the ages the Catholic church has existed. These are open to changes laid down by church councles.
If the other side ignores your argument, it means they probably have nothing to shoot it down with. If your side ignores your statement, it means we're probably too busy to take time to quote it. But as I was going to say before I got tied up in something else (back when you first posted this), it's a great point that non-Catholics, especially frighteningly fundamentalist Christians, will ALWAYS refuse to acknowledge.

I paid attention to you.
Thank you, ;) I was of course refering to those going on about how Catholicism has practices not mentioned in the Bible.

Simonist']Oh, so I'm the only Catholic you're letting off the hook with this whole believing thing? That's kind of you. But I believe I did have more to add to the conversation, but wait, oh yes....you're too busy flaming near and far to take any mentionable notice :rolleyes:
No I took your bait--I believe you called me a Nazi--because you were too stupid to look up a word.

I did not flame anyone--but you.

I am argueing with everyone else--you are the only one talking about spelling.

Simonist']If the other side ignores your argument, it means they probably have nothing to shoot it down with. If your side ignores your statement, it means we're probably too busy to take time to quote it. But as I was going to say before I got tied up in something else (back when you first posted this), it's a great point that non-Catholics, especially frighteningly fundamentalist Christians, will ALWAYS refuse to acknowledge.

Agreed. And it really starts to get on one's nerves after the 10th time or so...

No I took your bait--I believe you called me a Nazi--because you were too stupid to look up a word.
No, I called you a Nazi more because it was much kinder than what I'd wanted to call you. I, unlike you, don't like to stoop to simply insulting people I don't agree with, as you've done several times over in this thread.

And I thought you gave up. What the hell happened to that?

Agreed. And it really starts to get on one's nerves after the 10th time or so...
Whoa, you're THAT tolerant? I can't stand it after like.....the second. The way I see it, if these people need it explained more than once, they really don't deserve to know from me, because I can't stand to have to drill non-religious (or non-Catholic, as even the other Christians screw it up sometimes) people on Church history more often than I want to -- which is never, anyway. It serves no purpose, they never want to do anything but argue. And arguing faith is just about as stupid as trying to convince somebody that "left" and "right" were screwed up from the start.

The Pope wasn't considered infalible until the First Vatican Council- a mere centure before he Vatican II. Definitly not the middle ages. It is still a church teaching.

Yeah, but the things that happened in the past still translate into some doubt when it is declared. Even though it wasn't declared, they were still Popes, and they were still corrupt. Declaring later occupants of the position infallible almost seems retroactive, you know?

Yeah, but the things that happened in the past still translate into some doubt when it is declared. Even though it wasn't declared, they were still Popes, and they were still corrupt. Declaring later occupants of the position infallible almost seems retroactive, you know?
Although they are only infallible when they formally declare so, its always important to remember that qualifier, or people can get some crazzzzy ideas.

Simonist']Whoa, you're THAT tolerant? I can't stand it after like.....the second. The way I see it, if these people need it explained more than once, they really don't deserve to know from me, because I can't stand to have to drill non-religious (or non-Catholic, as even the other Christians screw it up sometimes) people on Church history more often than I want to -- which is never, anyway. It serves no purpose, they never want to do anything but argue. And arguing faith is just about as stupid as trying to convince somebody that "left" and "right" were screwed up from the start.

I try to be tolerant. It gets hard, but, thankfully, I have a lot of patience. You've certainly got a point, they're never really interested in what you have to say.

Although they are only infallible when they formally declare so, its always important to remember that qualifier, or people can get some crazzzzy ideas.

Yeah, that's true.

I wish people would pay attention to me :rolleyes:
Catholic doctrine is based on three count them three things
1. The Bible, yes we use the bible we just suplement it.
2. Tradition, these are the practices that developed as part of the christian faith around the time of its formation they are unchangble.
3. tradition, these are traditions and practicesthat have developed over the ages the Catholic church has existed. These are open to changes laid down by church councles.
First, and this isnt directed at Psyker.
I take no offense at being called a Fundamentalist--the Fundamentals of anything are what are important--hence the name.

Second, directed at Psyker--I didnt ignore you-- I was never talking to you.
Vegas argued that Catholics were not subject to scriptural Laws--the Bible has no supplements.

Traditions are not based in Christian Scipture--so they are not Christian.

I have a lot of traditions related to my family-- I dont try to pass them off as religion.

Catholics do not follow the Bible--they follow church Canon which is far from Scripturally sound.

Now if any of you actually believe in God in the Christian sense you can not possibly argue from dismissing the Bible.

Simon--you are still an idiot--quoting the peopple actually offering something is not you your self being involved it is called parroting.

Well, that's an interesting way to phrase the question... for a long time, he wasn't Catholic. He was just Christian. Until the Great Schism where the Greek Orthodox church split apart, and later on the Reformation, there was only one denomination - Christian. The Pope is Catholic because what is known today as "Catholic" is the unbroken tradition from the original Christianity, and the various Protestant and Orthodox denominations broke off from the Catholicism. One of their reason for that was that they didn't like the authority of the Pope. So none of them set up a single Pope-like leader. Therefore, the Pope must be Catholic. I hope that answers your question...

