NationStates Jolt Archive

After the longest amount of research I've ever done for a thread in Ns General (two weeks), I'd like to dispell some common misconceptions about Catholics.

Using condoms is a sin: This is an out and out lie. The truth of the matter is using condoms for contraception, is a sin.

There are two doctrines that allow for the use of condoms by Catholics. The first being the Principle of the Unjust Attacker, which allows a Catholic to defend themselves against harm and states there is no harm to their immortal soul in doing so. The second in the Principle of Double Effect, that is the commission of a normally sinful act, to prevent a greater wrong. Such as in the case of Jezabel

"Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing the sexual transmission of the HIV virus. Condoms are only 99.9%. However, if you cannot abstain, then it is better to be 99.9% sure." -Cardinal Francis Arinze

Homosexuality is a sin: Again, a missunderstanding. Oral and anal intercourse are sins.

HOWEVER, there is a loophole. In the case of a married couple who cannot produce children, the Doctrine of Repoduction, should state they should not have sex. As a child is unlikely to result. This becomes void, however, if they create a Catholic Family by means of aboption and adherence to Catholic teaching on family life. Specifically ensuring the Christening, First Communion, Affirmation, Confirmation, Baptism, etc, of the child(ren).

This princiiple can be extended to homosexual couples who PARTICIPATE IN A FAITHFUL AND CATHOLIC RELATIONSHIP.

Catholics worship Mary: Catholics venerate Mary. In the same way a person admires a football star, but does not worship them in the same way they practice a religion.

That's all for now, there are a few more. But I'm waiting on my Confessor to get back to me with some documents.

Oral and anal intercourse are sins.
Two reasons I could never, ever, EVER become a Catholic:(

Catholics worship Mary: Catholics venerate Mary. In the same way a person admires a football star, but does not worship them in the same way they practice a religion.
That is, quite possibly, the first time the Virgin Mother has ever been compared to a football player. Good work!

Homosexuality is a sin: Again, a missunderstanding. Oral and anal intercourse are sins. :(

However, you're wrong on the next bit - Catholic doctrine states that homosexual sex is a sin no matter what.

:(

However, you're wrong on the next bit - Catholic doctrine states that homosexual sex is a sin no matter what.
The loophole is the Principle of the Loving Baron is Dogma and the Second Vatican Council states that we must accept it as Divine Truth.

Risking Herasy, we have no choice but to allow homosexual sex.

That is, quite possibly, the first time the Virgin Mother has ever been compared to a football player. Good work!
I don't know, both are quite similar. For example, either one could recieve a "Hail Mary".

Two reasons I could never, ever, EVER become a Catholic:(
Follow my lead and go to Confession(Reconciliation) every two-three days...;)

The loophole is the Principle of the Loving Baron is Dogma and the Second Vatican Council states that we must accept it as Divine Truth.

Risking Herasy, we have no choice but to allow homosexual sex.
Are you sure of this? It sounds very interesting indeed, yet why then is the Catholic Church so vehemently opposed to homosexuality in itself, both in terms of the faithful and the Vatican?

The loophole is the Principle of the Loving Baron is Dogma and the Second Vatican Council states that we must accept it as Divine Truth.

Risking Herasy, we have no choice but to allow homosexual sex. I haven't the faintest what the Principle of the Loving Baron is Dogma is, and I must go now, so please telegram me. :)

Does this mean John Paul II and Benedict XVI were/are heretics?

Follow my lead and go to Confession(Reconciliation) every two-three days...;)
That's a good solution :D

That is, quite possibly, the first time the Virgin Mother has ever been compared to a football player. Good work!
I do what I can...

I haven't the faintest what the Principle of the Loving Baron is Dogma is, and I must go now, so please telegram me. :)

Does this mean John Paul II and Benedict XVI were/are heretics?
I'm a Catholic, so I'm not going to call Their Holinesses heretics, but I will say their doctrines risk their immortal souls and that where not spoken with ex cathedra authority, they commit(ed) the sin of heresy.

I'm a Catholic, so I'm not going to call Their Holinesses heretics, but I will say their doctrines risk their immortal souls and that where not spoken with ex cathedra authority, they commit(ed) the sin of heresy.
Noone is infallible I guess, not even the Popes. I think they dropped the whole infallibility clause ages ago though.

...I will say their doctrines risk their immortal souls and that where not spoken with ex cathedra authority, they commit(ed) the sin of heresy.
w00+!

Now you're my kind of Catholic! Bold and forthright!

r u dissing catholics????????? :eek:

Noone is infallible I guess, not even the Popes. I think they dropped the whole infallibility clause ages ago though. No. Another common misunderstanding. Infallibility only applies to strict conditions involving doctrinal law involving either faith or morals.

I hate it when people talk bad about us... :mad: :headbang:

Oral and anal intercourse are sins.

Nonsense, within Catholicism they are perfectly acceptable between married partners if they do not preclude full vaginal penetration as part of the sexual activities.

Principle of the Loving Baron I looked it up - couldn't find it anywhere.
Nonsense, within Catholicism they are perfectly acceptable between married partners if they do not preclude full vaginal penetration as part of the sexual activities. As far as I understand, natural contraception is allowed because it is natural. Would anal/oral possibly count as natural (provided by God)? They could if you looked at them in a certain light... or maybe I'm spouting heresy here.

That is, quite possibly, the first time the Virgin Mother has ever been compared to a football player. Good work!

Right, it's quite strange to compare the Virgin Mary, a result of someone's imagination/alucinations, and a football player, a person who indeed exists.

Are you sure of this? It sounds very interesting indeed, yet why then is the Catholic Church so vehemently opposed to homosexuality in itself, both in terms of the faithful and the Vatican?
Because conservatives hate gay people?

I looked it up - couldn't find it anywhere.
As far as I understand, natural contraception is allowed because it is natural. Would anal/oral possibly count as natural (provided by God)? They could if you looked at them in a certain light... or maybe I'm spouting heresy here.

Not everything that a couple do together/to each other needs to contain the possibility of conception.

I haven't the faintest what the Principle of the Loving Baron
The Principle of the Loving Baron sounds like a weird Medieval Gay Porno.

I hate it when people talk bad about us... :mad: :headbang:
Rotovia is a Jew-Catholic, so he's in the loop. Ironically he's also out of it,

r u dissing catholics????????? :eek:
Nope.

R U jumping to conclusions?

Because conservatives hate gay people?
Can they justify this hatred in terms of doctrinal principles though? From what you have just said, they can't. If the Church is meant to promote respect between neighbours, how can it go about preaching hatred?

I looked it up - couldn't find it anywhere.If you were stupid enough to look it up on Google, you won't find it. Go to your local Catholic Parish or Seminary and they should be able to fill you in on the specifics. I spent days going through Church Archives to find it.

As far as I understand, natural contraception is allowed because it is natural. Would anal/oral possibly count as natural (provided by God)? They could if you looked at them in a certain light... or maybe I'm spouting heresy here. Not heresy. But not Catholic Doctrine. Natural contraception has always been allowed (ie The Rhythm Method). However, anal and oral sex are considered sins "...where the desired result is not pro-creation..."

I hate it when people talk bad about us... :mad: :headbang:
Mr Coookies, I am a Catholic. A black, jew, atheist, catholic. But a catholic none the less

Anyway people, I'm off to work. I'll try to answer any questions or comments tonight... assuming a bunch of white people don't mistake me for Lebanese...

Oral and anal intercourse are sins?

Does the order you do them in make a difference? :p

Mr Coookies, I am a Catholic. A black, jew, atheist, catholic. But a catholic none the less
Out of boredom, can you explain to me why an atheist would attend confession? I can see the rest of the stuff (e.g. mass, commnion) because just about every social club that you join will require stupid things from you, but confession?

Out of boredom, can you explain to me why an atheist would attend confession? I can see the rest of the stuff (e.g. mass, commnion) because just about every social club that you join will require stupid things from you, but confession?

Afterlife Insurance. :)

Oral and anal intercourse are sins?

Does the order you do them in make a difference? :p

Unless I'm missing out an a mathematical possibility, I believe that simultaneous oral and anal intercourse is probably a sin, but there may be a position I haven't yet considered.

Anyone else ever thought that seminary sounds to much like seminal?

Affirmation? I'm Catholic and I've never heard the term. Although I could just be stupid...explain?

The Truth About Catholics

When I first read this, I thought, "Uh oh, not again!" Thanks for posting things I've been trying to explain on this forum since I've been here!

Be well!:D

Khleb za khleb, krov za krov!-Heinkel Wulf

Oh, and thank you for clearing all this up for others. I've seen it and just felt too lazy to correct them or explain.

Anyway people, I'm off to work. I'll try to answer any questions or comments tonight... assuming a bunch of white people don't mistake me for Lebanese...

Ah, so you're Australian, then?

How seriously you take things...
Like rules for instance.

I was raised a Catholic, but I was never too bothered about all the rules about contraception or drugs or sex before marriage. There are far more important things to worry about like respecting other people and your family etc.

Its a bit like the cannibis law in Britain - its still officially illegal, but the police aren't looking for it unless you light up in front of them or deal. They've got far bigger fish to fry like murder, terrorism and rape. Its an old rule that the leaders don't know how to get rid of without losing face.

Another thing: You might say that Catholics believe this or that or do such and such. That's just as stupid as saying that Muslims are terrorists just because of the opinions or actions of a very small minority...

Another thing: You might say that Catholics believe this or that or do such and such. That's just as stupid as saying that Muslims are terrorists just because of the opinions or actions of a very small minority...

No, that's not stupid actually. Nice try though. It's perfectly fine to say, for instance, that Catholics believe in God. The Catholics that do believe in God are definitely not a small minority. If you were going to say that Catholics worship the devil or something, then sure, that'd be stupid, since the majority don't.

No, that's not stupid actually. Nice try though. It's perfectly fine to say, for instance, that Catholics believe in God.

... Yeah good point. But I was really referring to the statement about sexual practices & beliefs that started this forum. What I mean is that these things don't define Catholics.
They're just rules handed down from the authorities that may or may not be followed in practice, and those who break them may still consider themselves Catholic depending on their individual point of view...

:(

However, you're wrong on the next bit - Catholic doctrine states that homosexual sex is a sin no matter what.
smacks head on table.:headbang: no no no. Homosexual intercourse is a sin. Same rule applies to hetro intercourse of the unmarried. Thats what i was taught in religous ed school, so if some homophobe who claims hes an all knowing catholic out there claims otherwise, it is becuase of his agenda not the churches.

I'm not sure if i will remember to cover everything I read in this thread but I will try to tie up a couple remaining loose ends. First I would like to thank everyone for their patience and willingness to listen, as I myself am a Catholic and to see people jump to conclusions/prejudge etc.

Catholicism does not promote towards s. We teach that being thus oriented is a sad disorder of the passions, but not the individuals fault. God will give the grace to overcome this if you ask. It is partaking in acts that is sinful as it goes against natural order (the way God intended our bodies to be used).

The part about Catholics not worshipping Mary is true. It is veneration, specifically called hyperdulia.

Sex is not a sin. with someone to whom you are not married (fornication) is sinful because is a gift to be shared with one person. It is an act in which to give your whole self to the other person without holding back and in pure love, and only out of love should new life be brought forth. This is why contraception is a sin, you are using your body to say that you only want to share this with the other person for your own pleasure, you don't want to be open to the fruits of your love. This is also why In Vitro fertilization is wrong, life is to be brought forth out of love because humans have dignity, not out of a dish. Natural Family Planning is ok, it involves having at the times of month when your spouse is not fertile. You are still open to the possibility of there being conception if God so chooses there to be. I do not know the exact stats on it but it also has a very high percentage of success.

Double Effect Principle. This example should sum it up well: A woman gets a pregnancy where the baby gets stuck in the fallopian tube. This will other, and very likely kill the baby. The doctor removes the tube to save the mother's life, but sadly allowing the bad of the child's . Or in a war you attack a military target and a civilian is killed, it is ok because you did not intend the civilian (bad act) and would have not done it if you could have avoided it.

In reconciliation/confession/penance to be truly forgiven you need to have contrition, either perfect or imperfect. perfect=sorry because you offended god, imperfect=sorry because you are afraid of hell. either will do. You must also at the time of confession be honestly going to try not to continue in the sin(s) you are confessing. That doesnt mean you won't ever do them again but you must at least try. You must do the penance assigned by the priest in a timely fashion. Finally you must confess all mortal sins in confession (venial is optional but recomended). If you satisfy these 3 things you can be assured that in God's eyes your sins are wiped away never to be mentioned again. The seal of confession says if a priest (or anyone who may have overheard your confession) tells anyone else your sins they are automatically excommunicated (kicked out of Catholic church) and the priest (in this instance) will have to go to confession to the pope to be re-instated. So confession is not to be feared but it is a gift.

Papal infallibility. To be infallible the Pope must be speaking on a matter of faith and morals, and satisfy some other requirements that i am currently blanking out on. It does not happen often, and the requirements are strict, but it does exist. It means that when the requirements are met, through God's grace God will keep the pope from speaking wrongly (on fatih and morals).

"You might say that Catholics believe this or that or do such and such. That's just as stupid..."
You are right and wrong. It should be stated, Catholicism teaches.... blah blah. But just because it conflicts with your point of view doesn't mean it isn't sinful. I don't mean to be judging you. It's called being a 'cafeteria Catholic' picking and choosing what you'd like to believe. If you have a building and you choose to remove just a few stones that you don't like then you weaken the whole structure and risk it collapsing. Similarly you cannot take just some things and believe them, it doesn't make sense, you either take the religion or leave it, you cannot have half of it, no more than you can take out just half of the building's support beams, it will collapse, and the faith will stop making sense and be useless.

Again I appreciate everyone's open-mindedness to discussion. Please bear in mind that if you don't understand something and then it seems like illogical bigotry, it's because you don't understand it. All official Catholic teachings have their basis in sacred scripture (bible) and/or tradition. Also, if you have a question about something, consult the Catechism Of The Catholic Church, it may seem confusing but it isn't really, and is directed at all Catholics. I say consult this because everyone even Catholic priests, bishops, popes, etc, are sinners and could possibly be mistaken on an issue. I have seen before someone saying but a priest told me it was ok. Priests are human, they make mistakes, they aren't perfect, every word out of their mouths isn't doctrine, but they should be respected for the work they do and suffering they endure.

Any further questions please ask! Probably telegram is the best, and i will try my best to reply ASAP, though I am very busy.

At risk of braking my self-imposed vow, I'll just say I'm glad that you're helping to dispell some myths about Catholics, Rotovia.

First I would like to thank everyone for their patience and willingness to listen, as I myself am a Catholic and to see people jump to conclusions/prejudge etc.

Catholicism does not promote towards s.


???

At risk of braking my self-imposed vow, I'll just say I'm glad that you're helping to dispell some myths about Catholics, Rotovia.
*grabs brick, pauses*
Hm, maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt?
*thinks about it*
Nah he went close enough.
*Throws brick, knocking Bolol out*

*grabs brick, pauses*
Hm, maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt?
*thinks about it*
Nah he went close enough.
*Throws brick, knocking Bolol out*

*Tis knocked out*

???
Claims that Catholics promoted the letter "S" (often refered to as "The Devil's Letter") abounded during the reforrmation, often promoted by slogans such as "You can't have Slanderous Sex without Catholicism's "S". For years, they have struggled in vain to shrug off that complaint, as Catholicism was designed to promote libel, not Slander.

interesting, the computer i'm on has a filter, though i didnt think that would affect what i posted in so much as you being unable to read it. it should have read: does not promote h a tr e d towards _ _ _ s.
lets see if that gets cencored. anyway i apologize if you cannot read something, ask and i'll tell you.

ok it still didnt work, try this gamer slang
h0m053xua75

ok it still didnt work, try this gamer slang
h0m053xua75
YAY! 1337-5P34K triumphs over all!

*snip*we have no choice but to allow homosexual sex.

God I love hearing that! :D

interesting, the computer i'm on has a filter, though i didnt think that would affect what i posted in so much as you being unable to read it. it should have read: does not promote h a tr e d towards _ _ _ s.
lets see if that gets cencored. anyway i apologize if you cannot read something, ask and i'll tell you.

ok it still didnt work, try this gamer slang
h0m053xua75

As an experiment try and see if it blocks the word 'heterosexual', would you?

YAY! 1337-5P34K triumphs over all!

7h47 15 50 94y.