It was a bigger split then just the greeks it was the whole eastern group of churches there are several and i could argue in the other way that it was you catholics who made the split nessecary because you had diverted i am coptic Orthodox the Church of Egypt set up by st. mark without a single change from the very begining. we have been more succesfull at fighting off diviance then you guys. we have several diferent groups we are all sister churches that can take comunion or the eucarist at anyone there is also syrian Indian Arminian and a few otherers greek split off from us yet again because they were getting rid of stuff that they souldnt have. i am just outlining the eastern portion a little so you do not make any improper asumptions. We have a pope to. Each has a Pope of its own. For the Most part the Egyptian pope is sort of the leader of the others. Monestysim was developed by us by st Antonious the great. Our sixth pope St. Athenesious Wrote the creed which even the catholics used to follow. All of the Early councile of churches were held by the eastern churches and the catholics were at many of them and were a part of them before the split so do not act all high and mighty saying that the catholics were the solid original group. as far as what the split was about i am not sure. but i can try to find out.

First, and this isnt directed at Psyker.
I take no offense at being called a Fundamentalist--the Fundamentals of anything are what are important--hence the name.

Second, directed at Psyker--I didnt ignore you-- I was never talking to you.
Vegas argued that Catholics were not subject to scriptural Laws--the Bible has no supplements.

Traditions are not based in Christian Scipture--so they are not Christian.

I have a lot of traditions related to my family-- I dont try to pass them off as religion.

Catholics do not follow the Bible--they follow church Canon which is far from Scripturally sound.

Now if any of you actually believe in God in the Christian sense you can not possibly argue from dismissing the Bible.

Simon--you are still an idiot--quoting the peopple actually offering something is not you your self being involved it is called parroting.


Ok, I'm going to say this one last time, because it's been repeated several times already.

WE DO NOT DISMISS THE BIBLE. WE ARE SIMPLY NOT NAIVE ENOUGH TO THINK THAT EVERYTHING IS CONTAINED WITHIN IT. IT IS A BOOK WRITTEN BY HUMANS. THERE IS MORE TO A RELIGION THAN ONE BOOK OR THERE WOULD NOT BE A THOUSAND DENOMINATIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.

First, and this isnt directed at Psyker.
I take no offense at being called a Fundamentalist--the Fundamentals of anything are what are important--hence the name.

Second, directed at Psyker--I didnt ignore you-- I was never talking to you.
Vegas argued that Catholics were not subject to scriptural Laws--the Bible has no supplements.

Traditions are not based in Christian Scipture--so they are not Christian.

I have a lot of traditions related to my family-- I dont try to pass them off as religion.

Catholics do not follow the Bible--they follow church Canon which is far from Scripturally sound.

Now if any of you actually believe in God in the Christian sense you can not possibly argue from dismissing the Bible.

Simon--you are still an idiot--quoting the peopple actually offering something is not you your self being involved it is called parroting.
Your right Traditions aren't based on the bible they are based on christian practices that predated the bible, which wasn't compiled until the 4th cenury, surely you are not going to argue that non of the followers of christ previouse to the creation of the bible were christian? As for the scriptoral basis for Catholic doctrine I suggest you read the Catholic Chaticism or speak to a Catholic priest, they would be able to show you how, at least as far as Catholics are concerened, based on the bible.

Simon--you are still an idiot--quoting the peopple actually offering something is not you your self being involved it is called parroting.
Who before me said anything about veneration as opposed to worship? Nothing that I read at the time of post. But as a reminder, I walked off in the middle of typing, so if anything did come up not only could I have NOT read about it, but also I probably started typing at the same time or before they finished addressing the points in their own posts. As it is, I don't really give enough of a crap to go back and double-check because I don't care one way or the other if you're even just making that up, which I wouldn't doubt. I mean, you made this up, apparently:
I gave up....
A proven liar.

Piekrom']It was a bigger split then just the greeks it was the whole eastern group of churches there are several and i could argue in the other way that it was you catholics who made the split nessecary because you had diverted i am coptic Orthodox the Church of Egypt set up by st. mark without a single change from the very begining. we have been more succesfull at fighting off diviance then you guys. we have several diferent groups we are all sister churches that can take comunion or the eucarist at anyone there is also syrian Indian Arminian and a few otherers greek split off from us yet again because they were getting rid of stuff that they souldnt have. i am just outlining the eastern portion a little so you do not make any improper asumptions. We have a pope to. Each has a Pope of its own. For the Most part the Egyptian pope is sort of the leader of the others. Monestysim was developed by us by st Antonious the great. Our sixth pope St. Athenesious Wrote the creed which even the catholics used to follow. All of the Early councile of churches were held by the eastern churches and the catholics were at many of them and were a part of them before the split so do not act all high and mighty saying that the catholics were the solid original group. as far as what the split was about i am not sure. but i can try to find out.


You're right about that. I said Greek Orthodox, but I meant all Orthodox churches, and the no Pope thing was more referring to current Protestant denominations. You have my apologies for that mistake. Congratulations on your limited deviance too.

As far as I know (like an atheist would know anything about Catholicism) Peter was the first pope. The rest of the organization sprang up later, but it did spring up. In any case, he said it was drawn from traditions, not scriptures. Christianity isn't just what's in the bible, its what every Christian leader has ever said it was. Constantine's a perfectly legitamate basis.

However, the Roman Catholic Church (and its line of tradition) is hardly the first. To claim that would be forgetting the Armenians, Ethiopians, Coptics, etc., groups that arose before Rome had legalized Christianity and before the east-west schism.

your an idiot
catholicism wasnt practiced til the 400's when the romans decided how to worship jesus, they rid jesus's teachings of anything they thought would attach them to thier paegan beliefs. so peter being the first pope is you being an idiot. Peter was crucified upside down where the vaticant is now built so i would hardly say that he was considered by many very worthy of praise in his day.(other than the christians*)

your an idiot
catholicism wasnt practiced til the 400's when the romans decided how to worship jesus, they rid jesus's teachings of anything they thought would attach them to thier paegan beliefs. so peter being the first pope is you being an idiot. Peter was crucified upside down where the vaticant is now built so i would hardly say that he was considered by many very worthy of praise in his day.(other than the christians*)
History claims Peter requested to be crucified upside down because he didn't feel he was worthy to die in the same fashion as his Lord.

Next?

Edit: Myrcia.....is your nation The Holy Republic of Myrcia? Just curious.

Piekrom']It was a bigger split then just the greeks it was the whole eastern group of churches there are several and i could argue in the other way that it was you catholics who made the split nessecary because you had diverted i am coptic Orthodox the Church of Egypt set up by st. mark without a single change from the very begining. we have been more succesfull at fighting off diviance then you guys. we have several diferent groups we are all sister churches that can take comunion or the eucarist at anyone there is also syrian Indian Arminian and a few otherers greek split off from us yet again because they were getting rid of stuff that they souldnt have. i am just outlining the eastern portion a little so you do not make any improper asumptions. We have a pope to. Each has a Pope of its own. For the Most part the Egyptian pope is sort of the leader of the others. Monestysim was developed by us by st Antonious the great. Our sixth pope St. Athenesious Wrote the creed which even the catholics used to follow. All of the Early councile of churches were held by the eastern churches and the catholics were at many of them and were a part of them before the split so do not act all high and mighty saying that the catholics were the solid original group. as far as what the split was about i am not sure. but i can try to find out.
If I remember correctly the split, at least with the Greek Orthodox branch, was over the Bishiop of Constantiople(sp) and a few of the other major cities of the Eastern Roman Empire didn't want to recognize the authority of the Bishiop of Rome(Pope) and that the Bishiop of Rome(pope) didn't like the power the Eastern Roman Emperor had over the Bishiops of his area.

your an idiot
catholicism wasnt practiced til the 400's when the romans decided how to worship jesus, they rid jesus's teachings of anything they thought would attach them to thier paegan beliefs. so peter being the first pope is you being an idiot. Peter was crucified upside down where the vaticant is now built so i would hardly say that he was considered by many very worthy of praise in his day.(other than the christians*)

And Catholics claim to descend from the traditions of those Christians. Whether the traditions have changed or not is irrelevant: Peter is their first pope, albeit posthumously.

First, and this isnt directed at Psyker.
I take no offense at being called a Fundamentalist--the Fundamentals of anything are what are important--hence the name.

Second, directed at Psyker--I didnt ignore you-- I was never talking to you.
Vegas argued that Catholics were not subject to scriptural Laws--the Bible has no supplements.

Traditions are not based in Christian Scipture--so they are not Christian.

I have a lot of traditions related to my family-- I dont try to pass them off as religion.

Catholics do not follow the Bible--they follow church Canon which is far from Scripturally sound.

Now if any of you actually believe in God in the Christian sense you can not possibly argue from dismissing the Bible.

Simon--you are still an idiot--quoting the peopple actually offering something is not you your self being involved it is called parroting.


Who says we're passing familial traditions of as religion?? Correct me if Im wrong (those of you who actualy have a non fundementalist Christian biased knowledge of Catholicism ) Weren't the traditions were agreed upon by the church way back when?

Obviously you've never been to catechism classes (3yrs :) ) because all we were pretty much 50/50 with bible and traditions...

NO ONE IS DISMISSING THE BIBLE!

I thought it was called giving support?

And another thing, this is called ask questions about Catholicism, not let's get out the Bible and thump people with it on the head thread.

your an idiot
catholicism wasnt practiced til the 400's when the romans decided how to worship jesus, they rid jesus's teachings of anything they thought would attach them to thier paegan beliefs. so peter being the first pope is you being an idiot. Peter was crucified upside down where the vaticant is now built so i would hardly say that he was considered by many very worthy of praise in his day.(other than the christians*)
The tradition of Peter being the first pope stems from the fact that the Pope is the Bishiop of Rome. Peter is traditionally regarded as the first Bishiop of Rome because he was the first leader of the christians in Rome. Since he was the first Bishiop of Rome and the Bishiop of Rome is the pope, Catholic tradition teaches that he was the first pope.