As an experiment try and see if it blocks the word 'hetero ', would you?

haha, i would enjoy that. $5 says it don't. here goes: hetero hetero ual

i stand corrected, it edited it as both one word and as two, it has a problem with the 53xu47 part i guess. dumb dumb dumb, that is why i h4t3 filters, not bcz of their intended purpose, but because of the side effects like this.

7h47 15 50 94y.
F0R5007h

haha, i would enjoy that. $5 says it don't. here goes: hetero hetero ual

Nope, it didn't like that.

How about these geographical locations...

Essex?
Scunthorpe?
Fotheringay Castle?
Penistone?

The loophole is the Principle of the Loving Baron is Dogma and the Second Vatican Council states that we must accept it as Divine Truth.

Risking Herasy, we have no choice but to allow homosexual sex.

Revisionist Catholicism. :mad:

Are you sure of this? It sounds very interesting indeed, yet why then is the Catholic Church so vehemently opposed to homosexuality in itself, both in terms of the faithful and the Vatican?

Because the Church considers it a sin.

7h47 15 50 94y.

N07 64Y, H0M053XU47, 63355H P73453 N07 5UCH D3R46470RY 57473M3N7S! lmao

ps i use 7 as t and L. that's k05h3r right? lmao

Nope, it didn't like that.

How about these geographical locations...

Essex?
S horpe?
Fotheringay Castle?
Penistone?

Essex = 3553x, S horpe = 5cun7h0rp3, Fotheringay Castle = f07h3r1n64y c457l3, tone = p3n1570n3

Essex = 3553x, S horpe = 5cun7h0rp3, Fotheringay Castle = f07h3r1n64y c457l3, tone = p3n1570n3

Interesting that it allowed 'Essex' and ' Fotheringay', but laughable that it considers 'Scunthorpe' to be offensive. I suggest a strong letter of complaint poking fun at and humiliating the authors of such a pathetic and clearly unuseable for its intended purpose piece of software.

I haven't the faintest what the Principle of the Loving Baron is Dogma is, and I must go now, so please telegram me. :)

I can't find it here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/t.htm or on Google.

you know i'll just get told well we are very sorry to hear of your problems while using our software. unfortunately there is nothing we can do to remedy the problem as the deletion of certain offensive words is part of the basic function of the program. we apologize for any inconvenience that this may cause in the deletion of parts or entire words that are not by nature or by intent offensive.... blah blah.
so who's gotten something like that before? lol

ps. love how this no longer pertains to the thread title...

If you were stupid enough to look it up on Google, you won't find it. Go to your local Catholic Parish or Seminary and they should be able to fill you in on the specifics. I spent days going through Church Archives to find it.


It should be here then, but it isn't. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/t.htm

you know i'll just get told well we are very sorry to hear of your problems while using our software. unfortunately there is nothing we can do to remedy the problem as the deletion of certain offensive words is part of the basic function of the program. we apologize for any inconvenience that this may cause in the deletion of parts or entire words that are not by nature or by intent offensive.... blah blah.
so who's gotten something like that before? lol

Heck, if even such dullards as AOL managed to add 'Scunthorpe' to their list of words no longer to be blocked way back in '96, then whoever coded that crock on your machine should be able to manage it.

Heck, if even such dullards as AOL managed to add 'S horpe' to their list of words no longer to be blocked way back in '96, then whoever coded that crock on your machine should be able to manage it.

It's actually an irritating 3rd party software called CyberSitter. I should figure out how to hack it, wouldnt that be fun? heehe i could have it ban words like 'bodies' and 'organs' or 'without' or ya know any combo of the three.... :rolleyes:

Tell me, my children, as I have not the time to read beyond the first and last ten posts: Have we learned the difference between the statements of the religion's doctrine and the practice of the religion's membership?

You see, one of my major criticisms of a lot of major religions in the world today is how there always seems to be some major schism between what the religious text/doctrine/principle says and what the worshipers/followers/congregation believes. These homosexual and condom issues are prime examples. Christianity in general with the idol worship commandment and Jesus on cross hypocritical status. The list goes on.

My point is, what really counts is how the doctrine is applied by the people. Therefore, although you may have solid facts saying gays and condoms are alright, the fact of the matter remains that that is not the belief of the religious community, and it is belief that matters most there. Even more so than fact.

Tell me, my children, as I have not the time to read beyond the first and last ten posts: Have we learned the difference between the statements of the religion's doctrine and the practice of the religion's membership?

You see, one of my major criticisms of a lot of major religions in the world today is how there always seems to be some major schism between what the religious text/doctrine/principle says and what the worshipers/followers/congregation believes. These homosexual and condom issues are prime examples. Christianity in general with the idol worship commandment and Jesus on cross hypocritical status. The list goes on.

My point is, what really counts is how the doctrine is applied by the people. Therefore, although you may have solid facts saying gays and condoms are alright, the fact of the matter remains that that is not the belief of the religious community, and it is belief that matters most there. Even more so than fact.
That is true. In the end, religion is very much about belief, and if the majority believes something to be true, inevitably that is the general consensus of the religion, despite what its official views are. Sad, but true.

Therefore, although you may have solid facts saying gays and condoms are alright, the fact of the matter remains that that is not the belief of the religious community, and it is belief that matters most there. Even more so than fact.
You obviously do not live anywhere near here. In Canada, the religious community is at odds with the religious authorities on that basis.

Average Joe Christian wears a condom routinely to prevent gettting ISTs or an unwanted pregnancy of his wife, and he couldn't care less about Bob and George across the street who just got married together. And he disagrees with Mr. PanzerPope about gays, contraception, condoms, the place of women in society, etc.

This amounts to lower and lower rates of Church attendance everywhere.

So, even though what you posted might be true in your neighbourhood, be aware that in some places it's not; in fact, it's quite the opposite.

You obviously do not live anywhere near here. In Canada, the religious community is at odds with the religious authorities on that basis.

Average Joe Christian wears a condom routinely to prevent gettting ISTs or an unwanted pregnancy of his wife, and he couldn't care less about Bob and George across the street who just got married together. And he disagrees with Mr. PanzerPope about gays, contraception, condoms, the place of women in society, etc.

This amounts to lower and lower rates of Church attendance everywhere.

So, even though what you posted might be true in your neighbourhood, be aware that in some places it's not; in fact, it's quite the opposite.
The problem is he is correct when referring to the majority of believers.

I believe the above comments are true. I would like to add one thing, to be fair, if we agree (and i think we do) that it is not fair to make statements such as "x-religion believes" and that we should make the distinction between what is practiced and what is taught, then i believe we also should make that same distinction when voicing our opinions. such as if you say i dont like catholics because i disagree about x. dont you think it should be specified whether you refer to the religion's teaching versus popular practice?
does this even make sense?

I also think that if you are going to disagree with most, or major, points about your religion then i think it is only fair for those who accept all of it that you not refer to yourself as part of that religion or specify that you are non-practicing. does that sound reasonable to other people?

I believe the above comments are true. I would like to add one thing, to be fair, if we agree (and i think we do) that it is not fair to make statements such as "x-religion believes" and that we should make the distinction between what is practiced and what is taught, then i believe we also should make that same distinction when voicing our opinions. such as if you say i dont like catholics because i disagree about s. dont you think it should be specified whether you refer with the religion's teaching versus popular practice?
does this even make sense?
Yes, it does make sense, and yes, it would be good to make the distinction.

You may also want to bother disclaiming what that particular belief is(or what you think it is) because it's quite possible to be mistaken in your interpretation either the official position, or the popular practice.

And, like I said, "popular practice" can vary a lot depending on the location/general mentality of worshippers. Canada's or South America's christians tend to be very less socially conservative than, say, the USA's or Africa's christians.

Just like Middle-Eastern muslims are probably very different from say, Indonesia's muslims.

Yes, it does make sense, and yes, it would be good to make the distinction.

You may also want to bother disclaiming what that particular belief is(or what you think it is) because it's quite possible to be mistaken in your interpretation either the official position, or the popular practice.

And, like I said, "popular practice" can vary a lot depending on the location/general mentality of worshippers. Canada's or South America's christians tend to be very less socially conservative than, say, the USA's or Africa's christians.

Just like Middle-Eastern muslims are probably very different from say, Indonesia's muslims.
All good points.

I also think that if you are going to disagree with most, or major, points about your religion then i think it is only fair for those who accept all of it that you not refer to yourself as part of that religion or specify that you are non-practicing. does that sound reasonable to other people?
I don't think I agree on that. I know good christians who aren't practicing and disagree with most church policies, yet still pray each day and think of themselves as christians. They should be able to be recognized as such. One does not get kicked out of a church simply because he doesn't agree with the official positions. It's not the Church's official stand on earthly matters that's important; it's the message and spiritual enlightenment it provides, first and foremost.

A Christian who lives by the lessons Jesus left to humanity is still a christian or a catholic if he choses to stay in his church.

Of course, some believers will often seek churches that resemble their own convictions more, and change denomination accordingly.

I'm glad that although we may all disagree on religion drastically, we can all calmly and rationally discuss how to at least better understand each other and cut down on stereotyping and the like.

After the longest amount of research I've ever done for a thread in Ns General (two weeks), I'd like to dispell some common misconceptions about Catholics.

Using condoms is a sin: This is an out and out lie. The truth of the matter is using condoms for contraception, is a sin.

There are two doctrines that allow for the use of condoms by Catholics. The first being the Principle of the Unjust Attacker, which allows a Catholic to defend themselves against harm and states there is no harm to their immortal soul in doing so. The second in the Principle of Double Effect, that is the commission of a normally sinful act, to prevent a greater wrong. Such as in the case of Jezabel

"Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing the sexual transmission of the HIV virus. Condoms are only 99.9%. However, if you cannot abstain, then it is better to be 99.9% sure." -Cardinal Francis Arinze

Homosexuality is a sin: Again, a missunderstanding. Oral and anal intercourse are sins.

HOWEVER, there is a loophole. In the case of a married couple who cannot produce children, the Doctrine of Repoduction, should state they should not have sex. As a child is unlikely to result. This becomes void, however, if they create a Catholic Family by means of aboption and adherence to Catholic teaching on family life. Specifically ensuring the Christening, First Communion, Affirmation, Confirmation, Baptism, etc, of the child(ren).

This princiiple can be extended to homosexual couples who PARTICIPATE IN A FAITHFUL AND CATHOLIC RELATIONSHIP.

Catholics worship Mary: Catholics venerate Mary. In the same way a person admires a football star, but does not worship them in the same way they practice a religion.

That's all for now, there are a few more. But I'm waiting on my Confessor to get back to me with some documents.

Very well put. Excellent.

I don't think I agree on that. I know good christians who aren't practicing and disagree with most church policies, yet still pray each day and think of themselves as christians. They should be able to be recognized as such. One does not get kicked out of a church simply because he doesn't agree with the official positions. It's not the Church's official stand on earthly matters that's important; it's the message and spiritual enlightenment it provides, first and foremost.

A Christian who lives by the lessons Jesus left to humanity is still a christian or a catholic if he choses to stay in his church.

Of course, some believers will often seek churches that resemble their own convictions more, and change denomination accordingly.

Valid point. I'm not even entirely sure how i feel about the matter. It has so many aspects it is hard to figure out exactly how some things should be handled.

I'm glad that although we may all disagree on religion drastically, we can all calmly and rationally discuss how to at least better understand each other and cut down on stereotyping and the like.
Funny, I'm pretty sure I'm the first agnostic ever having such a civilized conversation with a Christian.

Um, you are Christian, right? What denomination are you exactly?

Personally, I'm *supposedly* officially catholic, although I'm going to be getting out of that church in the coming year due to my severe qualms with the official church authorities and their personnal opinions, which do not often reflect what's actually in the gospels.

Yes, I am christian, Roman Catholic to be specific, and i am very much enjoying my conversation with you!
As pertaining to your decision to leave the church I have one thing I would like you to consider. Church authorities are human beings as well and are no less inclined to sin than anyone else. Sin can blind you to your actions, make you think unreasonably, make rash decisions, justify wrong-doing, and any other things. So your anger at unfaithful clergy/higher-ups is completely justified, and I share it with you. What i would like you to consider is that however evil even the pope may be, one should not put his failings onto the whole community. At risk of sounding like a jerk i will say this, i believe you to be ignorant on some issues. please remember that ignorant is no reflection of intelligence or anything, and by definition is not your fault. If no one ever told me the sky was blue, and i was blind, it is not my fault if i don't know what color the sky is. And i am sure that i am ignorant just as much as the next person.
Please, take seriously to heart that however mad you may be at some of the authorities (and rightly so), their actions do not necisarily reflect our (and i say our because you are a Catholic) religion's beliefs.
Also even if you cannot agree on everything, i would urge you not to leave, but rather to try (and i do not know if you have or not) and put forth effort to understand what you don't agree with. Maybe you still wont agree, maybe you will change your mind. I can tell you i don't like many chruch teachings, but i see the truth behind them and often somewhat reluctantly try to follow them.
If you would like to talk to me personally please telegram or email me, i would love to talk to you about this and help you in your decision about your faith as it is an important one. remember, i am on your side and want only to help you!

Yes, I am christian, Roman Catholic to be specific, and i am very much enjoying my conversation with you!
As pertaining to your decision to leave the church I have one thing I would like you to consider. Church authorities are human beings as well and are no less inclined to sin than anyone else. Sin can blind you to your actions, make you think unreasonably, make rash decisions, justify wrong-doing, and any other things. So your anger at unfaithful clergy/higher-ups is completely justified, and I share it with you. What i would like you to consider is that however evil even the pope may be, one should not put his failings onto the whole community.

Oh, I'm not saying the community as a whole is guilty of the hierarchy's faults, quite the opposite. I know plenty of catholics in complete opposition with the official positions of the Church. I

I'm leaving, first and foremost, because I don't want to be part of an organization that says gays are worthless, women can't be priest(esses), condoms are evil, and so forth. No matter what, I have to be consistent in my morality, and staying a member of that organization would amount to me condoning those positions. Which I don't. Those things were decided upon by men, mortal and faillible, and prejudiced at that, in my opinion.

Seeing that there is no way that the Church authorities would listen to a point of view other than the one they have themselves cast in stone, and knowing there is no serious chance of me making them change their minds and see the errors of their ways, then I just have to walk away, and oppose those retrograde views in any way possible.

The second reason, is quite frankly, because I'm not much of a believer. I'm more of an agnostic. While I read the Gospels and the New testament with attention, and realize there are lessons and precious wisdom in there, I'm not entirely sure I believe in the mystical dimension presented there. But that doesn't faze me much; I took a lot of what it had to offer, and I think this matters more than my believing in God and His Son's divinity.

Oh, I'm not saying the community as a whole is guilty of the hierarchy's faults, quite the opposite. I know plenty of catholics in complete opposition with the official positions of the Church. I

I'm leaving, first and foremost, because I don't want to be part of an organization that says gays are worthless, women can't be priest(esses), condoms are evil, and so forth. No matter what, I have to be consistent in my morality, and staying a member of that organization would amount to me condoning those positions. Which I don't. Those things were decided upon by men, mortal and faillible, and prejudiced at that, in my opinion.

Seeing that there is no way that the Church authorities would listen to a point of view other than the one they have themselves cast in stone, and knowing there is no serious chance of me making them change their minds and see the errors of their ways, then I just have to walk away, and oppose those retrograde views in any way possible.

The second reason, is quite frankly, because I'm not much of a believer. I'm more of an agnostic. While I read the Gospels and the New testament with attention, and realize there are lessons and precious wisdom in there, I'm not entirely sure I believe in the mystical dimension presented there. But that doesn't faze me much; I took a lot of what it had to offer, and I think this matters more than my believing in God and His Son's divinity.
I pretty much agree with you, also being gay. Though I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church, as much as I'd like to, I can't bring myself to want to join it. I am more agnostic with regard to how God as a deity is personified. I think that such is pointless and all too human. Deities are superior beings, and one cannot expect them to be human. I also believe that the Church violates Christ's teachings of universal respect and equality, which I think are wonderful, trying to blend the horrible Old Testament with the enlightened New Testament. Too bad.

I hate it when people talk bad about us... :mad: :headbang:
Me too.

That is, quite possibly, the first time the Virgin Mother has ever been compared to a football player. Good work!

I call it the Immaculate Reception.

I have little to add, save:

1) Catholics refer to themselves as Catholics, not Roman Catholics. The "Roman" is a slur affixed by Protestants.

2) Sexual intercourse is not a sin.