By the way, could we ressurrect the original purpose of this thread? I have a few more questions.

Simonist']
Edit: Myrcia.....is your nation The Holy Republic of Myrcia? Just curious.

It is indeed.

By the way, could we ressurrect the original purpose of this thread? I have a few more questions.

Please do, I beg you.

It is indeed.
Lovely. Check your telegrams.

Love to stay and chat, but I've got to get out....I feel I've put off the family gathering long enough to be "fashionably late" but still have time to talk to everybody.....

Please do, I beg you.
K. Here they are:

Are Catholics supposed to all have the same interpretations of passages, or can they agree to disagree?

Is the stuff in Dante's Inferno accurate? If not, what's Hell like?

And finally, the most annoying question of all (I know this is answerable, I want to see if you can answer it): Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

No.

The Catholic Dogma has almost no basis in Biblical scripture.
from Celebate Priests to Confession.

Christening.

Praying to Saints and the Virgin Mother and Angels.

None of these things has any scriptural basis.

Neither does a Pope.

And no none of the Apostles were ever Pope--check the time line of the ROman Catholic Church.

It traces it's History back to the 600s.

The Protestant split was because of corruption in the Mother Church and the lack Theological foundations for Church pratices.

Our priest do not have to be celebate except for monks bishops and the pope have to be. we are Coptic Orthodox. One of the first priest ordained by St. Mark was married in our church. Mark also made the second pope of our church because he was so busy runing inbetween ethiopia us and jerusalem that he was not going to be able to guid it well so he made our 2nd pope and called him pope so yes the title does have precedence in the appostles as far as christening remember the meating with Nicodemus in the bible Jesus said asuredly i say to you if you are not born again of water and spirit you will not enter the kingdom of heven. When he healed the blind man that was anouther symbole of baptisum. The eucaris is the las supper he said take eat this IS MY BODY AND THIS IS MY BLOOD given to you as a new covenent. Confesion is also fro jesuses comands to his decipels when he said the sins of those you forgive will be forgiven the ones you retain shall be retained.

K. Here they are:

Are Catholics supposed to all have the same interpretations of passages, or can they agree to disagree?

Is the stuff in Dante's Inferno accurate? If not, what's Hell like?

And finally, the most annoying question of all (I know this is answerable, I want to see if you can answer it): Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

1)No- i personally believe there is 'wriggle' room to interpret the meanings so as to adapt them to your life and help you live better.

2)Its a book..... Is the 'Hulk' accurate? :D

3)....I doubt it...

1)No- i personally believe there is 'wriggle' room to interpret the meanings so as to adapt them to your life and help you live better.

That's true, have you noticed how Catholicism differs from place to place?

K. Here they are:

Are Catholics supposed to all have the same interpretations of passages, or can they agree to disagree?

Is the stuff in Dante's Inferno accurate? If not, what's Hell like?

And finally, the most annoying question of all (I know this is answerable, I want to see if you can answer it): Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?
1. not really they just have to agree to follow the Catholic Catechism. Although we don't all do that either ;)
2. I wouldn't think so Dante wasn't a theologan or anything, just an Italian author. Although it is quite possible that parts were incorporated or inspired by the more superstitious, by whom I mean the populance of medeval/rennesance europe, it isn't official doctrine or anything.
3.beats th shit out of me I'm not high ;)

1)No- i personally believe there is 'wriggle' room to interpret the meanings so as to adapt them to your life and help you live better.


My point was less if there was wriggle room (since we've already established there is) but whether all you guys have to wriggle the same way. It seems like the main reason Protestantism started was because they wanted to wriggle a different way.

2. I wouldn't think so Dante wasn't a theologan or anything, just an Italian author. Although it is quite possible that parts were incorporated or inspired by the more superstitious, by whom I mean the populance of medeval/rennesance europe, it isn't official doctrine or anything.


He was an apologist, however (sorta), and he claimed divine inspiration. He was a weird guy.

My point was less if there was wriggle room (since we've already established there is) but whether all you guys have to wriggle the same way. It seems like the main reason Protestantism started was because they wanted to wriggle a different way.
its relaxed since the reformation in the 1500s. :rolleyes:

the bible was not writen by humans rather it was writen by the finger of god through his spirit through different vesseles over time Oh and there ar about 6 books missing from the old testament that were taken out by the jews during 70 something ad because they did not like the fact that the aposteles were using them and convincing many that christ was the missia so they set up four rules it had to be writen in hebrew had to be written before 300 bc and i forget the other two but in the end a lot was lost and the catholics took that old testament instead of the septugent writen in greek in alexandria around 200 bc by 72 elders of the the jews each was seperated into different rooms to translate all the books each by them selves into greek they did not have any contact with each other and all 72 copies were word for word exactly the same. this is were the story of simon at the temple starts for it was at this time that he was told he would not see death till he had seen christ

He was an apologist, however (sorta), and he claimed divine inspiration. He was a weird guy.
thats kind of what I was thinking of when I mentioned it may have tied into Catholic mythology. I just think its funny that he stuck all the people who got him exiled from Italy in hell. That was one hell of a revenge.