[with regard to celibacy]

"Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven [instructions for homosexuals here. Not actually cutting your balls off, but not having sex.]. Let anyone accept this who is able to receive it.[which, since that distinction was made, is logically not everybody]"

Matthew 19:10-12

I have little to add, save:

1) Catholics refer to themselves as Catholics, not Roman Catholics. The "Roman" is a slur affixed by Protestants.

2) Sexual intercourse is not a sin.

[with regard to celibacy]

"Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven [instructions for homosexuals here. Not actually cutting your balls off, but not having sex.]. Let anyone accept this who is able to receive it.[which, since that distinction was made, is logically not everybody]"

Matthew 19:10-12
Interesting and all, but I wonder what Jesus himself thought on the matter.

After the longest amount of research I've ever done for a thread in Ns General (two weeks), I'd like to dispell some common misconceptions about Catholics.

Using condoms is a sin: This is an out and out lie. The truth of the matter is using condoms for contraception, is a sin.

There are two doctrines that allow for the use of condoms by Catholics. The first being the Principle of the Unjust Attacker, which allows a Catholic to defend themselves against harm and states there is no harm to their immortal soul in doing so. The second in the Principle of Double Effect, that is the commission of a normally sinful act, to prevent a greater wrong. Such as in the case of Jezabel

"Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing the sexual transmission of the HIV virus. Condoms are only 99.9%. However, if you cannot abstain, then it is better to be 99.9% sure." -Cardinal Francis Arinze

Homosexuality is a sin: Again, a missunderstanding. Oral and anal intercourse are sins.

HOWEVER, there is a loophole. In the case of a married couple who cannot produce children, the Doctrine of Repoduction, should state they should not have sex. As a child is unlikely to result. This becomes void, however, if they create a Catholic Family by means of aboption and adherence to Catholic teaching on family life. Specifically ensuring the Christening, First Communion, Affirmation, Confirmation, Baptism, etc, of the child(ren).

This princiiple can be extended to homosexual couples who PARTICIPATE IN A FAITHFUL AND CATHOLIC RELATIONSHIP.




There's some interesting stuff. I've heard of double effect before and I do beleive that you're right (but not entirely sure). The idea is that a married couple can use condoms if the purpose of using condoms is to prevent infection. In this case, the purpose of using condoms is to prevent infection and a side effect of that is contraception. (This strikes me as odd)


As for your second point, you're right about a few things. Homosexual orientation isn't a sin, but homosexual acts such as anal and oral sex are. You're wrong about the second point, though.
A few things. I've been taught by a priest that there are three things that should be true when having sex.

The sex act should be:
1. within marriage
2. open to procreation
3. a means of deepening the love between the couple

He told me that the Church sees being open to creation as a very general guidline as long as artificial contraception isn't involved. There have been cases when couples have been deemed unable to reproduce and then do end up having a child. For this reason, I've never heard that it was bad for barren couples to have sex.

As far as the homosexuality "loophole", you do a bait and switch. Though, I doubt you meant to. You say this:
" married couple who cannot produce children, the Doctrine of Repoduction, should state they should not have sex. As a child is unlikely to result. This becomes void, however, if they create a Catholic Family by means of aboption and adherence to Catholic teaching on family life."

First, I can't say I've ever heard of the doctrine of reproduction which you refer to. Other than that, You talk about a law that applies to MARRIED people and then apply it to homosexuals who have a "faithful relationship". The truth is, the law applies to married people and does not apply to anyone else, be it unmarried homosexuals or heterosexuals. The Church's stance is that sex is for marriage and the Church believes that only a man and a woman together can be married. They don't believe they have the authority from scripture to marry anyone else.

Nonsense, within Catholicism they are perfectly acceptable between married partners if they do not preclude full vaginal penetration as part of the sexual activities.

I was having a discussion with a priest about contraception and things and this came up. That is, the practice of oral and anal sex as part of foreplay that precedes, but does not replace intercourse.

In so many words, he said it was debatable. I don't think he was confident enough to tell me one way or the other (he didn't want to be misleading). Anyway, it would be interesting to read up on this point.

and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven [instructions for homosexuals here. Not actually cutting your balls off, but not having sex.]. Let anyone accept this who is able to receive it.[which, since that distinction was made, is logically not everybody]"

Matthew 19:10-12

This particular fag's not gonna be an eunnuch. Jesus never cared about what happened in someone's bed, and I don't think anyone should.

Judge not lest ye shall be judged.

Boofheads - Very well put, that is exactly what I was trying to say in so many words.

In regards to h0m0s3xuality I have time to say one thing before I need to get some sleep. The Catholic church in no way h4t3s them or thinks less of them. Some radicals do, as in the religion of Islam some radicals h4t3s America where that probably isnt the teaching. The church says that that tendency is a disorder of the passions and not the persons fault. They are in no way responsible for it and should be treated no differently than anyone else. It is in committing s3x ual acts that lies the sin. it says in Genesis approximately and the man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two shall become one. So doing so with to people of the same gender is not how God intended our bodies to be used. This is the teaching. There is a group for h0m0s3 xuals called COURAGE i think on how to live as faithful Catholics. maybe you want to check it out, they probably have info on the Church's teaching on the matter.

I'll check back later i gotta sleep :(

ps the funny spelling is so my comp's filter doesnt edit the words out.

pps. A priest acts in persona Christi or in the person of christ/in christ's place. Christ was a male and thus it would not make sense for a woman to act as Christ. so are women less than men? No
Consider the holiest human to have ever lived, the person who gave birth to Jesus Christ. Mary, a woman, was given the greatest honor anyone could ever receive, to be the mother of God. Something a man could never hope to approach. So that basically is how it balances out, if you want to look at it that way, in Church teaching.

Boofheads - Very well put, that is exactly what I was trying to say in so many words.

In regards to h0m0s3xuality I have time to say one thing before I need to get some sleep. The Catholic church in no way h4t3s them or thinks less of them. Some radicals do, as in the religion of Islam some radicals h4t3s America where that probably isnt the teaching. The church says that that tendency is a disorder of the passions and not the persons fault. They are in no way responsible for it and should be treated no differently than anyone else. It is in committing s3x ual acts that lies the sin. it says in Genesis approximately and the man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two shall become one. So doing so with to people of the same gender is not how God intended our bodies to be used. This is the teaching. There is a group for h0m0s3 xuals called COURAGE i think on how to live as faithful Catholics. maybe you want to check it out, they probably have info on the Church's teaching on the matter.

I'll check back later i gotta sleep :(

ps the funny spelling is so my comp's filter doesnt edit the words out.

Yeah, I saw your posts after I made mine. It's too bad because I could have saved some time by not repeating everything you said.

I particularly liked this part:

"Again I appreciate everyone's open-mindedness to discussion. Please bear in mind that if you don't understand something and then it seems like illogical bigotry, it's because you don't understand it."

To a non-Catholic, that statement might seem overconfident. However, in all my experience as a Catholic, I've always found this to be true. I used to always doubt or be really worried about X or Y Catholic belief because it just seemed wrong or nonsensical. But when I took the time to look into it, or had it explained to me by someone more knowledgable, it would make sense.

On a related note, if I had a dime for every time someone on this forum attacked the Catholic Church using falsehoods or a twisted, poorly understood version of the truth, I would be a lot richer.

Uncle Rotty,

I have a question. If I honestly believe that anal sex can get somebody pregnant, is it still a sin? I know that people say it won't work, but I figure if I try really really hard it should do the trick.

Thanks in advance,

Gartref.

I'd like to dispell some common misconceptions about Catholics.

I am glad to see someone stick-up for Catholics, and appreciate the civility of all participants in this thread. However, for what it's worth, not all of Rotovia-'s views represent what the Catholic church actually teaches, so "Rotovia-'s Truth About Catholics," or "The Truth About Rotovia-Catholics" would be better titles for the thread.

The Supreme Rulers' first post in this thread (unfiltered) is a much truer presentation of Catholic doctrine and a good response to Rotovia's arguments. I have just a few points to add.

Using condoms is a sin: This is an out and out lie. The truth of the matter is using condoms for contraception, is a sin.

"Out and out lie" is an overstatement, but Rotovia- is essentially correct here. However, I don't think it is much of a reassurance to those who oppose Church teaching in this area. Many who promote the use of condoms do so for the sake of their contraceptive effect.

Homosexuality is a sin: Again, a missunderstanding. Oral and anal intercourse are sins.

Sexual orientation is not a sin. Sexual acts performed by anyone but a man and woman married to each other with the intention of increasing their love for each other and the size of their family, are sinful.

Oral? Anal? Doggy-style?... When I find myself making fine distinctions, it's usually a situation where I am looking for a justification to do something I know deep down I shouldn't.

HOWEVER, there is a loophole. In the case of a married couple who cannot produce children, the Doctrine of Repoduction, should state they should not have sex. As a child is unlikely to result.

Incorrect. There is no such doctrine, and there is nothing wrong with infertile couples continuing normal sexual relations.

This princiiple can be extended to homosexual couples who PARTICIPATE IN A FAITHFUL AND CATHOLIC RELATIONSHIP.

No, an infertile heterosexual married couple and a homosexual couple are different situations. The married couple are in a relationship that is naturally oriented to reproduction, but blocked due to some cause beyond the partners' control. They are free to act on the sexual nature of their relationship in hope the block may not be permanent, even if that is the medical conclusion. On the other hand, homosexual acts can never result in procreation by biological nature, so such acts are never allowed.

Catholics worship Mary: Catholics venerate Mary. In the same way a person admires a football star, but does not worship them in the same way they practice a religion.

Not in the same way a person admires a football star. Things Catholics believe about St. Mary that are not commonly applied to football players:


Mary is the only perfect human creature. (Jesus is perfect, but is not a creature.)
Mary continues to excercise a mother's influence over her son, Jesus.
Mary will ask Jesus to help those who pray for her intercession.


The loophole is the Principle of the Loving Baron is Dogma and the Second Vatican Council states that we must accept it as Divine Truth.

Risking Herasy, we have no choice but to allow homosexual sex.

I, too, couldn't find any reference to this principle, even with the spelling "barren." In any case, I'm very doubtful that it supports Rotovia-'s conclusion in view of the essential difference WRT procreation between heterosexual married couples and homosexual couples.

Not Rotovia-'s, but...

an organization that says gays are worthless

The Church doesn't say that. It says that gays who can't keep it in their pants are sinners, same as anyone else except marrieds. It doesn't say sinners are worthless, either. All the members of the Church are sinners. God loves sinners so much He gave his life for us.

After the longest amount of research I've ever done for a thread in Ns General (two weeks), I'd like to dispell some common misconceptions about Catholics.


Actually you have confirmed my conception of Cathlics. I can now rest easy knowing I was right all along.

r u dissing catholics????????? :eek:
Yes and No, he is a slightly Demented one.

Roto, I have to disagree with you on this part.

Catholics worship Mary: Catholics venerate Mary. In the same way a person admires a football star, but does not worship them in the same way they practice a religion.

One of the commandments is not to worship other gods.
How do we worship something?

By Praying to it.

Catholics pray to Mary, as well as God.
"Hail Mary, full of grace"....yadda yadda....its a prayer.

They simply believe God to have "seniority" , if you will.

Well I don't know of any other fellow Catholics, other than a few elderly priests, who regard homosexuality as a sin. And to be fair, its thoguht about half our priests are gay anyway...

Well I don't know of any other fellow Catholics, other than a few elderly priests, who regard homosexuality as a sin. And to be fair, its thoguht about half our priests are gay anyway...

What is the NS Centrist Party?

What is the NS Centrist Party?

A measely movement I set up last week with three other people
We have a forum too...
http://s13.invisionfree.com/NS_Centrist_Party_HQ/index.php?act=idx

A measely movement I set up last week with three other people
We have a forum too...
http://s13.invisionfree.com/NS_Centrist_Party_HQ/index.php?act=idx
I thought you were the Emphatically Silly Party.......

r u dissing catholics????????? :eek:

We're running low on christians at the moment so, yea :p

Afterlife Insurance. :)

But doesn't being an atheist exclude you from those who believe in the afterlife?

But doesn't being an atheist exclude you from those who believe in the afterlife?


Only in the sense that they will cease to exist, just like the rest of us.

*rimshot*

This princiiple can be extended to homosexual couples who PARTICIPATE IN A FAITHFUL AND CATHOLIC RELATIONSHIP.


Incorrect

Genesis 2:24 (NIV) "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be
united to his wife, and they will become one flesh"

A marriage is defined in the Bible as one man and one woman. That princpal cannot be extended to homosexual couples. The reason for marriage to be defined in this way is that it is how it was in the garden of Eden. And the garden of Eden was perfect. Perfection only required one man and one woman.

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

For more infomation

Roto, I have to disagree with you on this part.



One of the commandments is not to worship other gods.
How do we worship something?

By Praying to it.

Catholics pray to Mary, as well as God.
"Hail Mary, full of grace"....yadda yadda....its a prayer.

They simply believe God to have "seniority" , if you will.

Catholics pray to Mary, but do not see it as worship.

She isn't seen as God or as the way to redemption. However, she is seen as an intercessor and as someone who can lead us to Christ. As Cathlics, we believe that we are in communion with not only other members of the Church alive on earth, but also with the saints and Mary in heaven as members of the Body of Christ. Just as I might ask a friend on earth to pray for me, so too might I ask Mary to pray for me. The only way to ask her to pray for me is through prayer.
How does prayer work? How does praying for one another help? I'm not sure anyone knows exactly, but we believe that it does work and continue to ask for one another's prayers.


"Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful. "

James 5:16



The Hail Mary Prayer you referred to is actually a good way of showing our attitude toward Mary and how that relates to God:

Hail Mary,
full of grace
the Lord is with thee.
(Gabriel's greeting to Mary)

Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
(Elizabeth's greeting to Mary, if I remember right)

Holy Mary, mother of God
pray for us sinners
now and at the hour of our death.
(asking her to pray for us)

Amen

As a Catholic, I don't see that as worship. I see that as giving respect to a very good fellow human being and asking her to pray for us.
The respect given to Mary just isn't anywhere near the same as the glorifying of God. Nor are our prayers to Mary anything like our prayers to God (nor should they be).

Well I don't know of any other fellow Catholics, other than a few elderly priests, who regard homosexuality as a sin. And to be fair, its thoguht about half our priests are gay anyway...

I heard roughly 20% on CNN.

Catholics pray to Mary, but do not see it as worship.

She isn't seen as God or as the way to redemption. However, she is seen as an intercessor and as someone who can lead us to Christ. As Cathlics, we believe that we are in communion with not only other members of the Church alive on earth, but also with the saints and Mary in heaven as members of the Body of Christ. Just as I might ask a friend on earth to pray for me, so too might I ask Mary to pray for me. The only way to ask her to pray for me is through prayer.
How does prayer work? I'm not sure anyone knows exactly, but we ask others to pray for us nonetheless.

"Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful. "

James 5:16

The Hail Mary Prayer you referred to is actually a good way of showing our attitude toward Mary and how that relates to God:

Hail Mary,
full of grace
the Lord is with thee.
(Gabriel's greeting to Mary)

Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
(Elizabeth's greeting to Mary, if I remember right)

Holy Mary, mother of God
pray for us sinners
now and at the hour of our death.
(asking her to pray for us)

Amen

As a Catholic, I don't see that as worship. I see that as giving respect to a very good fellow human being and asking her to pray for us.
The respect given to Mary just isn't anywhere near the same as the glorifying of God. Nor are our prayers to Mary anything like our prayers to God (nor should they be).


Coupla questions for ya.

Is not Mary, oftimes referred to as "Holy Mary, Mother of God"?
If God and Jesus are the same person, essentially, or Jesus, and aspect, or avatar of God, then Mary, would be, in a very real sense, divine as well?

If then, we pray to Mary, we are beseeching her on a religious bend, for aid of some kind, and offering reverence at the same time.

That my friend, is worship.

wor·ship ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wûrshp)
n.

The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
Ardent devotion; adoration.
often Worship Chiefly British. Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=worship

can someone tell me the reference to that passage in Romans that talks about a whole load of people who went somewhere else and ...

'the men did evil things unto themselves and the women unto themselves'
or
'the men knew other men and women knew other women'

and the whole lot of them were damned.

:confused:

i can't remember the passage clearly, but it doesn't like homosexuals

Coupla questions for ya.

Is not Mary, oftimes referred to as "Holy Mary, Mother of God"?
If God and Jesus are the same person, essentially, or Jesus, and aspect, or avatar of God, then Mary, would be, in a very real sense, divine as well?

If then, we pray to Mary, we are beseeching her on a religious bend, for aid of some kind, and offering reverence at the same time.

That my friend, is worship.



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=worship


She is seen as fully human (not divine) as she was born from a human mother and father (although we do believe that she was without sin). Catholics believe that Jesus was both fully God and fully human and, like you said, is part of the Trinity. Mary, through the Holy Spirit, conceived and gave birth to Jesus though she was a virgin. The nature of the Trinity is considered a mystery, though we believe that the Father, Son, and Holy spirit are three distinct persons, but are just one God. When we call Mary the "Mother of God", we mean that she was the mother of Jesus, who was fully God.


As far as "we are beseeching her on a religious bend, for aid of some kind, and offering reverence at the same time." I don't see anything wrong with this. Christians ask eachother to pray for one another all the time (see previous bible passage). Is that not the same beseeching of a religious bend? Likewise, I have complimented people for something good they have done or for a good quality they have. Is this different than respecting Mary?

As for the definition:

The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
Ardent devotion; adoration.
often Worship Chiefly British. Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship.


She is not a deity, idol, or sacred object, nor is she seen as so by the Church. Therefore, the prayers associated with her are not an "expression" of a "reverent love" toward a deity.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound argumentitive, but I'd like to help you completely understand why we believe that it isn't worship (even if you find you don't agree with the reasoning).

Anywho, I'm off to bed.

She is seen as fully human (not divine) as she was born from a human mother and father. Catholics believe that Jesus was both fully God and fully human and, like you said, is part of the Trinity. Mary, through the Holy Spirit, conceived and gave birth to Jesus. The nature of the Trinity is considered a mystery, though we believe that the Father, Son, and Holy spirit are three bodies of one God.

Yes, she is seen as fully human, but, you cannot deny that she is clearly depicted as much more.
She gave birth to your Lord and Saviour the Son of God.....(who was god himself)

Thats quite an accomplishment.

If Mary is capable of receiving your prayers, then she is divine in nature.
Since you pray to Mary, with requests, and reverence, this is clearly defined by a dictionary, as worship.

Its just that Catholics dont call it worship, becuase they believe that it would be heresy to do so.

But its really what it is.

Mary is another member of the panthenon to wich you prescribe.



As far as "we are beseeching her on a religious bend, for aid of some kind, and offering reverence at the same time." I don't see anything wrong with this.

Me either, I suppose, it just isnt my cup o tea.
Im just pointing out that Catholics do indeed, worship Mary, in a real sense, if not an admitted one.


Christians ask eachother to pray for one another all the time (see previous bible passage). Is that not the same beseeching of a religious bend? Likewise, I have complimented people for something good they have done or for a good quality they have. Is this different than respecting Mary?

You dont ask long deceased Christians to intervene directly on your behalf.

You dont pray to M.L King, and ask him to ask Jesus for that promotion at work, do you?
Of course not, DR. King was just a man.

But, you do pray to Mary.


As for the definition:

The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
Ardent devotion; adoration.
often Worship Chiefly British. Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship.


She is not a deity, idol, or sacred object, nor is she seen as so. Therefore, the prayers associated with her are not an "expression" of a "reverent love" toward a deity.

See above.
She qualifies.

*Sits up and looks round*

Meh. Boring. Nothing that hasn't been said 10 times already.

*Goes back to his 8 way orgy*

Is not Mary, oftimes referred to as "Holy Mary, Mother of God"?
If God and Jesus are the same person, essentially, or Jesus, and aspect, or avatar of God, then Mary, would be, in a very real sense, divine as well?

No, Mary became the mother of Jesus, who remained fully God while becoming fully human, remained merely human herself, though free of sin, and not divine.

If then, we pray to Mary, we are beseeching her on a religious bend, for aid of some kind, and offering reverence at the same time.

That my friend, is worship.


The word "worship" covers a wide variety of actions and levels of devotion. Certainly, Catholics practice a level of devotion to Mary which matches "worship" in some sense, but the Church clearly teaches that she is not divine herself and must not be worshipped as if she were. The power of any prayers directed to her comes not from Mary herself, but from God. Mary simply redirects prayers addressed to her to God, adding her own intercession.

No, Mary became the mother of Jesus, who remained fully God while becoming fully human, remained merely human herself, though free of sin, and not divine.



The word "worship" covers a wide variety of actions and levels of devotion. Certainly, Catholics practice a level of devotion to Mary which matches "worship" in some sense, but the Church clearly teaches that she is not divine herself and must not be worshipped as if she were. The power of any prayers directed to her comes not from Mary herself, but from God. Mary simply redirects prayers addressed to her to God, adding her own intercession.


And being entirely mundanely mortal, how exactly is she able to hear millions of Catholic prayers, everyday?

Through God....whom she gave birth to....kinda.

Think about it...Mary's role in this religion is that of a divine nature.
She simply is outranked by God, in the eyes of her beholders.

Your catholic upbringing has taught you to make a clear distinction, but by the very actions of praying to her, you are, indeed worshiping her, in a very real sense.
You just dont see it as such.

And being entirely mundanely mortal, how exactly is she able to hear millions of Catholic prayers, everyday?

Through God....whom she gave birth to....kinda.

Think about it...Mary's role in this religion is that of a divine nature.
She simply is outranked by God, in the eyes of her beholders.

Your catholic upbringing has taught you to make a clear distinction, but by the very actions of praying to her, you are, indeed worshiping her, in a very real sense.
You just dont see it as such.


Much sleeping....very good....zzzzzzz.

Yes, she is seen as fully human, but, you cannot deny that she is clearly depicted as much more.
She gave birth to your Lord and Saviour the Son of God.....(who was god himself)

Thats quite an accomplishment.

If Mary is capable of receiving your prayers, then she is divine in nature.
Since you pray to Mary, with requests, and reverence, this is clearly defined by a dictionary, as worship.

Its just that Catholics dont call it worship, becuase they believe that it would be heresy to do so.

But its really what it is.

Mary is another member of the panthenon to wich you prescribe.





Me either, I suppose, it just isnt my cup o tea.
Im just pointing out that Catholics do indeed, worship Mary, in a real sense, if not an admitted one.




You dont ask long deceased Christians to intervene directly on your behalf.

You dont pray to M.L King, and ask him to ask Jesus for that promotion at work, do you?
Of course not, DR. King was just a man.

But, you do pray to Mary.




See above.
She qualifies.

If she's human, how is she divine? But yes, she is given a lot of respect because she was considered to be without sin and gave birth to Jesus. She is very righteous!
Since we're using definitions, let me use one

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=divine
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deity

No where in either of those does it describe someone who is divine as someone who can respond to prayers.



And actually, yes, sometimes we do pray to long deceased Christians.

In fact, every once in a while in mass (I don't remember which ones exactly) the priest goes through a long line of saints. Something like this:

Priest: "St. Peter and St Paul"
Congregation: "Pray for us"
Priest: St. so and so
Congregation: pray for us

and so on with other saints.

And we don't ask the saints or Mary for "that promotion at work". That type of prayer, if we did it, would be reserved for God. We simply ask Mary and the Saints to prayer to God for us and lead us to Jesus.

And no, the Cathlic Church is not in the business in trying to make heresy seem like it isn't. If they thought that praying to Mary was against the scripture, they wouldn't teach that it is right. There's no point in trying to "cover it up".

Ok, I'm really off to bed now.
Look it up in the Cathechism if you're still interested:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

I'm a Catholic, so I'm not going to call Their Holinesses heretics, but I will say their doctrines risk their immortal souls and that where not spoken with ex cathedra authority, they commit(ed) the sin of heresy.
It is an absurd statement to say that the previous and present Pope committed heresy. And if you doubt that, ask the confessor who told you all those other things. If your confessor says that the Pope committed heresy, ask yourself who the better judge of heresy is.

(I'm not saying that anything else you said is inaccurate by the way, just that this response to the question of whether John Paul II and Benedict XVI were heretics was quite bizarre)

I'm a Catholic, so I'm not going to call Their Holinesses heretics, but I will say their doctrines risk their immortal souls and that where not spoken with ex cathedra authority, they commit(ed) the sin of heresy.

Is the pope Catholic? No!!

Think about it...Mary's role in this religion is that of a divine nature.

We disagree on the meaning of "divine nature." Admittedly, Mary is a special existence for Catholics, the next greatest thing in the universe after God. She and all the Saints living in glory in heaven enjoy powers far beyond those of earthly humans, not in themselves but because of their closeness in spirit with God, but they are not gods. They are prayed to as go-betweens with God, but not worshipped as gods themselves.

Your catholic upbringing has taught you to make a clear distinction, but by the very actions of praying to her, you are, indeed worshiping her, in a very real sense.

What Catholic upbringing? I chose to become a Catholic as an adult after being raised in a Protestant church and later spending many years as an agnostic.

Is no one interested in post 106? Or does the scilence on it state that everyone agrees?

You obviously do not live anywhere near here. In Canada, the religious community is at odds with the religious authorities on that basis.

Average Joe Christian wears a condom routinely to prevent gettting ISTs or an unwanted pregnancy of his wife, and he couldn't care less about Bob and George across the street who just got married together. And he disagrees with Mr. PanzerPope about gays, contraception, condoms, the place of women in society, etc.

This amounts to lower and lower rates of Church attendance everywhere. Mwahahahaha. Self-imposed purge. I like it. Well I don't know of any other fellow Catholics, other than a few elderly priests, who regard homosexuality as a sin. "Is homosexuality a sin" has got to be the most stupid leading question ever. A huge amount of people will think that you mean homosexual tendencies or just being attracted to people of the same sex, which Catholic doctrine doesn't regard as sinful in itself.

Incorrect

Genesis 2:24 (NIV) "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be
united to his wife, and they will become one flesh"

A marriage is defined in the Bible as one man and one woman. That princpal cannot be extended to homosexual couples. The reason for marriage to be defined in this way is that it is how it was in the garden of Eden. And the garden of Eden was perfect. Perfection only required one man and one woman.

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

For more infomation


Fairy tales no need to base life or policy on the make believe.

using Condoms IS a sin. get your facts straight. everyhting else was correct though

Fairy tales no need to base life or policy on the make believe. Ignoring "fairy tales", I agree. I see no reason why any religion should change to fit cultural norms.

Using condoms is a sin: This is an out and out lie. The truth of the matter is using condoms for contraception, is a sin.

There are two doctrines that allow for the use of condoms by Catholics. The first being the Principle of the Unjust Attacker, which allows a Catholic to defend themselves against harm and states there is no harm to their immortal soul in doing so. The second in the Principle of Double Effect, that is the commission of a normally sinful act, to prevent a greater wrong. Such as in the case of Jezabel.
So... it's okay to use a contraceptive devices if you're being attacked ("Hold up a moment, I just have to put this on.") or commiting a sin while having sex ("It's okay, my spouse won't be home for hours.")?

The Catholic Church is not a democracy.

If you don't like your church, and can't change it because you're not the Pope, then quit the Catholic Church, and find another church.

In the US, there are literally thousands to choose from - one that springs to mind because it's composed largely of people who either quit or were thrown out of their religion is the Unitarian Universalist Church. I've been to many of their services over the years, and each time I go, I am regaled with tales of woe from previous religions. I am quite sure you would feel welcome there, as they welcome anyone, no matter what they believe, as long as you don't believe in forcing other people to believe something (anything).

The argument going on about Mary is stupid, and here is why.

The real base of this argument is not about Mary, but, to put it simply, whether or not we can talk to the dead.

I hear Christians all the time asking for the prayers of their friends, loved ones, and even strangers. It is natural to ask our fellow Christians to pray for us, and indeed we are instructed to do so by scripture.

We also know that the dead take an interest in affairs here on Earth. In the Old Testament, we read about Jeremiah being a great advocate for Israel after he died. Also, Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus in the New Testament. So obviously, the dead can interact with those of us on Earth.

Here is the kicker. Scripture tells us that our God is a God of the living, and not of the dead. Does this mean that God doesn't care what happens to you after you die? Of course not. We are promised eternal life. After we die here on Earth, we live on (hopefully) in Heaven.

So if people in Heaven are alive, and Christians on Earth are alive, what is the difference in asking for their prayers?

There is no difference. If anything, those in Heaven are even more vibrantly alive that we are here on Earth, and their prayers are more powerful than our own because they are closer to God than we are.

As Christians we are called to be Christ-like. That is what the word means. Didn't Christ love His mother? As a child, didn't He need her to survive? Didn't she feed him and protect him? While dying on the cross, Christ gave His mother to us, all of us, so that she may protect us and love us as she loved Him.

Incorrect

Genesis 2:24 (NIV) "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be
united to his wife, and they will become one flesh"

A marriage is defined in the Bible as one man and one woman. That princpal cannot be extended to homosexual couples. The reason for marriage to be defined in this way is that it is how it was in the garden of Eden. And the garden of Eden was perfect. Perfection only required one man and one woman.

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

For more infomation

't is a shame that "Eden" never existed eh?

The arguments about so called Mary-worship that I have seen thus far are strong on both sides, but I believe that those saying it is not worship are doing a better job, have presented more different facts and analagies that have not been refuted. I would like to add my 2 cents.

According to Wikipedia:
"Veneration of saints, is a special act of honoring a person who has been identified as singular in the traditions of the religion, and through them honoring God who made them and in whose image they are made... This veneration especially takes the form of prayer for intercession with her Son.

Someone said that there is a misunderstanding of definitions here, indeed there is, here is one which says yes, we do worship Mary. After this passage is another one with 3 words and definitions given It makes sense why those 3 words are used after you read the first passage. Anyway, this is again from Wikipedia:

"The word "worship", while commonly used in place of "adoration" in the modern English vernacular, strictly speaking implies nothing more than the acknowledgement of "worth-ship" or worthiness, and thus means no more than the giving of honor where honor is due."
"Mary, they point out, is not of herself divine, and has only such powers to help as are granted to her by God in response to her prayers. Such miracles as may occur through Mary's intercession are ultimately the result of God's love and omnipotence. Roman Catholicism distinguishes three forms of honor: latria, due only to God, and usually translated by the English word adoration; hyperdulia, accorded only to the Blessed Virgin Mary, usually translated simply as veneration; and dulia, accorded to the rest of the saints, also usually translated as veneration."

These 2 men broke away from the Catholic church, Luther to start his own religion, Calvin was a heretic with his own heresy named after him! (Calvanism) The had this to say on the matter:
" Martin Luther said Mary is "the highest woman," that "we can never honour her enough," that "the veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart," and that we should "wish that everyone know and respect her." John Calvin said, "It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor.""

Now for an analagy and scriptural reference. Analagy first

John needs to ask Carl for a favor. You and Carl talk, but you don't know very much about him and you aren't close to and don't quite really know how to approach him or talk to him about this favor, and plus his social group is a little higher than yours. What you do know is that Julie is one of Carl's best friends, she talks to him all the time whenever she wants, and is always with him and cares about him very much and he cares about her. You are friends with Julie as well, so you ask her to talk to Carl for you because the 2 of them are closer and she can do it more effectively than yourself.
John is you, Carl is God, Julie is Mary or any saint (saint defined as person in heaven, heaven defined as being in the presence of God in all his glory). They are closer to God and thus communicate with Him much better and can talk to him for you if you ask.

Scripture

Mary speaks (is quoted) 7 times in the bible. The last time she speaks is at the wedding feast at Cana. Do you know what she says? She said to the servants there "Do whatever he [Jesus] tells you." That's it, that's the last thing she says. Mary points us in the direction of Jesus. It is what she does, she leads us to Him, so giving her honor where honor is due (and don't you think someone who gives birth to someone knowing they are the savior but will be crucified in a horrible excruciatingly painful deserves some respect?) could only lead us closer to God Himself.

I'm sorry, i threw this together rather quickly a few lines may be a bit incoherrent, i apologize.

After the longest amount of research I've ever done for a thread in Ns General (two weeks), I'd like to dispell some common misconceptions about Catholics.

Using condoms is a sin: This is an out and out lie. The truth of the matter is using condoms for contraception, is a sin.
Why the fuck else would you wish to use a condom? Do you pull them over your head while you're sticking up banks or something?

After the longest amount of research I've ever done for a thread in Ns General (two weeks), I'd like to dispell some common misconceptions about Catholics.

Using condoms is a sin: This is an out and out lie. The truth of the matter is using condoms for contraception, is a sin.