My point was less if there was wriggle room (since we've already established there is) but whether all you guys have to wriggle the same way. It seems like the main reason Protestantism started was because they wanted to wriggle a different way.

Not at all. To a certain extent nationality comes into play- Irish Catholics differ from Spanish who differ from Poles etc etc (just picked the 3 that came to mind). They would each have particular emphasis on certain aspects more so then others.

Instead of thinking so much of the Bible as the "Word of God" *deep booming voice*, try and think of it as a philosophical guide on how to live a bit better. Treating others well, caring, sharing and generally showing 'love' to your fellow human (whatever the creed).

Not at all. To a certain extent nationality comes into play- Irish Catholics differ from Spanish who differ from Poles etc etc (just picked the 3 that came to mind). They would each have particular emphasis on certain aspects more so then others.

Instead of thinking so much of the Bible as the "Word of God" *deep booming voice*, try and think of it as a philosophical guide on how to live a bit better. Treating others well, caring, sharing and generally showing 'love' to your fellow human (whatever the creed).

Again, we've already established that to you guys the bible works like that, but what about church authority? Do they just manage rites, or do they have some official (not necessarily listened to) power over what you believe? If so, how much?

K. Here they are:

Are Catholics supposed to all have the same interpretations of passages, or can they agree to disagree?

Is the stuff in Dante's Inferno accurate? If not, what's Hell like?

And finally, the most annoying question of all (I know this is answerable, I want to see if you can answer it): Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

1 and 3 I've actually asked a number of different people, including nuns, priests, and Scripture teachers. Here's what I understood from them...

1) If all Catholics have the same interpretations of passages, and we followed them exactly, we wouldn't be individuals. We'd be robots. As with any interpretation of anything there's a personal meaning and a literal meaning. The literal meaning applies to what the author was trying to say to his/her intended audience, while the personal meaning is how it applies to us.

2) Not positive on this, but I do not believe any book other than those found in the Bible have been confirmed for divine inspiration. However, when these books with vivid descriptions of Hell were written, they provided an excellent excuse for Catholics to be good Catholics. Why stop that which is useful?

3) That question cannot be properly answered on the human understanding of the universe. Normally, there's two answers. If he can't create a rock so big that he cannot lift it, then he's not all-powerful. But if he can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it, then he's still not all-powerful.

One theory is that God exists on multiple layers/dimensions of space and time. Therefore, in one layer the rock is too big for him to lift, yet in another he can.

Again, we've already established that to you guys the bible works like that, but what about church authority? Do they just manage rites, or do they have some official (not necessarily listened to) power over what you believe? If so, how much?

Yeah, you have to belive certain things, and know certain things, like prayers and such. Also, there are certain guide lines that you have to follow in order to call yourself a Catholic.

Oh and about the asking of the intersesions of the st.'s that is its proper name not praying to them it does have reference to the blble to remember the wedding of canna of gallely sorry i can not spell why did jesus preform the mirrical of turning the wather to wine because st. mary asked him to. that was an intersesion of the mother of god the ever virgin st. mary on behalf of the people hosting the wedding

r do they have some official (not necessarily listened to) power over what you believe? If so, how much?

Nominal influence. don't forget the offical Church line re condoms os that the are 'illegal' in their sense.
:rolleyes:

its nice to have a bigger brother there in a sense to guide us if we falter- show us that sometimes we think things through too quickly and makes sure that everyone more or less believes in the same basic principles.

Think of the British Royal family and their 'power' and you have a rough comparison.

its nice to have a bigger brother there in a sense to guide us if we falter- show us that sometimes we think things through too quickly and makes sure that everyone more or less believes in the same basic principles.

It is nice :)

okay got a question. How important is communion (not sure what Catholics call it)

My daughter has celiac disease and cannot have wheat (even a very small amount will make her very sick) my current protestant church has no problem with her bringing gluten-free wafers but I remember a news story that said that the Catholic church requires wheat in the communion waffers.

I also heard that if you are Catholic and you don't participate in communion then you go to hell.

Would my daughter automatically go to hell because of an auto-immune disorder that she has no control over?

that doesn't seem fair if it is true.

Nominal influence. don't forget the offical Church line re condoms os that the are 'illegal' in their sense.
:rolleyes:

its nice to have a bigger brother there in a sense to guide us if we falter- show us that sometimes we think things through too quickly and makes sure that everyone more or less believes in the same basic principles.

Think of the British Royal family and their 'power' and you have a rough comparison.
This kind of sumes it up, the rules that are "non-negotitable," unless changed by a Church councel appear in the Catholic Cathecism.

here is a question-- and i know i should know this being a Roman Catholic and all (k-8 in a parochial school and three more years of catechisim)

I went to a lutheran college and had to take the required theology classes there. During the Old Testament/New Testament classes I saw in their boble the "missing" books (the apothreca (sp?)). Of course i exclaimed to my friends- Wow, your bible has more books than mine at home. I never learned the reason why we, as Roman Catholics, ad those books removed from our portion (talking more so King James version) of the bible. It was probably taught at some point, but, for the life of me, cannot remember why...... any ideas???

okay got a question. How important is communion (not sure what Catholics call it)

My daughter has celiac disease and cannot have wheat (even a very small amount will make her very sick) my current protestant church has no problem with her bringing gluten-free wafers but I remember a news story that said that the Catholic church requires wheat in the communion waffers.

I also heard that if you are Catholic and you don't participate in communion then you go to hell.

Would my daughter automatically go to hell because of an auto-immune disorder that she has no control over?

that doesn't seem fair if it is true.

Oye...Where do I start?

Have you ever read the Bible? Because we can go to hell (apparently) for almost anything!

Seriously, do you think that when the issue of communion was first raised 2,000 years ago, the went 'It HAS to be wheat guys'. Talk to the Priest- he'll fill you in on the specifics regards the wheat-free communion possibilities.

As for the 'going to hell if you don't'.....in the end its the BELIEF in the transubstantiation that counts- not the physical act of consuming it. Faith is more important than ritual ;)

okay got a question. How important is communion (not sure what Catholics call it)

My daughter has celiac disease and cannot have wheat (even a very small amount will make her very sick) my current protestant church has no problem with her bringing gluten-free wafers but I remember a news story that said that the Catholic church requires wheat in the communion waffers.

I also heard that if you are Catholic and you don't participate in communion then you go to hell.

Would my daughter automatically go to hell because of an auto-immune disorder that she has no control over?

that doesn't seem fair if it is true.
As far as I know this isn't the case, I know that it is allowed for alcoholics to use grapejuce instead of wine at communion, and the Parish I attend, to put it losely, dosen't always use the standered wafers, but unleavened bread made by one of our parishoners, so I realy doubt that that would be a propblem.

I went to a lutheran college and had to take the required theology classes there. During the Old Testament/New Testament classes I saw in their boble the "missing" books (the apothreca (sp?)). Of course i exclaimed to my friends- Wow, your bible has more books than mine at home. I never learned the reason why we, as Roman Catholics, ad those books removed from our portion (talking more so King James version) of the bible. It was probably taught at some point, but, for the life of me, cannot remember why...... any ideas???

I don't know of these 'missing books'- but i don't use the Kings James version... well to be honest i haven't even glanced at a Bible in MANY years!

Probably something to do with 'false prophets' or some other malarky.

here is a question-- and i know i should know this being a Roman Catholic and all (k-8 in a parochial school and three more years of catechisim)

I went to a lutheran college and had to take the required theology classes there. During the Old Testament/New Testament classes I saw in their boble the "missing" books (the apothreca (sp?)). Of course i exclaimed to my friends- Wow, your bible has more books than mine at home. I never learned the reason why we, as Roman Catholics, ad those books removed from our portion (talking more so King James version) of the bible. It was probably taught at some point, but, for the life of me, cannot remember why...... any ideas???
I'm not really sure but I do remember that there are some books that we have that they don't, I can't remember of the top of my head.

As far as I know this isn't the case, I know that it is allowed for alcoholics to use grapejuce instead of wine at communion, and the Parish I attend, to put it losely, dosen't always use the standered wafers, but unleavened bread made by one of our parishoners, so I realy doubt that that would be a propblem.
here ya go (http://www.csaceliacs.org/CDintheNews/NJCoastStar080304.php)

now could you please explain about the significance of communion in the Catholic church?

not that we are going to switch I am just curious.

okay got a question. How important is communion (not sure what Catholics call it)

My daughter has celiac disease and cannot have wheat (even a very small amount will make her very sick) my current protestant church has no problem with her bringing gluten-free wafers but I remember a news story that said that the Catholic church requires wheat in the communion waffers.

I also heard that if you are Catholic and you don't participate in communion then you go to hell.

Would my daughter automatically go to hell because of an auto-immune disorder that she has no control over?

that doesn't seem fair if it is true.

I think if your a Catholic, you will only go to hell if you dont take communion if you have gone through the Holy Sacrament of reconciliation ... if not then, I see no reason why she cant go to heaven

Oye...Where do I start?

Have you ever read the Bible? Because we can go to hell (apparently) for almost anything!

Seriously, do you think that when the issue of communion was first raised 2,000 years ago, the went 'It HAS to be wheat guys'. Talk to the Priest- he'll fill you in on the specifics regards the wheat-free communion possibilities.

As for the 'going to hell if you don't'.....in the end its the BELIEF in the transubstantiation that counts- not the physical act of consuming it. Faith is more important than ritual ;)
yeah. I am quite aware of all that (I am a fundamentalist Christian) I was asking the "Catholic" who was explaining everything.

here ya go (http://www.csaceliacs.org/CDintheNews/NJCoastStar080304.php)

now could you please explain about the significance of communion in the Catholic church?

not that we are going to switch I am just curious.
To be fair- the are a lot of asshats in power (politics, religion etc etc). Differing Bishops and Archbishops might have differing opinions on that.

Its the FIRST Holy Communion- its different from regular. This is the first time one really becomes an active part in the Catholic family.