There are two doctrines that allow for the use of condoms by Catholics. The first being the Principle of the Unjust Attacker, which allows a Catholic to defend themselves against harm and states there is no harm to their immortal soul in doing so. The second in the Principle of Double Effect, that is the commission of a normally sinful act, to prevent a greater wrong. Such as in the case of Jezabel

"Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing the sexual transmission of the HIV virus. Condoms are only 99.9%. However, if you cannot abstain, then it is better to be 99.9% sure." -Cardinal Francis Arinze

Homosexuality is a sin: Again, a missunderstanding. Oral and anal intercourse are sins.

HOWEVER, there is a loophole. In the case of a married couple who cannot produce children, the Doctrine of Repoduction, should state they should not have sex. As a child is unlikely to result. This becomes void, however, if they create a Catholic Family by means of aboption and adherence to Catholic teaching on family life. Specifically ensuring the Christening, First Communion, Affirmation, Confirmation, Baptism, etc, of the child(ren).

This princiiple can be extended to homosexual couples who PARTICIPATE IN A FAITHFUL AND CATHOLIC RELATIONSHIP.

Catholics worship Mary: Catholics venerate Mary. In the same way a person admires a football star, but does not worship them in the same way they practice a religion.

That's all for now, there are a few more. But I'm waiting on my Confessor to get back to me with some documents.

I've noticed these things also. That's why I'm not a Catholic.

Ah yes, having to go through a priest in order to talk to the Holy spirit in order to talk to Jesus in order to talk to God...

't is a shame that "Eden" never existed eh?

Funny. The Bible describes where Eden was. With the Tigris and the Euphraties. And coincidenally thats where scinetists now think humans orginated from. (Meaning Adam was most likely black)

Ah yes, having to go through a priest in order to talk to the Holy spirit in order to talk to Jesus in order to talk to God...

The Holy Spirit and Jesus are God. And no, you don't have to go through anyone. I was pointing out that there is no harm in doing so. Anyone can talk to God anytime (otherwise known as prayer).

Affirmation? I'm Catholic and I've never heard the term. Although I could just be stupid...explain?
I think it's an Australian Catholic term, I've heard American Catholics call it something else. The name aludes me right now and as much fun as trying to Google it sounds, I have a half dozen pages to reply to and just minutes before Im due at work.

John needs to ask Carl for a favor. You and Carl talk, but you don't know very much about him and you aren't close to and don't quite really know how to approach him or talk to him about this favor, and plus his social group is a little higher than yours. What you do know is that Julie is one of Carl's best friends, she talks to him all the time whenever she wants, and is always with him and cares about him very much and he cares about her. You are friends with Julie as well, so you ask her to talk to Carl for you because the 2 of them are closer and she can do it more effectively than yourself.
John is you, Carl is God, Julie is Mary or any saint (saint defined as person in heaven, heaven defined as being in the presence of God in all his glory). They are closer to God and thus communicate with Him much better and can talk to him for you if you ask.

Nice analogy. Except that it basically says that Catholics can't have a personal relationship with God because Jesus being Human and Divine wasn't enough to bridge the gap caused by sin between Man and God, God is time bound, and basically follows a tradition of making God more remote so that intimacy is discouraged. Not to mention it's basically how Catholicism catered to the hero-worshippers.

Ah, so you're Australian, then?
Yup. But according to Fass, I look "Arabish". So I'm thinking of skipping the beaches ;)

The Holy Spirit and Jesus are God. And no, you don't have to go through anyone. I was pointing out that there is no harm in doing so. Anyone can talk to God anytime (otherwise known as prayer).

Except that Confession necessitates a Priest.

Nice analogy. Except that it basically says that Catholics can't have a personal relationship with God because Jesus being Human and Divine wasn't enough to bridge the gap caused by sin between Man and God, God is time bound, and basically follows a tradition of making God more remote so that intimacy is discouraged. Not to mention it's basically how Catholicism catered to the hero-worshippers.

Obviously someone didn't read my next post. I said I was merely pointing out why it does no harm to pray to Mary. I also said that you did not have to pray to anyone other than God if you don't want to.

And pardon me, but i'm am tired and irritated so i am going to stop being nice for a second. I am sick and tired of people taking things I or anyone else posts and picking one thing about a page long post to say might not make sense and flat out ignoring everything else.

that is why i am lutheran!

Revisionist Catholicism. :mad:
The Second Vatican Council is Dogma and MUST be obeyed by all Catholics as a matter of faith and morals.

It should be here then, but it isn't. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/t.htm
This question is asked another three times, I will not quote them all for the sake of time and space. However, I encourage those looking for more information to consult their local clergy. I only found it by specific enquiries of my Confessor.

Except that Confession necessitates a Priest.

*wips out religion notebook. Flips to section on why we confess to a priest.*

1. Christ wants us to. How can I say that? Christ said to the apostles who were the first priests this, "Whos sins you forgive are forgiven them, who sins you retain are retained."

2. It teaches us to be humble. If we have to tell someone else it tests us on are we really sorry and humble about the fact we are sinners.

3. We can get useful advice from the priest regarding how to break a bad habit etc.

4. So that when the priest says the prayer of absolution we can be assured without a doubt we are forgiven, and not wonder in our hearts if we are because no one told us.

5. By having to tell them to someone it reminds us that our sins aren't only part of us but affect the entire church and world.

6. A priest acts (again see a previous post of mine) in persona christi, or alter Christus. The former means in the person of Christ (otherwise known as in His place) the latter means another. So we are confessing our sins directly to God who is acting through the priest.

that is why i am lutheran!
And why you're going to hell....;) Kidding.

Anyway, that's all I have time for today. I'll be back on for fifteen minutes, same time, tommorow.

After the longest amount of research I've ever done for a thread in Ns General (two weeks), I'd like to dispell some common misconceptions about Catholics.

Using condoms is a sin: This is an out and out lie. The truth of the matter is using condoms for contraception, is a sin.

There are two doctrines that allow for the use of condoms by Catholics. The first being the Principle of the Unjust Attacker, which allows a Catholic to defend themselves against harm and states there is no harm to their immortal soul in doing so. The second in the Principle of Double Effect, that is the commission of a normally sinful act, to prevent a greater wrong. Such as in the case of Jezabel

"Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing the sexual transmission of the HIV virus. Condoms are only 99.9%. However, if you cannot abstain, then it is better to be 99.9% sure." -Cardinal Francis Arinze

Homosexuality is a sin: Again, a missunderstanding. Oral and anal intercourse are sins.

HOWEVER, there is a loophole. In the case of a married couple who cannot produce children, the Doctrine of Repoduction, should state they should not have sex. As a child is unlikely to result. This becomes void, however, if they create a Catholic Family by means of aboption and adherence to Catholic teaching on family life. Specifically ensuring the Christening, First Communion, Affirmation, Confirmation, Baptism, etc, of the child(ren).

This princiiple can be extended to homosexual couples who PARTICIPATE IN A FAITHFUL AND CATHOLIC RELATIONSHIP.

Catholics worship Mary: Catholics venerate Mary. In the same way a person admires a football star, but does not worship them in the same way they practice a religion.

That's all for now, there are a few more. But I'm waiting on my Confessor to get back to me with some documents.

im slightly worried about the vast amount of 'loopholes' in catholisism- i prefer a religion which is straight down the line with all doctrines straight from one source- not created hundreds of years later

that is why i am lutheran!


What is why you're a Lutheran?

*wips out religion notebook. Flips to section on why we confess to a priest.*

1. Christ wants us to. How can I say that? Christ said to the apostles who were the first priests this, "Whos sins you forgive are forgiven them, who sins you retain are retained."

2. It teaches us to be humble. If we have to tell someone else it tests us on are we really sorry and humble about the fact we are sinners.

3. We can get useful advice from the priest regarding how to break a bad habit etc.

4. So that when the priest says the prayer of absolution we can be assured without a doubt we are forgiven, and not wonder in our hearts if we are because no one told us.

5. By having to tell them to someone it reminds us that our sins aren't only part of us but affect the entire church and world.

6. A priest acts (again see a previous post of mine) in persona christi, or alter Christus. The former means in the person of Christ (otherwise known as in His place) the latter means another. So we are confessing our sins directly to God who is acting through the priest.

there is only one intercessor between man and God and that is Jesus

there is only one intercessor between man and God and that is Jesus

That almost makes sense, but for that Jesus is God. So he doesn't so much intercess for us.

im slightly worried about the vast amount of 'loopholes' in catholisism- i prefer a religion which is straight down the line with all doctrines straight from one source- not created hundreds of years later


I prefer a religion that keeps up with the times. (The Catholic Church needs to better in this department, too.)

I prefer a religion that keeps up with the times. (The Catholic Church needs to better in this department, too.) Jesus didn't really keep up with the times. He did what he knew to be right, not what everyone else demanded from him. Conforming to the times is a sign of weakness, lack of individual conscience and lack of integrity.

The Principle of the Loving Baron sounds like a weird Medieval Gay Porno.

Now that is definately going into my sig!

I prefer a religion that keeps up with the times. (The Catholic Church needs to better in this department, too.)

Religion is not about keeping up with the times. Religion specifically defines right and wrong, and what is right is right. Wrong is wrong. If a religion changed their stance on issues all the time it wouldn't be much of a religion and I don't know where they'd get the gall to tell me what's right or wrong if in 5 years they could change it on me. There would be no point to morality if it got to be changed based on what people felt like, meaning that right and wrong would no longer even exist if it was based on feelings. look at this, "If i want to be able to do this how dare you tell me it's wrong, so how bout we just say for me it's right for you it's wrong?" Well because that would amount to everyone do whatever they want, so at that point you tell me what the point of there being any religion telling you right from wrong would be, because those would esentially cease to exist.

After the longest amount of research I've ever done for a thread in Ns General (two weeks), I'd like to dispell some common misconceptions about Catholics.

Using condoms is a sin: This is an out and out lie. The truth of the matter is using condoms for contraception, is a sin.

There are two doctrines that allow for the use of condoms by Catholics. The first being the Principle of the Unjust Attacker, which allows a Catholic to defend themselves against harm and states there is no harm to their immortal soul in doing so. The second in the Principle of Double Effect, that is the commission of a normally sinful act, to prevent a greater wrong. Such as in the case of Jezabel

"Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing the sexual transmission of the HIV virus. Condoms are only 99.9%. However, if you cannot abstain, then it is better to be 99.9% sure." -Cardinal Francis Arinze

Homosexuality is a sin: Again, a missunderstanding. Oral and anal intercourse are sins.

HOWEVER, there is a loophole. In the case of a married couple who cannot produce children, the Doctrine of Repoduction, should state they should not have sex. As a child is unlikely to result. This becomes void, however, if they create a Catholic Family by means of aboption and adherence to Catholic teaching on family life. Specifically ensuring the Christening, First Communion, Affirmation, Confirmation, Baptism, etc, of the child(ren).

This princiiple can be extended to homosexual couples who PARTICIPATE IN A FAITHFUL AND CATHOLIC RELATIONSHIP.

Catholics worship Mary: Catholics venerate Mary. In the same way a person admires a football star, but does not worship them in the same way they practice a religion.

That's all for now, there are a few more. But I'm waiting on my Confessor to get back to me with some documents.

Rotovia, I tip my hat to you sir. As a formerly practicing and very devout Catholic, I appreciate you clarifying these misconceptions. Whenever I used to 'defend' Catholicism I would become annoyed that whomever I debated with would not know of these subtle yet crucial dogmatic credos. It is a good thing that people, like you, exist who can elucidate often times obfuscated subtleties about Catholicism or any religion for that matter. Though I do not seek confrontation with those who oppose Catholicism, it bothers me that many confront Catholics with well-trodden arguments and sometimes stereotypical misconceptions. Anyway, though I may not believe in the Church per se, I still appreciate someone that can successfully dabble in religious quagmire and emerge unsullied.

Rotovia, I tip my hat to you sir. As a formerly practicing and very devout Catholic, I appreciate you clarifying these misconceptions. Whenever I used to 'defend' Catholicism I would become annoyed that whomever I debated with would not know of these subtle yet crucial dogmatic credos. It is a good thing that people, like you, exist who can elucidate often times obfuscated subtleties about Catholicism or any religion for that matter. Though I do not seek confrontation with those who oppose Catholicism, it bothers me that many confront Catholics with well-trodden arguments and sometimes stereotypical misconceptions. Anyway, though I may not believe in the Church per se, I still appreciate someone that can successfully dabble in religious quagmire and emerge unsullied.

Nicely put. And I would like to second that and extend it to some people like Augustino, Boofheads, Bridgeporch, Skaladora. Sorry if i missed anyone else.

Right, it's quite strange to compare the Virgin Mary, a result of someone's imagination/alucinations, and a football player, a person who indeed exists.
Dammit, one freaking mistranslation and an entire mythos surrounds a person. The word used in Hebrew was young woman, not virgin gorrammit.

Jesus didn't really keep up with the times. He did what he knew to be right, not what everyone else demanded from him. Conforming to the times is a sign of weakness, lack of individual conscience and lack of integrity.


Originally Posted by The Supreme Rulers
Religion is not about keeping up with the times. Religion specifically defines right and wrong, and what is right is right. Wrong is wrong. If a religion changed their stance on issues all the time it wouldn't be much of a religion and I don't know where they'd get the gall to tell me what's right or wrong if in 5 years they could change it on me. There would be no point to morality if it got to be changed based on what people felt like, meaning that right and wrong would no longer even exist if it was based on feelings. look at this, "If i want to be able to do this how dare you tell me it's wrong, so how bout we just say for me it's right for you it's wrong?" Well because that would amount to everyone do whatever they want, so at that point you tell me what the point of there being any religion telling you right from wrong would be, because those would esentially cease to exist


Thank you both for stating the obvious. :rolleyes: What I meant was there are situations now that literally did not exist 2000 years ago (like when John Paul II oficially defined computerized fraud as a sin) or when a religion can admit when it made a mistake (such as when the Church said it was not a sin to believe in evolution, which contrary to popular belief does not preclude a Creator, or that one was no longer required to believe in a geocentric universe). I was told by a priest 30 years ago that it was ok to believe in evolution.

Thank you both for stating the obvious. :rolleyes: What I meant was there are situations now that literally did not exist 2000 years ago (like when John Paul II oficially defined computerized fraud as a sin) or when a religion can admit when it made a mistake (such as when the Church said it was not a sin to believe in evolution, which contrary to popular belief does not preclude a Creator, or that one was no longer required to believe in a geocentric universe). I was told by a priest 30 years ago that it was ok to believe in evolution.

ugh. Ok, you are required to believe what the Church says on matters of faith and morals.
When John Paull II said computer fraud is a sin he was changing NOTHING. He was assuring people that fraud on the computer is fraud the same and yes is a sin. Nothing about church teaching changed.

If it does not have to do with faith and morals, such as believing in evolution or not, you aren't required to follow it. Even if a pope came out and said flat out "you will go to hell if you believe in evolution" he isnt talking about faith and morals and could be (in this isntance would be) wrong. you need not follow that. So when the church revised it's statements about such things, it was not changing teaching, or I should say changing official teaching. The only thing it does is add to teaching when a circumstance not previously heard of is brought up, like you said it should.
If something is established as a matter of faith and morals and becomes dogma or doctrine or whatever, it NEVER changes, even if someone says it does, they can be wrong because it doesnt.

i beleive that catholics are doomed for hell, look at the end of revelation it says that if u add on to the bible (as in purgatory) youll be damned

i beleive that catholics are doomed for hell, look at the end of revelation it says that if u add on to the bible (as in purgatory) youll be damned
:headbang:
here we go again! Purgatory IS in the bible! please dont reply to this post until you read this:

Some Fundamentalists also charge, as though it actually proved something, "The word purgatory is nowhere found in Scripture." This is true, and yet it does not disprove the existence of purgatory or the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. The words Trinity and Incarnation aren’t in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it. Likewise, Scripture teaches that purgatory exists, even if it doesn’t use that word and even if 1 Peter 3:19 refers to a place other than purgatory.

Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

Then, of course, there is the Bible’s approval of prayers for the : "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the in view; for if he were not expecting the to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in . But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Macc. 12:43–45). Prayers are not needed by those in heaven, and no one can help those in hell. That means some people must be in a third condition, at least temporarily. This verse so clearly illustrates the existence of purgatory that, at the time of the Reformation, Protestants had to cut the books of the Maccabees out of their Bibles in order to avoid accepting the doctrine.

Prayers for the and the consequent doctrine of purgatory have been part of the true religion since before the time of Christ. Not only can we show it was practiced by the Jews of the time of the Maccabees, but it has even been retained by Orthodox Jews today, who recite a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the of a loved one so that the loved one may be purified. It was not the Catholic Church that added the doctrine of purgatory. Rather, any change in the original teaching has taken place in the Protestant churches, which rejected a doctrine that had always been believed by Jews and Christians.

Lets also not forget, the bible was written by Catholicism.

She isn't seen as God or as the way to redemption. - Okay - forgot to quote the person who stated this.
Did not Vatican II state that Mary is Co-Redemptrix?? http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html
http://www.voxpopuli.org/booktext.php
http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/coredemptrix.asp


That almost makes sense, but for that Jesus is God. So he doesn't so much intercess for us.


Heb 7:22-25
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
(KJV)

Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after of the consequences of one’s sins.

"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." Matthew 12:32

This is refering to blasphemey against the holy spirit, the only non forgivable sin.


Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage. .

Err, no. If you read the Bible it basicly is refeiring to Gods judgement at the end and how he will judge how we live our lives. If we live them with hearts for him we will build with silver and gold. If we dont build our lives with strong things (IE we dont live for god) we will still be saved, but only as one is saved from a burning building, IE he is alive but not with many things.

r u dissing catholics????????? :eek:

Are you surprised...?

aww... *hands cookie to newbie*


:fluffle: It's ok...

:D Sorry for sounding patronising but I guess I'm so used to the constant dissing of Christians on here that I take it as a given... Even if I don't like it

i beleive that catholics are doomed for hell, look at the end of revelation it says that if u add on to the bible (as in purgatory) youll be damned


Really? Are you sure that's the reason you believe Catholics are going to Hell? Because it looks more like you believe we're going to Hell because you're not Catholic and you know nothing of our beliefs, and you're buying into centuries-old stereotypes. I could be wrong, though. :rolleyes:

I'm a Catholic, so I'm not going to call Their Holinesses heretics, but I will say their doctrines risk their immortal souls and that where not spoken with ex cathedra authority, they commit(ed) the sin of heresy.

THATS one of the most Hertical things ive heard.

That almost makes sense, but for that Jesus is God. So he doesn't so much intercess for us.

i didnt make that up btw;
there is only one intercessor between God and man, Jesus Christ [1 Timothy 2:5]
your right God is Jesus Jesus is also God but then hes also the holy spirit and then again so is God, but theyre also seperate but theyre all three linked...confusing but actuyall when u think about it minus cynasism and complete refusal it makes kinda sense- its like water- three things, ice, water, steam- all water at the end of the day but in different forms

The Second Vatican Council is Dogma and MUST be obeyed by all Catholics as a matter of faith and morals.

Yes, but which VCII documents support your position?

This question is asked another three times, I will not quote them all for the sake of time and space. However, I encourage those looking for more information to consult their local clergy. I only found it by specific enquiries of my Confessor.

I don't know what your priest told you, but you are making the Church sound like Scientology with secret teachings hidden in obscure archives for the eyes of True Initiates only. That's not the case. All Catholic doctrine is public knowledge, freely available to anyone who cares to look it up.

If you can't support your ideas with something in the Bible (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/), or at least referenced in a reputable source like the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/), it may or may not be a worthwhile thought, but it's not Catholic doctrine.

Dammit, one freaking mistranslation and an entire mythos surrounds a person. The word used in Hebrew was young woman, not virgin gorrammit.

God can use even a "mistranslation" as a prophecy.

i didnt make that up btw;
there is only one intercessor between God and man, Jesus Christ [1 Timothy 2:5]
your right God is Jesus Jesus is also God but then hes also the holy spirit and then again so is God, but theyre also seperate but theyre all three linked...confusing but actuyall when u think about it minus cynasism and complete refusal it makes kinda sense- its like water- three things, ice, water, steam- all water at the end of the day but in different forms

Thank you for your post. I was honestly unaware of that passage. I do understand though (as much as anyone can) the mystery of the Trinity. I suppose my post was incorrect because i did not speak clearly. A previous post said something that mad it sound like you can only talk to God through Jesus. And i was thinking no no no, there are so many ways to talk to God and so many people who's intercession you can ask for (the saints) that i said something without putting proper thought into my wording and conveyed the wrong message. Thank you for correcting me, and i didnt think you made it up, i just haven't been home ;)


PS Great analagy with the water and all!!

She isn't seen as God or as the way to redemption.

Not God, not the Redeemer, but a path and a helper for us to draw near to the Redeemer.

Did not Vatican II state that Mary is Co-Redemptrix?? http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html
http://www.voxpopuli.org/booktext.php
http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/coredemptrix.asp

I think your links explain the concept well. The application of the title Coredemptrix to St. Mary refers to the idea that while our salvation was accomplished by Christ's sacrificial death on the cross, Mary also played a unique and necessary (not inherently but by God's choice) role, though subordinate to Christ's, in our salvation.

There is much more depth that I won't go into, but the idea is widely accepted by Catholics who think it is implicit in Vatican II documents as well as older teachings. However, the Church has not yet made a definitive declaration on the doctrine, so Catholics may believe it or not according to their own conscience. It is unlikely that the Church will make such a declaration unless a major controversy arises over the idea.

Rotovia, I tip my hat to you sir. As a formerly practicing and very devout Catholic, I appreciate you clarifying these misconceptions. Whenever I used to 'defend' Catholicism I would become annoyed that whomever I debated with would not know of these subtle yet crucial dogmatic credos. It is a good thing that people, like you, exist who can elucidate often times obfuscated subtleties about Catholicism or any religion for that matter. Though I do not seek confrontation with those who oppose Catholicism, it bothers me that many confront Catholics with well-trodden arguments and sometimes stereotypical misconceptions. Anyway, though I may not believe in the Church per se, I still appreciate someone that can successfully dabble in religious quagmire and emerge unsullied.
I live to please

i beleive that catholics are doomed for hell, look at the end of revelation it says that if u add on to the bible (as in purgatory) youll be damned
Purgatory is a place, smartass. Secondly, the passage refers to the Book of Revelations. Otherwise King James would be frying in hell right now.

THATS one of the most Hertical things ive heard.
Like my Flames, it falls just this side of legal...

Yes, but which VCII documents support your position? None,to the best of my knowledge. I was refering to a statement someone made regarding their disapproval of Vatican II.

I don't know what your priest told you, but you are making the Church sound like Scientology with secret teachings hidden in obscure archives for the eyes of True Initiates only. Firstly, you're an idiot. Not one other person who read this thread compared The Holy Roman Catholic Church to Scientology. Secondly, these teachings aren't secret.

That's not the case. All Catholic doctrine is public knowledge, freely available to anyone who cares to look it up.Indeed it is. Hence why I suggest looking it up. The problem is 99% of Catholics never bother to investigate their faith

If you can't support your ideas with something in the Bible (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/), or at least referenced in a reputable source like the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/), it may or may not be a worthwhile thought, but it's not Catholic doctrineThe Bible is not an absolute of Catholic doctrine and you know it. The Catechism outlines the principles of Catholic practice, so children can understand it better. Throwing a bunch of homepage links does nothing but prove you are too lazy to properly investigate this matter.

Either take the time to learn Catholic doctrine properly, or don't profess to be knowledgable in it.

Purgatory is a place, smartass. Secondly, the passage refers to the Book of Revelations. Otherwise King James would be frying in hell right now.

Most Christians, I find, do not hold with that (correct) interpretation of yours ;)

Some good reinforcing evidence to this is in Deuteronomy, where Moses states almost exactly the same thing. And Deuteronomy isn't anywhere near the end of the Bible, after all.

Most Christians, I find, do not hold with that (correct) interpretation of yours ;)

Some good reinforcing evidence to this is in Deuteronomy, where Moses states almost exactly the same thing. And Deuteronomy isn't anywhere near the end of the Bible, after all.
Again, he refers to the specfic book. I hate the fatc so many Protestants blindly ignore the fact "The Bible" as we know it, is only a fairly new concept. Prior to that most of the books (yes, they are called books because they are jsut that) were not used in conjunction with one another.

None,to the best of my knowledge. I was refering to a statement someone made regarding their disapproval of Vatican II.

I think Celtlund's comment on "revisionist Catholicism" in post #58 referred to your contention that homosexual sex is licit, not to the teachings of Vatican II.

I think Celtlund's comment on "revisionist Catholicism" in post #58 referred to your contention that homosexual sex is licit, not to the teachings of Vatican II.
In the context, it indicated the contrary and from memory Celtlund does not support the Second Vatican Council.

"Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing the sexual transmission of the HIV virus. Condoms are only 99.9%. However, if you cannot abstain, then it is better to be 99.9% sure." -Cardinal Francis Arinze




Meh, Become a Satanist. The first of the 9 satanic statements is

1. Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!

Be yourself, and do whatever you want to do, have whatever you want! And dont feel guilty about it! Thats the fundimentals of Satanism... And my life :D

Meh, Become a Satanist. The first of the 9 satanic statements is

1. Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!

Be yourself, and do whatever you want to do, have whatever you want! And dont feel guilty about it! Thats the fundimentals of Satanism... And my life :D
Thanks. But no thanks.

Sure, Just dont dismiss it because it has the word Satan in it. Christians made their Satan out of Paganism. There isnt a link with the Horny Headed spiked tailed dude that Christians so gleefully throw around to shock there followers into submission to the Satan that we take our Philosophical views from.

~Teald

Funny. The Bible describes where Eden was. With the Tigris and the Euphraties. And coincidenally thats where scinetists now think humans orginated from. (Meaning Adam was most likely black)

So they didn't get kicked out of paradise, but out of the country?

Firstly, you're an idiot. Not one other person who read this thread compared The Holy Roman Catholic Church to Scientology.

I'm not an idiot, though I may be a poor joker. It is just that I thought your refering to dogmas that no one else here has heard of (#5), that you had to spend days going through Church archives to find (#27), that were only revealed to you after asking your priest the right questions (#143), and that the rest of us can only check by going in person to a parish or seminary (#27) sounded to me like you are making the Catholic church out to be some secret society like Scientology or the Masonic Order. I made the joke about Scientology in order to emphasize that the Church is not like that and its teachings are completely above the board and in the open.

The Bible is not an absolute of Catholic doctrine and you know it.

Yes, but if you can support your argument with a passage from scripture (interpreted consistently with Church tradition), you will more likely to convince other Catholics, and other Christians as well.

The Catechism outlines the principles of Catholic practice, so children can understand it better.

No, the Catechism is more than that. It is a definitive compendium of Catholic practice, tradition, and doctrine, reformulated in the light of Vatican II and presented for the world today. Though it does not go into exhaustive depth in any subject, if no reference to some concept can be found in the Catechism, I think it is almost certainly not a part of Catholic doctrine.

Throwing a bunch of homepage links does nothing but prove you are too lazy to properly investigate this matter.

I included the links as a reference for any who wanted to learn for themselves what the Church teaches. You don't have to walk to a parish to "properly investigate" Catholic doctrine. The pages I linked are online versions of reputable, authoritative documents with the same content as you'd find in a bound copy taken down from the shelf of a seminary library.

What books are you reading that you can only find at a parish, seminary, or "Church archive", that tell of doctrines not found in the Bible or the Catechism? Why is it that you and your priest seem to be the only Catholics who know about these dogmas?

If you can't support your arguments from the basic Catholic sources I cited (it doesn't have to be the online version), then I won't be convinced that what you write truly represents Catholic doctrine.

If she's human, how is she divine? But yes, she is given a lot of respect because she was considered to be without sin and gave birth to Jesus. She is very righteous!
Since we're using definitions, let me use one

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=divine
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deity

No where in either of those does it describe someone who is divine as someone who can respond to prayers.



And actually, yes, sometimes we do pray to long deceased Christians.

In fact, every once in a while in mass (I don't remember which ones exactly) the priest goes through a long line of saints. Something like this:

Priest: "St. Peter and St Paul"
Congregation: "Pray for us"
Priest: St. so and so
Congregation: pray for us

and so on with other saints.

And we don't ask the saints or Mary for "that promotion at work". That type of prayer, if we did it, would be reserved for God. We simply ask Mary and the Saints to prayer to God for us and lead us to Jesus.

And no, the Cathlic Church is not in the business in trying to make heresy seem like it isn't. If they thought that praying to Mary was against the scripture, they wouldn't teach that it is right. There's no point in trying to "cover it up".

Ok, I'm really off to bed now.
Look it up in the Cathechism if you're still interested:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm


Couple of points I'd like to make.

1. Whether or not you or the church is going to admit it, Catholics DO indeed worship Mary.
Just becuase you call it something else, doesnt change the ACTION of worshipping.

If you pray to Mary, then she is divine, or at least, idolized.

2. Im not implying that this action is heresy, or evil, or wrong, frankly, I dont care.

3. Who, and what is considered "divine" is up to the religions dogma.
Yours states that Mary is human.
Therefore, youre going to argue that way.
The reality, of what you do....is different to everyone else.

I heard roughly 20% on CNN.
LOL that doesn't make it any better.

If you pray to Mary, then she is divine, or at least, idolized.

... according to the way you define the words.

The reality, of what you do....is different to everyone else.

... is different to you. Why should we accept your definitions and categories as any more valid or common than ours?

You can think of Catholicism whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true. Catholics are not irrational because our doctrines are incomprehensible according to the BackwoodsSquatches dictionary.

... according to the way you define the words.



... is different to you. Why should we accept your definitions and categories as any more valid or common than ours?

You can think of Catholicism whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true. Catholics are not irrational because our doctrines are incomprehensible according to the BackwoodsSquatches dictionary.


Woah woah...

Firstly, and most importantly, Im not insisting that Catholics are irrational.
Im not saying its good, bad, or indifferent.
Im merely pointing out, that wether Catholics want to believe it, or not, the fact is, that they worship Mary, even if to a lesser degree that of Jesus, or God.

The very defintion of the word "worship" agrees with me. (see the aforementioned link)

Im not bashing catholicism, or not trying to, anyway.
If you believe otherwise...thats too bad.

Woah woah...

Firstly, and most importantly, Im not insisting that Catholics are irrational.
Im not saying its good, bad, or indifferent.
Im merely pointing out, that wether Catholics want to believe it, or not, the fact is, that they worship Mary, even if to a lesser degree that of Jesus, or God.

The very defintion of the word "worship" agrees with me. (see the aforementioned link)

Im not bashing catholicism, or not trying to, anyway.
If you believe otherwise...thats too bad.

WORSHIP: Adoration and honor given to God, which is the first act of the virtue of religion (2096).

- The Glossary of the Catechism

By definition, worship can only be given to God, and no-one is claiming that Mary is God. Ergo, the very definition of the word disagrees with you...

By definition, worship can only be given to God, and no-one is claiming that Mary is God. Ergo, the very definition of the word disagrees with you...


Wrong.

wor·ship ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wûrshp)
n.

The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
Ardent devotion; adoration.
often Worship Chiefly British. Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your

If you pray to Mary, then she is divine, or at least, idolized.

Im merely pointing out, that wether Catholics want to believe it, or not, the fact is, that they worship Mary, even if to a lesser degree that of Jesus, or God.

Your argument changed subtly between those two posts. If "Catholics worship Mary" is really all you're trying to say, I will admit that is true by certain definitions of "worship". If you are saying we deify or idolize her, that is quite different according to the theological meaning of those words, and is quite untrue.

Wrong.

wor·ship ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wûrshp)
n.

The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
Ardent devotion; adoration.
often Worship Chiefly British. Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your

Oh yippee! I do enjoy a game of lets-find-a-definition-to-suit-our-own-argument!

By your definition, an object or person that is being worshiped does not necessarily have to be divine, so where is the problem with "worshiping" Mary if, by your definition, this does not necessarily mean we consider her to be divine?

Your argument changed subtly between those two posts. If "Catholics worship Mary" is really all you're trying to say, I will admit that is true by certain definitions of "worship". If you are saying we deify or idolize her, that is quite different according to the theological meaning of those words, and is quite untrue.


Catholics worship Mary.

Thats all Im saying.
Not wether its good, or bad.

As for diefy...no, certainly not.
In fact the Church makes a clear distinction on that.

Idolize...hmm...only with a lower-case "I".

Oh yippee! I do enjoy a game of lets-find-a-definition-to-suit-our-own-argument!

My definition comes from Dictionary.com.

Whered you get yours?


By your definition, an object or person that is being worshiped does not necessarily have to be divine, so where is the problem with "worshiping" Mary if, by your definition, this does not necessarily mean we consider her to be divine?

For the last time...I dont have a problem with it, Im merely pointing it out.

Ok, lets get this straight, Catholics do not worship Mary as a God. We revere her because she gave birth to the Son of God. When we pray for example the Hail Mary, we ask her "Pray for us sinners" not implying that Our Lady is a deity, but that she is close to God.
I don't understand when people say "Catholics worship Mary" In what way do we worship Mary? We ask her to pray for us, but we could ask our Grandma to pray for us if we wanted.

My definition comes from Dictionary.com.

Whered you get yours?

Note the reference in the definition.

Ok, lets get this straight, Catholics do not worship Mary as a God. We revere her because she gave birth to the Son of God. When we pray for example the Hail Mary, we ask her "Pray for us sinners" not implying that Our Lady is a deity, but that she is close to God.
I don't understand when people say "Catholics worship Mary" In what way do we worship Mary? We ask her to pray for us, but we could ask our Grandma to pray for us if we wanted.


You really should read the posts.

I have explained how you worship Mary.

You really should read the posts.

I have explained how you worship Mary.

Only by changing definitions until the actual meaning was lost.

Note the reference in the definition.


What?

Only by changing definitions until the actual meaning was lost.


You really are talking nonsense.

I displayed a definition of a word, from an online dictionary, and showed how it applies to my arguement.

What?
WORSHIP: Adoration and honor given to God, which is the first act of the virtue of religion (2096).

- The Glossary of the Catechism

See the bit at the bottom? This definition comes from the Glossary of the Second Edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

See the bit at the bottom? This definition comes from the Glossary of the Second Edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


an organizations interperetation of a word, is not akin to the actual defintion of the word.

Oh my goodness guys!!!!! I am going to have to side with BackwoodSquatches on this, and I clarified this in my long post that no one seems to have read, and doing so would have saved pages of argument.

The definition of WORSHIP by virtue of it root word origins in their original language (i dont seem how a definition can get more precise than that) is a statement of "worth-ship". "TO GIVE HONOR WHERE HONOR IS DUE." So yes, Catholics worship Mary. I worship my parents, my teachers, my friends, the saints, my leaders, heros, soldiers whatever! So how do you make the distinction between what we give to Mary and to God? Once again, if you see my long post on the matter several pages back you would know. The supreme honor and reverence given only to God is called "LATRIA". The honor given to Mary as someone who has accomplished the task of making it to heaven is "HYPERDULIA". The honor given to saints is "DULIA". Mary gets the 'hyper' part because she made it there without ever committing a sin. So to avoid mistranslations when referred to in an area's vernacular, the Catholic church gives them distinct words of their own.

Backwood, thank you for refraining from anger in your posts. I think everyone has been misunderstanding each other on this matter. Depending on how you interpret the definition of worship you will get different answers on the matter. The main point is, and I think you do understand this, is that the way in which we show respect to God is different than that to anyone else. I hope someone will actually read my post this time and clear this up. I see no more to argue about but if I missed something please bring it up!

The honor given to Mary as someone who has accomplished the task of making it to heaven is "HYPERDULIA". The honor given to saints is "DULIA". Mary gets the 'hyper' part because she made it there without ever committing a sin. So to avoid mistranslations when referred to in an area's vernacular, the Catholic church gives them distinct words of their own.



woah woah woah where in the bible does it ever say mary never committed a sin? jesus was the only one who did that- we are all sinful- only jesus managed not to be

woah woah woah where in the bible does it ever say mary never committed a sin? jesus was the only one who did that- we are all sinful- only jesus managed not to be

It's not in the Bible. Mary's sinlessness is a sacred tradition handed down to us from the apostles. For Catholics sacred tradition is as valid a source of divine revelation as the Bible.

The idea is that for Mary's role as the mother of Jesus it was fitting that she be, like her Son, completely free from sin, so God created her soul without Original Sin.

The doctrine is called the Immaculate Conception, since Mary's soul was completely clean, immaculate, from the stain of sin from the time of her conception. The tradition goes all the way back to the apostles, but was formalized in writing in 1854. The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article that explains in-depth. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)

Mary also did not take dumps - a little known fact. She did release gas from time to time but is smelled much like the church incense does. This is passed on by oral tradition but somehow has never made it into the scripture.

I'm new here but this thread caught my eye. For the last six years my job has been to be able to answer any question about the Catholic church. what a job, eh?

there's a whole bunch of various misstatements and misrepresentations floating around in this thread but I just had to comment on MARY.


I have actually been thinking about doing a show called "What's the Deal with Mary?"


I can maybe settle this arguement because you're both right. Catholics do not worship Mary. But Catholics do worship Mary.


Part I: Officially Catholics pray to Mary for her intercession. They do not pray TO Mary, hence they do not worship her. There are 3 parts to the Catholic church, the people alive on earth (the church militant for people who love crazy trivia facts), the people dead but in heaven (the church triumphant) and the people suffering in purgatory (the church suffering). And we're all equal. If you are a person who believes there is a God and we pray to him, you will often find yourself saying to someone you know, "pray for me." So when Catholics address Mary that is exactly what they are doing and it is not one bit different than if I asked you to pray for me. Not one bit.


Part II: I would have to agree that many of the faithful out there praying for Mary's intercession do not make that distinction. Surely if you've ever stepped into someone's home who has about 200 Mary statues (anyone notice that when the feds barged in and grabbed little Elian Gonzalez? there were even Mary's in the toybox!) you would question if that person is making this distinction. Really really.


As to Mary being without sin: It's not in the Bible but it is part of Catholic dogma (that which you must believe....even if you struggle with it in order to be Catholic....there is a big difference, by the way between whether or not you abide by the rules..doctrine...and what you are asked to believe) that Mary is free from sin including that sin with which (according to the church) we are all born, original sin, the sin of Adam. That is why Mary is called 'The Immaculate Conception"........not to be confused with Jesus being concieved without sex, "the Virgin Birth." (Mary has 2 parents, Joachim and Ann, they have sex and have a baby girl, who unlike any other person ever born, does not have original sin on her soul......not to be confused with the event several years later when the angel arrives with the news that Mary will conceive a child without sex.)


why then is this dogma when it's not in the Bible? You'll enjoy this: the Catholic church puts as much stock in stuff that is in the Bible as it does in what is called Sacred Tradition. When the church talks about this Tradition the 'T" is capitalized because it is taken as Truth (also with a capital 'T'). In simple terms this just means the church says it true because the church has always said it was true. Of course it is much more complicated than that.

thedabera

It's not in the Bible. Mary's sinlessness is a sacred tradition handed down to us from the apostles. For Catholics sacred tradition is as valid a source of divine revelation as the Bible.

The idea is that for Mary's role as the mother of Jesus it was fitting that she be, like her Son, completely free from sin, so God created her soul without Original Sin.

The doctrine is called the Immaculate Conception, since Mary's soul was completely clean, immaculate, from the stain of sin from the time of her conception. The tradition goes all the way back to the apostles, but was formalized in writing in 1854. The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article that explains in-depth. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)
i forget qhere but then why in th bible does it say that she did a sin offering thing? and also im not sure if this is biblical but there is something about the holy spirit shielding jesus from her sin? why did it take to 1854?

After the longest amount of research I've ever done for a thread in Ns General (two weeks), I'd like to dispell some common misconceptions about Catholics.

Using condoms is a sin: This is an out and out lie. The truth of the matter is using condoms for contraception, is a sin.

Now this might have been said before, but can I just ask, given that that was the main point behind the creation of the bloody things in the first place, is this not a little redundant?

There are two doctrines that allow for the use of condoms by Catholics. The first being the Principle of the Unjust Attacker, which allows a Catholic to defend themselves against harm and states there is no harm to their immortal soul in doing so. The second in the Principle of Double Effect, that is the commission of a normally sinful act, to prevent a greater wrong. Such as in the case of Jezabel

"Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing the sexual transmission of the HIV virus. Condoms are only 99.9%. However, if you cannot abstain, then it is better to be 99.9% sure." -Cardinal Francis Arinze

Someone better explain that to Joseph and his buddies because they don't appear to be listening to people like this guy.

Homosexuality is a sin: Again, a missunderstanding. Oral and anal intercourse are sins.

How else are a homosexual couple supposed to engage in sexual intercourse?

HOWEVER, there is a loophole. In the case of a married couple who cannot produce children, the Doctrine of Repoduction, should state they should not have sex. As a child is unlikely to result. This becomes void, however, if they create a Catholic Family by means of aboption and adherence to Catholic teaching on family life. Specifically ensuring the Christening, First Communion, Affirmation, Confirmation, Baptism, etc, of the child(ren).

This princiiple can be extended to homosexual couples who PARTICIPATE IN A FAITHFUL AND CATHOLIC RELATIONSHIP.

Now given that the doctrine of just about every religion worldwide states that homosexuality is a sin, what exactly would a Roman Catholic Homosexual relationship be?

Why Mary must have been sinless: additions by me in red. The rest is from Catholic.com

one must understand what the Church means (and doesn’t mean) by the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX, in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus (issued December 8, 1854), taught that Mary, "from the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." (original sin - condition of sin that marks all humans as a result of Adam's first act of disobedience, causing a tendency towards committing sin.)(The doctrine includes the assertion that Mary was perpetually free from all actual sin (willful disobedience of God, either venial or mortal).

Several objections are raised by Protestants.

First, if only God is sinless, Mary couldn’t have been sinless or she would have been God.

Second, if Mary was sinless, why did she say, "My spirit rejoices in God my savior" (Luke 1:47)? If only sinners need a savior, why would Mary, if free from sin, include herself in the category of sinners? If she were sinless, she would have had no need of a savior, and her statement in Luke 1 would be incoherent.

Third, Paul says in Romans 3:10-12, 23, "There is no one just [righteous], not one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God, all have gone astray; all alike are worthless; there is not one who does good, not even one. . . . all have sinned and are deprived [fallen short] of the glory of God." In Romans 5:12 he says, "Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, de4th, and thus de4th came to all, inasmuch as all sinned . . . ." These verses seem to rule out any possibility that Mary was sinless.

The Immaculate Conception emphasizes four truths: (1) Mary did need a savior; (2) her savior was Jesus Christ; (3) Mary’s salvation was accomplished by Jesus through his work on the Cross; and (4) Mary was saved from sin, but in a different and more glorious way than the rest of us are. Let’s consider the first and easiest of the three objections.

The notion that God is the only being without sin is quite false--and even Protestants think so. Adam and Eve, before the fall, were free from sin, and they weren’t gods, the serpent’s assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. (One must remember that Mary was not the first immaculate human being, even if she was the first to be conceived immaculately.)

The angels in heaven are not gods, but they were created sinless and have remained so ever since. The saints in heaven are not gods, although each of them is now completely sinless (Rev. 14:5; 21:27).

Mary needed Jesus as her savior. His de4th on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her (unlike to us) at the moment of her conception. (Keep in mind that the Crucifixion is an eternal event and that the appropriation of salvation through Christ’s de4th isn’t impeded by time or space.)Why? Because while Jesus's human nature was confined to time and space, his divine nature is not, so the sacrifice is everlasting, but he no longer suffers because he is back in heaven in his divine nature.She was just saved anticipatorily, before contracting original sin. Each of us is permitted to become dirtied with original sin, but she was not. God h4tes sin, so this was a far better way.

Paul’s statements in Romans chapters 3 and 5 (no one is righteous; no one seeks God; no one does good; all have sinned) should not be taken in a crassly literal and universal sense--if they are, irreconcilable contradictions will arise. Consider Luke 1:6. Common sense tells us whole groups of people are exempt from Paul’s statement that "all have sinned." Aborted infants cannot sin, nor can young children or severely retarded people. But Paul didn’t mention such obvious exceptions. He was writing to 4dultss in our state of life. If certain groups are exempt from the "all have sinned" rubric, then these verses can’t be used to argue against Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

Now let’s consider what the Bible has to say. It’s important to recognize that neither the words "Immaculate Conception" nor the precise formula adopted by the Church to enunciate this truth are found in the Bible.This doesn’t mean the doctrine isn’t biblical, only that the truth of the Immaculate Conception, like the truths of the Trinity and Jesus’ hypostatic union (that Jesus was incarnated as God and man, possessing completely and simultaneously two natures, divine and human, in one divine person), is mentioned either in other words or only indirectly.

Look first at two passages in Luke 1. In verse 28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as "kecharitomene" ("full of grace" or "highly favored"). This is a recognition of her sinless state. In verse 42 Elizabeth greets Mary as "blessed among women." The original import of this phrase is lost in English translation. Since neither the Hebrew nor Aramaic languages have superlatives (best, highest, tallest, holiest), a speaker of those languages would have say, "You are tall among men" or "You are wealthy among men" to mean "You are the tallest" or "You are the wealthiest." Elizabeth’s words mean Mary was the holiest of all women.

The Church understands Mary to be the fulfillment of three Old Testament types: the cosmos, Eve, and the ark of the covenant. A type is a person, event, or thing in the Old Testament which foreshadows or symbolizes some future reality God brings to pass. Some specific examples of types:Noah’s Ark and the Flood were types of the Church and baptism (1 Peter 3:19-21); Moses, who delivered Israel from the slavery in Egypt, was a type of Christ, who saves us from the slavery to sin. The important thing to understand about a type is that its fulfillment is always more glorious, more profound, more "real" than the type itself.

Out of pristine matter the Lord created Adam, the first immaculately created human being, forming him from the "womb" of the Earth. The immaculate elements from which the first Adam received his substance foreshadowed the immaculate mother from whom the second Adam (Romans 5:14) took his human substance.

The second foreshadowing of Mary is Eve, the physical mother of our race, just as Mary is our spiritual mother through our membership in the Body of Christ (Rev. 12:17). What Eve spoiled through disobedience and lack of faith (Genesis 3), Mary set aright through faith and obedience (Luke 1:38).

We see a crucial statement in Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike at his heel." This passage is especially significant in that it refers to the "seed of the woman," a singular usage. The Bible, following normal biology, otherwise only refers to the seed of the man, the seed of the father, but never to the seed of the woman. Who is the woman mentioned here? The only possibility is Mary, the only woman to give birth to a child without the aid of a human father, a fact prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.

If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable. Why is that? The passage points to Mary’s Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and s4t4n. Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, original or actual (see 2 Corinthians 6:14). This line of thinking rules out Eve as the woman, since she clearly was under the influence of s4t4n(sin)in Genesis 3.

The third and most compelling type of Mary’s Immaculate Conception is the ark of the covenant. In Exodus 20 Moses is given the Ten Commandments. In chapters 25 through 30 the Lord gives Moses a detailed plan for the construction of the ark, the special container which would carry the Commandments. The surprising thing is that five chapters later, staring in chapter 35 and continuing to chapter 40, Moses repeats word for word each of the details of the ark’s construction.

Why? It was a way of emphasizing how crucial it was for the Lord’s exact specifications to be met (Ex. 25:9, 39:42-43). God wanted the ark to be as perfect and unblemished as humanly possible so it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the written Word of God. How much more so would God want Mary, the ark of the new covenant, to be perfect and unblemished since she would carry within her womb the Word of God in flesh.

There’s another striking foreshadowing of Mary as the new ark of the covenant in 2 Samuel 6. The Israelites had lost the ark in a battle with their enemies, the Philistines, and had recently recaptured it. King David sees the ark being brought to him and, in his joy and awe, says "Who am I that the ark of the Lord should come to me?" (1 Sam. 6:9).

Compare this with Elizabeth’s nearly identical words in Luke 1:43. Just as David leapt for joy before the ark when it was brought into Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:14-16), so John the Baptist leapt for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary, the ark of the new covenant, came into her presence (Luke 1:44). John’s leap was for precisely the same reason as David’s--not primarily because of the ark itself, but because of what the ark contained, the Word of God.

Another parallel may be found in 2 Samuel 6:10-12 where we read that David ordered the ark diverted up into the hill country of Judea to remain with the household of Obededom for three months. This parallels the three-month visit Mary made at Elizabeth’s home in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39-45, 65). While the ark remained with Obededom it "blessed his household." This is an Old Testament way of saying the fertility of women, crops, and livestock was increased. Notice that God worked this same miracle for Elizabeth and Zachariah in their old age as a prelude to the greater miracle he would work in Mary.

Granted, none of these verses "proves" Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence supports the Catholic teaching.

A last thought. If you could have created your own mother, wouldn’t you have made her the most beautiful, virtuous, perfect woman possible? Jesus, being God, did create his own mother (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and he did just that--he created her immaculate and, in his mercy and generosity, kept her that way.

So basically, it stands to reason that she was without sin, but not God. Next I assume someone will say "how do you know she was always a virgin?" So i'll start work on that. In the meantime, thanks for reading this and I hope we are more or less done with that because I don't see how anyone in their right mind can call any of this untrue... but people never cease to amaze...

Why Mary must have been sinless: additions by me in red. The rest is from Catholic.com
-snippage-
Perhaps Prods are just plain Bitches?

Oh my goodness guys!!!!! I am going to have to side with BackwoodSquatches on this, and I clarified this in my long post that no one seems to have read, and doing so would have saved pages of argument.

The definition of WORSHIP by virtue of it root word origins in their original language (i dont seem how a definition can get more precise than that) is a statement of "worth-ship". "TO GIVE HONOR WHERE HONOR IS DUE." So yes, Catholics worship Mary. I worship my parents, my teachers, my friends, the saints, my leaders, heros, soldiers whatever! So how do you make the distinction between what we give to Mary and to God? Once again, if you see my long post on the matter several pages back you would know. The supreme honor and reverence given only to God is called "LATRIA". The honor given to Mary as someone who has accomplished the task of making it to heaven is "HYPERDULIA". The honor given to saints is "DULIA". Mary gets the 'hyper' part because she made it there without ever committing a sin. So to avoid mistranslations when referred to in an area's vernacular, the Catholic church gives them distinct words of their own.

Backwood, thank you for refraining from anger in your posts. I think everyone has been misunderstanding each other on this matter. Depending on how you interpret the definition of worship you will get different answers on the matter. The main point is, and I think you do understand this, is that the way in which we show respect to God is different than that to anyone else. I hope someone will actually read my post this time and clear this up. I see no more to argue about but if I missed something please bring it up!

Thanks for the compliment.
Indeed, as I have said, several times, while it my contention that Catholics do worship Mary, i never once said they worship her on the same level as they do God.
Im glad you, at least, noticed this.

Each sect of all religions practice differently from others.
Taoists are different from Zen buddhists, and so forth.

After the longest amount of research I've ever done for a thread in Ns General (two weeks), I'd like to dispell some common misconceptions about Catholics.

Using condoms is a sin: This is an out and out lie. The truth of the matter is using condoms for contraception, is a sin.

There are two doctrines that allow for the use of condoms by Catholics. The first being the Principle of the Unjust Attacker, which allows a Catholic to defend themselves against harm and states there is no harm to their immortal soul in doing so. The second in the Principle of Double Effect, that is the commission of a normally sinful act, to prevent a greater wrong. Such as in the case of Jezabel

"Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing the sexual transmission of the HIV virus. Condoms are only 99.9%. However, if you cannot abstain, then it is better to be 99.9% sure." -Cardinal Francis Arinze

Homosexuality is a sin: Again, a missunderstanding. Oral and anal intercourse are sins.

HOWEVER, there is a loophole. In the case of a married couple who cannot produce children, the Doctrine of Repoduction, should state they should not have sex. As a child is unlikely to result. This becomes void, however, if they create a Catholic Family by means of aboption and adherence to Catholic teaching on family life. Specifically ensuring the Christening, First Communion, Affirmation, Confirmation, Baptism, etc, of the child(ren).

This princiiple can be extended to homosexual couples who PARTICIPATE IN A FAITHFUL AND CATHOLIC RELATIONSHIP.

Catholics worship Mary: Catholics venerate Mary. In the same way a person admires a football star, but does not worship them in the same way they practice a religion.

That's all for now, there are a few more. But I'm waiting on my Confessor to get back to me with some documents.

WOW!!! That is just down right retarded! Homosexuality is a sin. Don't get me wrong, I know some awsome gay people and they are great but it's still a sin where I come from.

WOW!!! That is just down right retarded! Homosexuality is a sin. Don't get me wrong, I know some awsome gay people and they are great but it's still a sin where I come from.
Sorry. Guess I was kind threw the post off the track it was going.

Perhaps Prods are just plain Bitches?
:rolleyes: yeah, i love you too Harles...

:D

The loophole is the Principle of the Loving Baron is Dogma and the Second Vatican Council states that we must accept it as Divine Truth.

Risking Herasy, we have no choice but to allow homosexual sex.

Where did you get that!?

Haven't you heard the phrase "Love the sinner, hate the sin"?

Homosexuality as a state of mind IS NOT a sin. But the practice of homosexual acts IS a sin.

Therefore, how can a homosexual relationship work? Are they going to substain from sex for the rest of their damn lifes?

Hardly the beacon of advertising that the Catholic faith needs for recruiting homosexuals.

woah woah woah where in the bible does it ever say mary never committed a sin? jesus was the only one who did that- we are all sinful- only jesus managed not to be
actually i was taught in catholic catechism classes that jesus DID commit a sin when he lost his temper in the temple and tossed the place. losing ones temper in that way is a venial sin.

Why do you care if gays are breaking the rules by having anal or oral sex but do not give a rat's ass if straight couples are doing it?

A lot of people covet other's wives, breaking a commandment, and nobody is crusading to have them stop it. There's no commandment saying "Thou shalt not have sex with people of the same gender", so I'd assume it's lower in the sin scale.

And if that doesn't convince you, let'em go to hell! They don't seem to care, so why do you?

If you believe it's a sin, don't do it. Don't force your beliefs on other people. That's what gives many religions a bad rep.

That is, quite possibly, the first time the Virgin Mother has ever been compared to a football player. Good work!

it would explain why football at Notre Dame is so important though

actually i was taught in catholic catechism classes that jesus DID commit a sin when he lost his temper in the temple and tossed the place. losing ones temper in that way is a venial sin.

With all due respect, your catechism teacher was incorrect. Justified anger is not a sin, for example anger at seeing someone hurt through the fault of another or some unjust action. (One does have a duty to check even justified anger so that it doesn't lead one to commit some sin like doing undue injury to another.)

Jesus was angry because the sellers of sacrificial animals and money changers in the Temple courtyard offended God by turning what should have been a place of worship into a market. His disruption of their business was reaction proportional to their offense.

Why do you care if gays are breaking the rules by having anal or oral sex but do not give a rat's ass if straight couples are doing it?

This has been covered before, but "anal or oral" isn't really relevant. Gays, lesbians, unmarried, married-to-other-people having sex, regardless of the appendages and orifices involved, is what's wrong.

A lot of people covet other's wives, breaking a commandment, and nobody is crusading to have them stop it.

There's also nobody crusading to have marital infidelity classified as an alternative lifestyle entitled to the same protections and benefits as traditional marriage.

However, you do make a valid point in that at least in Catholic doctrine there is no basis for saying homosexual acts are any more sinful than other sexual sins.

Don't force your beliefs on other people.

Stating and defending what one believes to be right and wrong doesn't force anyone to do anything.

pps. A priest acts in persona Christi or in the person of christ/in christ's place. Christ was a male and thus it would not make sense for a woman to act as Christ. so are women less than men? No
Consider the holiest human to have ever lived, the person who gave birth to Jesus Christ. Mary, a woman, was given the greatest honor anyone could ever receive, to be the mother of God. Something a man could never hope to approach. So that basically is how it balances out, if you want to look at it that way, in Church teaching.

Jesus was also a Jew. I don't see that being written up as a requirement. Nor the circumcision that would require, nor the Jewish name that would require, nor the recognition by a council of Rabbis. I don't see priests wandering around hospitals healing the sick (some do, most don't). I see even fewer priests who are heretics on top of all of that.

Also, why doesn't it make sense that a woman could represent a man? Women represent men in all manner of things, why can't a woman represent Jesus? Did Jesus say that women couldn't represent him? And even if it doesn't make sense for them to represent him, couldn't they represent Mary (either one)?

Put simply, why is it that a Catholic priest must be a man, because Jesus was a man, when they cannot be Jewish, cannot commit heresy, and may or may not possess an MD?

Post Script: One last thing, keep in mind that heresy comes from the Greek for 'free choice'. Jesus was one, as have all the great religious leaders in history. Take pride in the title.

Stating and defending what one believes to be right and wrong doesn't force anyone to do anything.

By stating your believes to be right or wrong you are implying that the people who don't agree with you are of lesser morals then you.

My religion is right! == Implies you believe yourself to be better then them
I belive my religion to be right == humble opinion

See the difference?

By stating your believes to be right or wrong you are implying that the people who don't agree with you are of lesser morals then you.

My religion is right! == Implies you believe yourself to be better then them
I belive my religion to be right == humble opinion

See the difference? He said "Stating and defending what one believes to be right".

See the difference?

He said "Stating and defending what one believes to be right".

See the difference?

Yea, but he also said:
This has been covered before, but "anal or oral" isn't really relevant. Gays, lesbians, unmarried, married-to-other-people having sex, regardless of the appendages and orifices involved, is what's wrong.

That's what ticked me off in the first place. His inistance that gay or lesbo or unmarried sex is wrong, it isn't, it's not even immoral.
(Cheating on your partner however, is a whole other subject)

With all due respect, your catechism teacher was incorrect. Justified anger is not a sin, for example anger at seeing someone hurt through the fault of another or some unjust action. (One does have a duty to check even justified anger so that it doesn't lead one to commit some sin like doing undue injury to another.)

Jesus was angry because the sellers of sacrificial animals and money changers in the Temple courtyard offended God by turning what should have been a place of worship into a market. His disruption of their business was reaction proportional to their offense.
are you catholic? are you talking about the catholic view on this?

are you catholic? are you talking about the catholic view on this?
Yes. Yes. I wouldn't presume to correct a Catholic catechism teacher otherwise.

That's what ticked me off in the first place. His inistance that gay or lesbo or unmarried sex is wrong, it isn't, it's not even immoral.
(Cheating on your partner however, is a whole other subject) So, basically, you're allowed to make assertions about morality but he isn't?

From the catechism:

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

However, Natural Family Planning is a-ok with the church.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

Yes. Yes. I wouldn't presume to correct a Catholic catechism teacher otherwise.
just asking since you didnt provide any "proof" (not that i normally expect people to).

anyway, its interesting to me that an act that, if you or i did it would be a sin, CAN'T be a sin for jesus because he is defined as sinless. so anything he does that is suspect has to be explained away.

just asking since you didnt provide any "proof" (not that i normally expect people to).

I thought I provided as much proof as you did for your original statement. Admittedly more illustration and interpretation than proof.

anyway, its interesting to me that an act that, if you or i did it would be a sin,

Where do you get that? Either of us would be justified in ejecting someone who was making a mockery of a place of worship.

... CAN'T be a sin for jesus because he is defined as sinless. so anything he does that is suspect has to be explained away.

It sounds like you took offense at my criticism of your catechism teacher's lesson, or that you are unwilling to consider alternatives to an idea you've already set your mind on.

So, basically, you're allowed to make assertions about morality but he isn't?

Nobody should be defining morality when sex between condensending people is involved.

I thought I provided as much proof as you did for your original statement. Admittedly more illustration and interpretation than proof.



Where do you get that? Either of us would be justified in ejecting someone who was making a mockery of a place of worship.



It sounds like you took offense at my criticism of your catechism teacher's lesson, or that you are unwilling to consider alternatives to an idea you've already set your mind on.
no you are reading more into it than i intended. im perfectly willing to admit that i wasnt taught catechism by a professional theologist. i was just wondering where you were coming from since there are protestants in this thread who argue the protestant point of view.

try tossing around the tables at the next church fair or gift shop you come across and see if they dont take it as a sin. losing your temper and acting on it is a venial sin. (do we even have mortal/venial sins anymore?)

Nobody should be defining morality when sex between condensending people is involved. There you go again making assertions about morality. Why do you have the right to make these assertions but he doesn't?

There you go again making assertions about morality. Why do you have the right to make these assertions but he doesn't?

Because my moral doesn't come from a book? Or because my moral isn't limiting people's ability to live their lives in a way that they want, without their way actually impacting ours?

Does it affect me that my neighbour might be boinking another guy? No
Does it affect you? No
What right do i have then to tell them to stop boinking? None

What's next? You'll call me a hypocryte(sp?)? Go ahead, when it comes to these subjects i don't mind being called one.

Let's say that his morals supported the killing of other people, and i say he's wrong, will you make the same call & say i'm making assertions about morally? Or will you condone the killing?

Nobody should be defining morality when sex between condensending people is involved.

i dont think that word means what you think that word means.

i dont think that word means what you think that word means.

It doesn't? What's the word for "between two agreeing persons" then?

It doesn't? What's the word for "between two agreeing persons" then?
consenting

sex between 2 condescending people would be relations between people who look down on each other.


which adds a whole new twist to your contention. it made me laugh.


con·de·scend
To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself.

To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.

try tossing around the tables at the next church fair or gift shop you come across and see if they dont take it as a sin.

I can tick people off even if I'm not sinning.

losing your temper and acting on it is a venial sin. (do we even have mortal/venial sins anymore?)

Yes, there are still mortal and venial sins, but anger and angry action are not necessarily either.

Anger: The desire of vengeance. Its ethical rating depends upon the quality of the vengeance and the quantity of the passion. When these are in conformity with the prescriptions of balanced reason, anger is not a sin. It is rather a praiseworthy thing and justifiable with a proper zeal. It becomes sinful when it is sought to wreak vengeance upon one who has not deserved it, or to a greater extent than it has been deserved, or in conflict with the dispositions of law, or from an improper motive.
-- The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01489a.htm)

EDIT: reformatted CE quote.

consenting

sex between 2 condescending people would be relations between people who look down on each other.


which adds a whole new twist to your contention. it made me laugh.


con·de·scend
To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself.

To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.

Thx

I can tick people off even if I'm not sinning.[QUOTE]

Why doesn't that suprise me? :p

[QUOTE]Yes, there are still mortal and venial sins, but anger and angry action are not necessarily either.

(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01489a.htm)

Which are the mortal sins?

I'm not sure if you've gone over this already, but I'm pretty sure Leviticus states, among other things, that two men together equals a no-no, flat-out. No loopholes, no anything. Leviticus; part of the bible.

Again, I'm not sure if you've already matrixically dodged this metaphorical bullet, but I read the first page and nobody had mentioned it.

I can tick people off even if I'm not sinning.

Why doesn't that suprise me? :p

It is a fine art. ;)



Which are the mortal sins?

There is no laundry list. Mortal sin is defined as a sin in a "grave matter" (like breaking one of the Ten Commandments) done with full knowledge of the sin's gravity and by free choice. See the section "Conditions of Mortal Sin: Knowledge, Free Will, Grave Matter" in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm).

doesnt it annoy you just a little bit that you all do some song and dance for this religion of yours? isnt a little bit depressing that you waste so much time on something that means nothing?

doesnt it annoy you just a little bit that you all do some song and dance for this religion of yours?
If it's a song and dance, it's one I'm happy and honored to join in. I take it that annoys you.

isnt a little bit depressing that you waste so much time on something that means nothing?
On the contrary, it is you who has just wasted time on something that means nothing, at least to yourself. Does that depress you?

Dammit, one freaking mistranslation and an entire mythos surrounds a person. The word used in Hebrew was young woman, not virgin gorrammit.

She was not married, thus she would have been a virgin (They were far more strict about sex outside marriage in those times)

She was not married, thus she would have been a virgin (They were far more strict about sex outside marriage in those times)

That's got to be the silliest arguement i've heard in a long time :p

That's got to be the silliest arguement i've heard in a long time :p Not really. The Bible states that Joseph was surprised that Mary was carrying a child, since "He had not had union with her" or something similar.

I'm not sure if you've gone over this already, but I'm pretty sure Leviticus states, among other things, that two men together equals a no-no, flat-out. No loopholes, no anything. Leviticus; part of the bible.

Again, I'm not sure if you've already matrixically dodged this metaphorical bullet, but I read the first page and nobody had mentioned it.


Its hardly a metaphorical bullet.

Follow all of Leviticus do you?

Still sacrificing bulls, and thier fat and entrails, are you?

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1

How bout this one?

20: And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

Follow that one do you?

Not really. The Bible states that Joseph was surprised that Mary was carrying a child, since "He had not had union with her" or something similar.

So she cheated on him, happens all the time, or maybe she's been raped & was to scared to tell him.

So she cheated on him, happens all the time, or maybe she's been raped & was to scared to tell him. So, basically, you're assuming that she cheated.

At the time, the penalty for raping an engaged woman was death, and there was no punishment for the woman.