Is it the First Holy Communion you are interested in, or merely the theory of transubstantiation?

here ya go (http://www.csaceliacs.org/CDintheNews/NJCoastStar080304.php)

now could you please explain about the significance of communion in the Catholic church?

not that we are going to switch I am just curious.
Well thats a load of BS, of course referring(I just cant seem t spell today) to the diocees stance, I don't know I have never realy heard anything on this before.

yeah. I am quite aware of all that (I am a fundamentalist Christian) I was asking the "Catholic" who was explaining everything.
"Catholic" as opposed to Catholic.....? Say what?

here is a question-- and i know i should know this being a Roman Catholic and all (k-8 in a parochial school and three more years of catechisim)

I went to a lutheran college and had to take the required theology classes there. During the Old Testament/New Testament classes I saw in their boble the "missing" books (the apothreca (sp?)). Of course i exclaimed to my friends- Wow, your bible has more books than mine at home. I never learned the reason why we, as Roman Catholics, ad those books removed from our portion (talking more so King James version) of the bible. It was probably taught at some point, but, for the life of me, cannot remember why...... any ideas???

I actually awnsered thin in a previous post but i shall re quote it

the bible was not writen by humans rather it was writen by the finger of god through his spirit through different vesseles over time Oh and there ar about 6 books missing from the old testament that were taken out by the jews during 70 something ad because they did not like the fact that the aposteles were using them and convincing many that christ was the missia so they set up four rules it had to be writen in hebrew had to be written before 300 bc and i forget the other two but in the end a lot was lost and the catholics took that old testament instead of the septugent writen in greek in alexandria around 200 bc by 72 elders of the the jews each was seperated into different rooms to translate all the books each by them selves into greek they did not have any contact with each other and all 72 copies were word for word exactly the same. this is were the story of simon at the temple starts for it was at this time that he was told he would not see death till he had seen christ

[QUOTE=Psychotic Mongooses]To be fair- the are a lot of asshats in power (politics, religion etc etc). Differing Bishops and Archbishops might have differing opinions on that.
QUOTE]
I hope this is the case cause thats just messed up.

To be fair- the are a lot of asshats in power (politics, religion etc etc). Differing Bishops and Archbishops might have differing opinions on that.

Its the FIRST Holy Communion- its different from regular. This is the first time one really becomes an active part in the Catholic family.

Is it the First Holy Communion you are interested in, or merely the theory of transubstantiation?
not really worried about it at all as I am protestant and not converting.

I just thought it was unfair for the church to demand that someone with a disease do something that would make them very sick in the name of tradition.

My church relies more on the action of communion than what the waffers are made of. They have no problem with gluten free waffers for her, so it really isn't a problem for us.

I am just trying to understand.

"Catholic" as opposed to Catholic.....? Say what?
sorry. my bad.

[QUOTE=Psychotic Mongooses]To be fair- the are a lot of asshats in power (politics, religion etc etc). Differing Bishops and Archbishops might have differing opinions on that.
QUOTE]
I hope this is the case cause thats just messed up.
I have a strong suspicion that it is very much like policing- the 'letter' of the law and the 'spirit' of the law.
The more 'reformist' minded Bishops would tend towards the more modern world with its modern problems (ie special medical diets and such). Its rare to come across those 'old school' clergy, but the obviously still exist.

[QUOTE=The Psyker]
I have a strong suspicion that it is very much like policing- the 'letter' of the law and the 'spirit' of the law.
The more 'reformist' minded Bishops would tend towards the more modern world with its modern problems (ie special medical diets and such). Its rare to come across those 'old school' clergy, but the obviously still exist.
Well I guess that probably depends on where your at, we have more than our fair share of "old school" priests in my area, the scary part is that the young priests seem to be even more "old school" than the older priests who are more influenced by Vatican 2.

sorry. my bad.
No worries :p

I agree- it is very unfair and highly unusual- i have never heard of such a rejection in my country (good traditional Catholic one it is :D ).

Do the physical traditions really matter THAT much to you in the end? I personally would just try to focus in the spritual side of things- then later, the physical will fall into place.

But i seriously suggest you talk with the Priest or representative of the Archdiocese- i haven't heard of anything so... rigid (frankly since the reformation) The Second Laternan Council was meant to have dealt with all that phooey :mad:

Was a Roman Catholic till like a year ago...... then I was non-attending Catholic, now I'm agnostic.

I am Coptic orthodox and i shall explain a little about the symbolisime and the facts of actions that take place during the mass as far as transfiguration is concerned and the making of the bread there might be many simularities. so i shall give a base structure to build off. first it is round or circular to represent eternity or infinite never ending which ever word you want ours has one big cross four little crosses in each of the gaps around tha bigg cross in the center and eight more around the edge two above and two bellow and two to either side. for the twealve apostles and jesus there are also five holes around the big central cross to represent the five wond points of jesus one for the crown two one for each hand one for the spear and one for the feet. i shall draw the image as best i can
O+ +
+'+|+'+
+:+|+.+
O+ +
now one difference is that ours uses yeast because yeast represents sin and god took the sins of the world upon himself. we also use salt for we are the salt of the earth as god has said several time in his teachings. we use wheat flour because it has to do with a symbolizim it had ever since the old testoment at present i can not remember. The wine in the chalice is actualy a mixtur of 2/3 wine and 1/3 water to represent the two fluids flowing out of christ when he was pierced in the side. We also only use one loaf to feed all. we beleive that through the mass the bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of jesus christ. In our church there have been many miricals proving this and lending witness even to modern times i shall talk about those insidences if you guys want but all in all that is the symbolisime and necesity to some of what is done i am certain though that there might be some leaniancey on the wheat problem but what it is i am not certain.

Do the physical traditions really matter THAT much to you in the end? I personally would just try to focus in the spritual side of things- then later, the physical will fall into place.

But i seriously suggest you talk with the Priest or representative of the Archdiocese- i haven't heard of anything so... rigid (frankly since the reformation) The Second Laternan Council was meant to have dealt with all that phooey :mad:
yeah. like I said earlier, it really isn't a problem for us since we are not Catholic.

I just thought for sure that I was wrong about how strict the rules were though. I will get in touch with the Archdiocese though just because I am ubercurious about it.

to demonstrate though how serious it is for someone who has celiac disease to eat gluten (the protien found in wheat rye barley and oats)
when my daughter turned one and I intoduced crackers into her diet in the span of 2 weeks she lost 11 pounds and ended up on a feeding tube for 6 weeks and then on a full liquid diet for 3 months after.

there is enough gluten in 1/48 of a peice of cracker to do serious damage to her intestines, for 6-9 weeks she will have vomiting and diarrhea and will be unable to absorb any food at all, basically no matter how much she eats even if it is gluten-free she will starve to death until her intestines are healed. That is just for a typical patient. My daughter is so sensitive that we took her on a hay ride (in sweats tucked into socks with mittens and a surgical mask) and she broke out in hives and still has stomache problems 2 weeks later and she didn't even eat the hay, or let it touch her skin she just breathed it in. (they told us the hay was made from corn stalks, we found out later it was wheat hay.) :(

One thing I have always been curious about with Catholicism is praying the rosary, because I know of no other denomination of Christianity that appears to encorporate a meditative practice in its religion.

Is praying the rosary something that is practiced with regularity among the laity, or is it something where the only people that do it regularly are priests and nuns?

well that is not only with catholics it is also in orthodoxy and muslims also use rosery beads. the muslem one however does not have a cross obviously.

Is praying the rosary something that is practiced with regularity among the laity, or is it something where the only people that do it regularly are priests and nuns?

Not necessarily. Amongst the elderly more so. Many faiths use similar things to rosaries- Judaism methinks, and possibly Islam.

Essentially, its a reminder of how many prayers they have left to say in that set (hence you'll see people furtively moving the beads in their hands as they speed through them:D ) The clergy carry them openly, but i know of some people who carry them in handbags or backpockets....especially around final exam time :p

Not necessarily. Amongst the elderly more so. Many faiths use similar things to rosaries- Judaism methinks, and possibly Islam.

Essentially, its a reminder of how many prayers they have left to say in that set (hence you'll see people furtively moving the beads in their hands as they speed through them:D ) The clergy carry them openly, but i know of some people who carry them in handbags or backpockets....especially around final exam time :p
how do you know how many prayers you are "supposed" to pray?
I don't count my prayers, I just pray without ceasing, I am never done.

I don't understand please explain.

That's a tough one. I'd say that the general consensus is "no." I think we've learned way too much from the middle ages and the corrupt popes we had back then. But you'll still find quite a few people who think so.
Actually, the Pope, the Papal curia, and Roman Catholic doctrine consider the Pope infallible only when he speaks 'ex cathedra' on matters of faith or morals.

how do you know how many prayers you are "supposed" to pray?
I don't count my prayers, I just pray without ceasing, I am never done.

I don't understand please explain.

This kinda sums it up

ro·sa·ry
n., pl. -ries.
Roman Catholic Church.
A form of devotion to the Virgin Mary, chiefly consisting of three sets of five decades each of the Hail Mary, each decade preceded by the Lord's Prayer and ending with a doxology.
One of these sets of decades.
A string of beads of 5 or 15 decades on which these prayers are counted.
Similar beads used by other religious groups.

Or a more detailed explanation here... this actually surprised me a bit:
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Indices/Inspirations/rosary.html

*INTERRUPTION*

THE POPE IS NOT INFALLIBLE!

Misunderstood indeed. He's only protected from error when laying down doctrine.

ye, i heard something like that as well when late woytila died and the new pope bendikt was installed..it was something about how woytila said he'd had some kind of a vision..but the other church officials in the vatican (sorry my church vocab is sorta limited) didn't fancy the idea of catholics all over the world having to believe in it (must have been some strange vision) so he had to declare it as a private opinion or something along that line so that catholics were allowed to disagree with it. so he's only infallible on official announcements and doctrines, i guess.

edit// i knew there was a word for it: it's "ex cathedra" that he has to speak when wanting t claim infallibility. bus as my english is limited..let wikipedia speak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility