NationStates Jolt Archive

Discovery! I'm Catholic..!!

So has anyone else come to discover that they are suddenly massively attracted to a particular religion LATER IN LIFE..!?

I'm especially interested in newly converted Catholics.


(( In the interests of full disclosure, my family WAS catholic about 4 or five generations ago,.. but entirely "irreligious" since that time. ))

Interesting. How did you find this out?

I hope you'll be very happy (really). You could share experiences with Soviestan, though he's not a newly converted Catholic by any means.

Interesting. How did you find this out?

I converted from Pagainism to Sikhi about 6-7 years ago

Um I converted away from catholicism does that count?

Um I converted away from catholicism does that count?

hell yeah why not. I found out a few years back that a lot of my family converted form Hinduism to Catholasim.

Shit perhaps I should explain I come from Imperial English stock, so my folx where out in India for a while and married into the local populase.

I have to admit that I'm often drawn towards Roman Catholism. However, I'm generally happy with being an Anglo-Catholic within the Church of England, so don't feel the need to make such a major shift.

Congratulations! I hope you're happy in your decision :D

I haven't changed religions (I don't follow any) but changed political ideals in the past couple of years.

Um I converted away from catholicism does that count?

Yes, it counts, especially when Satan drags you down into the fiery pits of Hell, presuming ye don't repent.

Yes, it counts, especially when Satan drags you down into the fiery pits of Hell, presuming ye don't repent.

Lol nice, I am not going to get into a theological argument in here and hijack the thread.

I have to admit that I'm often drawn towards Roman Catholism.

You should be drawn to the Catholic Church. Your church was established by a horny king. My church was established by Christ himself. Your church (presuming you are of the mainstream Anglican sort) doesn't offer valid eucharist. My Church offers the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of our Dear Lord Jesus Christ at each and every mass.

However, I'm generally happy with being an Anglo-Catholic within the Church of England, so don't feel the need to make such a major shift.

Extra Ecclessiam nulla salus.

Yes, it counts, especially when Satan drags you down into the fiery pits of Hell, presuming ye don't repent.

Heheh I love that whole Satan thing with Christianity, it makes no sense at all.

So God is a loving God, who sends you soul to Satan(whom he created BTW) if you don't use your free will to whorship him? That negates free will don't it!

And another thing, soooo Satan who was lucifer a big angel until he revolted, but I thought that the Angels did not have free will, I thought that was reserved only for us humans, so then how can lucifer revolt?

Lol nice, I am not going to get into a theological argument in here and hijack the thread.

Hahh hehe no! Do it! Nooo really, do it!:p

You should be drawn to the Catholic Church. Your church was established by a horny king. My church was established by Christ himself. Your church (presuming you are of the mainstream Anglican sort) doesn't offer valid eucharist. My Church offers the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of our Dear Lord Jesus Christ at each and every mass.



Extra Ecclessiam nulla salus.

Arrrgh so you're a canibal?

So God is a loving God, who sends you soul to Satan(whom he created BTW) if you don't use your free will to whorship him? That negates free will don't it!

If a man's wife leaves her husband for another man, did the man send his wife away?

My church was established by Christ himself. Your church (presuming you are of the mainstream Anglican sort) doesn't offer valid eucharist. My Church offers the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of our Dear Lord Jesus Christ at each and every mass.

Seeing as 'my' church is an offshoot of 'your' church, the apostolic line is perfectly intact. I don't, therefore, doubt the 'validity' of the Eucharist at all.

Discovery? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28Daft_Punk_album%29)

You should be drawn to the Catholic Church. Your church was established by a horny king. My church was established by Christ himself. Your church (presuming you are of the mainstream Anglican sort) doesn't offer valid eucharist. My Church offers the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of our Dear Lord Jesus Christ at each and every mass.
snip

I am not really hip on that whole cannibalism thing...

But I am not hip on many features of most organized religions including RC.

Interesting. How did you find this out?

My discussions of religion in here have clarified my own views to myself.

I thank everyone here, who isn't afraid of hearing and responding to the opinions of others, for making for some great conversations.

When I just happened upon a Catholic radio station (http://www.ewtn.com/index.asp), I found that I could actually listen to it without having that "yuck!" feeling in my gut.

That intrigued me.

What I found in listening to these catholic speakers, was that their very "intellectual" version of christianity fit my way of thinking quite well.

So,.. I checked out the website related to the radio station,.. then delved into the documents and recordings that were linked therein,.. and felt what I can only call a "conversion experience".

This "conversion experience" was, essentially, the impression that I was "in the right place" the deeper I got into the material, as opposed to feeling more and more "disillusioned" the more I found out, as has always happened upon investigating the thinking behind any particular religious "order".

So,.. now I'm off and running in pursuit of becoming catholic.



(( I should probably have taken the hint when I visited the Vatican some 30 odd years ago and felt something very similar. But, although it probably would have been wise to have taken up the cross at that point, I simply wasn't ready. Now I feel ready. ))

Seeing as 'my' church is an offshoot of 'your' church, the apostolic line is perfectly intact. I don't, therefore, doubt the 'validity' of the Eucharist at all.

I am not saying that you do or don't have apostolic lineage. However, keep in mind that for a sacrament to be valid, there must be matter, form, and intent.

The matter being the bread and wine, and the priest. The form being the words of consecration. The intent being to do what the Church teaches.

Your church doesn't believe in transubstantiation.

Also, don't y'all believe in female "ordinations"?

My discussions of religion in here have clarified my own views to myself.

I thank everyone here, who isn't afraid of hearing and responding to the opinions of others, for making for some great conversations.

When I just happened upon a Catholic radio station, I found that I could actually listen to it without having that "yuck!" feeling in my gut.

That intrigued me.

What I found in listening to these catholic speakers, was that their very "intellectual" version of christianity fit my way of thinking quite well.

So,.. I checked out the website related to the radio station,.. then delved into the documents and recordings that were linked therein,.. and felt what I can only call a "conversion experience".

This "conversion experience" was, essentially, the impression that I was "in the right place" the deeper I got into the material, as opposed to feeling more and more "disillusioned" the more I found out, as has always happened upon investigating the thinking behind any particular religious "order".

So,.. now I'm off and running in pursuit of becoming catholic.



(( I should probably have taken the hint when I visited the Vatican some 30 odd years ago and felt something very similar. But, although it probably would have been wise to have taken up the cross at that point, I simply wasn't ready. Now I feel ready. ))

30 odd years ago? Old guy. :p

Hahh hehe no! Do it! Nooo really, do it!:p

If he was honest I would love the debate ... I don't get that feeling off of that poster though.

If a man's wife leaves her husband for another man, did the man send his wife away?

Umm I'll have to answer no to that. But then does that give the agreived husband the right to torture the missing wife for the rest of her days?

If you blackmail somebody you are in fact excerising your will over theirs.

If the Christian God say whorship me or face torment forever, this is blackmail.

If he was honest I would love the debate ... I don't get that feeling off of that poster though.

Then don't see it as debate, but pointing out the foolishness of the Christian faith. You don't have to change minds, ahahah as long as you have a lil bit of fun!

Umm I'll have to answer no to that. But then does that give the agreived husband the right to torture the missing wife for the rest of her days?

If God is the source, the summit, and the center of all Good, then what do you have if you leave God?

I am not saying that you do or don't have apostolic lineage. However, keep in mind that for a sacrament to be valid, there must be matter, form, and intent.

The matter being the bread and wine, and the priest. The form being the words of consecration. The intent being to do what the Church teaches.

Your church doesn't believe in transubstantiation.

Also, don't y'all believe in female "ordinations"?

I believe in transubstantiation. There are more layers to the Church of England than there are stars in the sky; there are many different people, who believe many different things, all united in the belief in Christ. It truly is a universal church.

And yes, we have women priests. They're very good at it. :)

Then don't see it as debate, but pointing out the foolishness of the Christian faith. You don't have to change minds, ahahah as long as you have a lil bit of fun!

Lol I know I know ... I find plenty of foolishness with it but the OP posted in a very respectful manor, I would dislike to totally derail the thread :)

My discussions of religion in here have clarified my own views to myself.

I thank everyone here, who isn't afraid of hearing and responding to the opinions of others, for making for some great conversations.

When I just happened upon a Catholic radio station (http://www.ewtn.com/index.asp), I found that I could actually listen to it without having that "yuck!" feeling in my gut.

That intrigued me.

What I found in listening to these catholic speakers, was that their very "intellectual" version of christianity fit my way of thinking quite well.

So,.. I checked out the website related to the radio station,.. then delved into the documents and recordings that were linked therein,.. and felt what I can only call a "conversion experience".

This "conversion experience" was, essentially, the impression that I was "in the right place" the deeper I got into the material, as opposed to feeling more and more "disillusioned" the more I found out, as has always happened upon investigating the thinking behind any particular religious "order".

So,.. now I'm off and running in pursuit of becoming catholic.



(( I should probably have taken the hint when I visited the Vatican some 30 odd years ago and felt something very similar. But, although it probably would have been wise to have taken up the cross at that point, I simply wasn't ready. Now I feel ready. ))

Then I'm truly glad for you. Pul-ese though try not to take the dogma to much to heart.

If God is the source, the summit, and the center of all Good, then what do you have if you leave God?

Or in other words, if God is the source and the summit, how can one leave God?

You should be drawn to the Catholic Church. Your church was established by a horny king. My church was established by Christ himself. Your church (presuming you are of the mainstream Anglican sort) doesn't offer valid eucharist. My Church offers the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of our Dear Lord Jesus Christ at each and every mass.

If you're such a devout worshipper, why haven't you studied the Bible more carefully? Because I believe that it states no one church is any better than another if they all follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Which, by the way, not a single church does these days. I sometimes think the world would be a better place if members of the clergy actually believed the teachings they were supposed to revere.

If God is the source, the summit, and the center of all Good, then what do you have if you leave God?

The same as I had before when I believed in the mythology?

I believe in transubstantiation. There are more layers to the Church of England than there are stars in the sky;

Right. I do know that there are certain groups of Anglicanism that do have valid sacraments. Unfortunately, I am not positive of the particulars. Generally speaking, however, mainstream Anglicanism doesn't have valid sacraments. Yours may or may not.

And yes, we have women priests. They're very good at it. :)

No, they aren't. The very nature of a priest in Christianity is to offer up the sacrifice that Christ offered at calvary. A priest's duty is represent Christ himself. A priest is alter Christi and persona Christi.

That said, if Our Lord, who certainly loved his Mother to so great a degree that he preserved her from original sin, assumed her body into heaven, and crowned her Queen of Heaven...did not allow the same to partake in the First Mass, then how on earth could you possibly think that any woman, if not even His own Mother, could be a priest?

Lol I know I know ... I find plenty of foolishness with it but the OP posted in a very respectful manor, I would dislike to totally derail the thread :)

Ahh you're a good man, then be respectfull to the OP, he seems a to be a decent fella, just rip the piss outa thoses that desevre it. Muuuhahahah I know I wiil:D

The same as I had before when I believed in the mythology?

God is the source, summit, and cener of all Good, all life, all love, and all mercy. If you leave God, then you leave life itself.

If you're such a devout worshipper, why haven't you studied the Bible more carefully? Because I believe that it states no one church is any better than another if they all follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Which, by the way, not a single church does these days. I sometimes think the world would be a better place if members of the clergy actually believed the teachings they were supposed to revere.

Czardas, sweet. (b^_^)b

Non practicing anglicanism is where it's at!

Or in other words, if God is the source and the summit, how can one leave God?

Technically, if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and rules the entire universe, the only way to leave God would be to leave the universe... which I haven't seen very many people doing these days.

Also, The Fourth Holy Reich, how many of your priests go and get crucified for you every day, or are required to be born via artificial insemination? I don't think the Catholic Church endorses either.

Also, The Fourth Holy Reich, how many of your priests go and get crucified for you every day, or are required to be born via artificial insemination?

Ignoratio Elenchi.

Right. I do know that there are certain groups of Anglicanism that do have valid sacraments. Unfortunately, I am not positive of the particulars. Generally speaking, however, mainstream Anglicanism doesn't have valid sacraments. Yours may or may not.
As I said originally, I am an Anglo-Catholic; this means that we are closer to Roman Catholism, and more traditional in our worship. However, I have many friends who come from the less catholic wing of the church or an evangelical background and do not believe in these things; I have no doubt in their faith, and do not consider them to be less Christian because they choose to worship God in a different way.

No, they aren't. The very nature of a priest in Christianity is to offer up the sacrifice that Christ offered at calvary. A priest's duty is represent Christ himself. A priest is alter Christi and persona Christi.

That said, if Our Lord, who certainly loved his Mother to so great a degree that he preserved her from original sin, assumed her body into heaven, and crowned her Queen of Heaven...did not allow the same to partake in the First Mass, then how on earth could you possibly think that any woman, if not even His own Mother, could be a priest?

We are all created in God's image; man, woman and child. I have met, worked and been friends with many women clergy; I have absolutly no doubt that God has chosen them to work through just as much as the male priests I know.

Czardas, sweet. (b^_^)b

Shit, and I thought I could escape the spammers by sticking to serious threads. :-/

I'm just pointing out a few things to this guy (The Fourth Holy Reich), 'cause I saw some of his threads on International Incidents and he really pissed me, and a lot of other people from the IRC channels I now hang out in, off. Damn, that was a long parenthetical clause.

God is the source, summit, and cener of all Good, all life, all love, and all mercy. If you leave God, then you leave life itself.
So basically, you're saying that the only way to leave God is to die? That's kind of unfair to Peter, Paul, Timothy, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the other John, and the rest of them, no?

Ignoratio Elenchi.

:rolleyes:

Loquaris nobis Angliae plzkthx.

[QUOTE=Govneauvia;11956554]Discovery! I'm Catholic..!!
QUOTE]

What about Catholicism exactaly convinced you to convert?

Lol nice, I am not going to get into a theological argument in here and hijack the thread.

No doubt, I have been a Christian my entire life; however, that is not exactly the best way to help someone come to have a faith in God. I am bummed when my fellow Christiansact this way.

God is the source, summit, and cener of all Good, all life, all love, and all mercy. If you leave God, then you leave life itself.

Hmmm don't feel any different... actually feel a bit better without the faith.
More responsible for my own actions

I don't know maybe it is the guilt trip they layed on me for "Tempting" my priest

Shit, and I thought I could escape the spammers by sticking to serious threads. :-/

I'm just pointing out a few things to this guy (The Fourth Holy Reich), 'cause I saw some of his threads on International Incidents and he really pissed me, and a lot of other people from the IRC channels I now hang out in, off. Damn, that was a long parenthetical clause.


So basically, you're saying that the only way to leave God is to die? That's kind of unfair to Peter, Paul, Timothy, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the other John, and the rest of them, no?

I am not sure what he is trying to say! Peter, paul, Timothy, Matthew and all of these guys are great; however, they are not the way too heaven. Jesus Christ is the only way. I hope that is what The Fourth Holy Reich is trying to say. But I really dont know! Just a guess

No doubt, I have been a Christian my entire life; however, that is not exactly the best way to help someone come to have a faith in God. I am bummed when my fellow Christiansact this way.
We see that all the time around here ... but most of the people so far posting are alright people ... dont worry wont think bad cause some wacos

I am not sure what he is trying to say! Peter, paul, Timothy, Matthew and all of these guys are great; however, they are not the way too heaven. Jesus Christ is the only way. I hope that is what The Fourth Holy Reich is trying to say. But I really dont know! Just a guess

I was just mentioning them because TFHR seems to be under the impression that everyone who is dead is apart from God, or has abandoned Him. Thus it would imply that we can't even read the Bible because it was written by dead people.

To be honest, I don't really understand him either, I'm just guessing.

Shit, and I thought I could escape the spammers by sticking to serious threads. :-/

Teehee. You thought you could leave us. How foolish. :)

Ignoratio Elenchi.
wie ben jij?:

Teehee. You thought you could leave us. How foolish. :)

I know, I've been very bad. Fortunately the serious threads make a spammer-proof bunker because no self-respecting spammer will ever get within a mile of them. (Technically I'm a former spammer, shut up.)

Discovery! I'm Catholic..!!

So has anyone else come to discover that they are suddenly massively attracted to a particular religion LATER IN LIFE..!?

I'm especially interested in newly converted Catholics.
Well done. Peace be with you.

Because I believe that it states no one church is any better than another if they all follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Feel free to bring up said verse. Otherwise, see Matthew 16:18, 1 Timothy 3:15, and James 5:14, among others.

I was just mentioning them because TFHR seems to be under the impression that everyone who is dead is apart from God, or has abandoned Him. Thus it would imply that we can't even read the Bible because it was written by dead people.

Revelations 20:6, man.

Unfortunately, I hear it is rather difficult to become a full member of the catholic church, and the process can sometimes take years.

:rolleyes:

Loquaris nobis Angliae plzkthx.

Ag. Ignoratio Elenchi, translate "Ignorance of the proof," also known as "Missing the Point." Fallacy in which the conclusion presented is, though somewhat connected, doesn't follow from the premises offered.

In this case, "The priests offer up the sacrifice of Christ" is the premise. It does not follow that they would go to get crucified. It does follow that they would offer up the mass, which is the unbloody representation of the Sacrifice at Calvary.

We are all created in God's image; man, woman and child. I have met, worked and been friends with many women clergy; I have absolutly no doubt that God has chosen them to work through just as much as the male priests I know.


Allow me to deconstruct this particular bit line by line.

We are all created in God's image; man, woman, and child

Atheists, and Hindus, and Moslems...I doubt you'd like any of those people to be priests.

There is more to being a priest than being made in the image and likeness of God. According to the Church, a priest's main duty is to offer up the same sacrifice of Our Lord at Calvary, as well as administer the other sacraments, such as absolution, last rites, etc.. In so soing, he is persona Christi and alter Christi. Can a woman be in the person of Christ? Can a woman be another Christ?

I asked you once. You didn't answer. I'll ask you again. Our Lord so loved Our Blessed Lady that he preserved her from original sin. He assumed her body and soul, upon the completion of her life's course, into everlasting glory. He crowned her Queen of Heaven. He allowed her to share in His sufferings more than anyone else, almost to the degree that she might almost be called Co Redemptrix.

He did not allow Our Lady to participate in that First Mass. If he did not allow his mother to be a priest, certainly, no other woman possibly could be a priest. He did not allow his mother to be a priest. Therefore, certainly, no other woman could be a priest.

I have met, worked and been friends with many women clergy

Petitio Principii, also known as petition of the principle, also known as begging the question. The point that women can even be clergy in the first place is precisely the point at hand.

I have absolutly no doubt that God has chosen them to work through just as much as the male priests I know

Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Appeal to Unqualified authority. You are a qualified expert on through whom and in what matter God works...how?

Snip

Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Appeal to Unqualified authority. You are a qualified expert on through whom and in what matter God works...how?

To show a fallacy of unqualified authority you have to show the person proposed as an authority is truly not an authority in the subject. As you can not prove that any particular version of god actually exists much less that the quoted person is less qualified then any other person in existence, calling a fallacy is a rather worthless pursuit. Show that ANYONE is more of an expert on how the real god actually works.

To show a fallacy of unqualified authority you have to show the person proposed as an authority is truly not an authority in the subject.

It doesn't work that way. It's the responsibility of the appealer to establish the authority of said...well..."authority."

Discovery! I'm Catholic..!!

So has anyone else come to discover that they are suddenly massively attracted to a particular religion LATER IN LIFE..!?

I'm especially interested in newly converted Catholics.


(( In the interests of full disclosure, my family WAS catholic about 4 or five generations ago,.. but entirely "irreligious" since that time. ))

Yep. I got converted from Catholic to atheistic agnostic on this very forum. :)

i discovered when i was 12 that i was a devout christian. i discovered 4(ish) years later that i was an atheist. i know this isn't 'later in life' but i don't like ageism so :p

It doesn't work that way. It's the responsibility of the appealer to establish the authority of said...well..."authority."

Sense when do opinions need to have validated authority anyways? That poster believes that all men women and children are created equal in gods eyes.

Not to mention an "Authority" in god can not be shown any more then god can be shown. Demanding the authority be proven of the absolute correctness of the subject of popular mythology is pointless mental masturbation anyways. Someone can be an expert in the mythology but not what it portrays.

Yep. I got converted from Catholic to atheistic agnostic on this very forum. :)

The forum did help solidify the feelings I was feeling long before I joined as well.

Heheh I love that whole Satan thing with Christianity, it makes no sense at all.

So God is a loving God, who sends you soul to Satan(whom he created BTW) if you don't use your free will to whorship him? That negates free will don't it!

And another thing, soooo Satan who was lucifer a big angel until he revolted, but I thought that the Angels did not have free will, I thought that was reserved only for us humans, so then how can lucifer revolt?

And why didn't God want us to eat from the Tree of Knowledge and get pissy when Adam and Eve ate from it, eh?

Precisely why I am maltheist. *nod*

The forum did help solidify the feelings I was feeling long before I joined as well.

I went from Christian to maltheist on this forum. :)

The forum did help solidify the feelings I was feeling long before I joined as well.

It put them in words for me. I found the whole thing bogus before, but went along with Catholicism as that had been what I taught.
Not a big loss overall. :)

That poster believes that all men women and children are created equal in gods eyes.

I covered that in a different line, and that actually wasn't the point I was adressing.

Not to mention an "Authority" in god can not be shown any more then god can be shown. Demanding the authority be proven of the absolute correctness of the subject of popular mythology is pointless mental masturbation anyways. Someone can be an expert in the mythology but not what it portrays.

I certainly won't dispute that point. However, I do think that authorites can be shown within individual religions. In the case of the Christian priesthood, I think that we can presume the Catholic Church to be an authority on the nature of the priesthood. Why? Well...the Christian priesthood originated in the Catholic Church.

I went from Christian to maltheist on this forum. :)

Were you converted by Christians, too? I still love the irony. :D

I went from Christian to maltheist on this forum. :)

Interesting switch ... what caused the change? Was it the Christian side that drove you away or the maltheist that attracted you towards?

I mean if I believed the Christian depicted god actualy existed I would tend to agree at least in part. But I can not build up the required belief even that far (even though I do argue the maltheist pov often)

I covered that in a different line, and that actually wasn't the point I was adressing.



I certainly won't dispute that point. However, I do think that authorites can be shown within individual religions. In the case of the Christian priesthood, I think that we can presume the Catholic Church to be an authority on the nature of the priesthood. Why? Well...the Christian priesthood originated in the Catholic Church.

That I can agree with like I said if you are talking about the mythology or the history or the rituals there can be experts sure.

Personally I have a bit of clash with the priesthood and church so I tend not to take their word without some backup

That I can agree with like I said if you are talking about the mythology or the history or the rituals there can be experts sure.

Then you'll admit that, presuming we are talking about his comment on the priesthood, insofar as it is related to the Christian ideaology, is absolute nonsense, then?

Interesting switch ... what caused the change? Was it the Christian side that drove you away or the maltheist that attracted you towards?

I mean if I believed the Christian depicted god actualy existed I would tend to agree at least in part. But I can not build up the required belief even that far (even though I do argue the maltheist pov often)

It was mostly Christianity pushing me off. I couldn't make sense of it because its holy text contradicted itself. And the Christian God just seemed like an abusive arse, if He/She really did endorse "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil". I believe that any God who tries hiding crap from his own followers is not much of a God at all.

That I can agree with like I said if you are talking about the mythology or the history or the rituals there can be experts sure.

Personally I have a bit of clash with the priesthood and church so I tend not to take their word without some backup

Meh, another thing that drove me to maltheism. Christianity is a rip-off of Paganism, no matter how hard they try to deny it.

Though I do like Jesus. Jesus is cool. His God is not.

As a former Catholic I impart the following advice:
1. One year after your confirmation watch Dogma and Monty Python's Meaning of Life. You will enjoy them on a whole new level.

2. Please, please, please learn the proper definition of immaculate conception. That always bothered me as a Catholic.

2. Please, please, please learn the proper definition of immaculate conception. That always bothered me as a Catholic.

Lol. That is a very widely misunderstood doctrine. The Immaculate Conception does not refer to the virgin birth. The Immaculate Conception refers to how Our Lady was concieved without Original Sin.

Were you converted by Christians, too? I still love the irony. :D

Actually, I wasn't converted by Christians, my mother is Baptist and my dad is mostly "meh", so I was pretty much raised that way.

Though I have to note that my grandmother sent my mother to a Christian high school though she was not Christian herself.... and we haven't gone to church in almost a year (last Christmas Eve).

Then you'll admit that, presuming we are talking about his comment on the priesthood, insofar as it is related to the Christian ideaology, is absolute nonsense, then?

No ... experts on catholic priesthood do not nessiarly reflect the rest of Christianities beliefs.

Actually, I wasn't converted by Christians, my mother is Baptist and my dad is mostly "meh", so I was pretty much raised that way.

Though I have to note that my grandmother sent my mother to a Christian high school though she was not Christian herself.... and we haven't gone to church in almost a year (last Christmas Eve).

*lol
Not quite what I meant. I was raised Catholic, but in the end Christians converted me to agnosticism.

*lol
Not quite what I meant. I was raised Catholic, but in the end Christians converted me to agnosticism.

Ah. Well, in that case, yes I was. Though my mother had nothign to do with it.

No ... experts on catholic priesthood do not nessiarly reflect the rest of Christianities beliefs.

The other poster already pointed out that his own priests have legitimacy only in terms of Catholic Apostolic Succession.

The other poster already pointed out that his own priests have legitimacy only in terms of Catholic Apostolic Succession.

No the other poster pointed out that they have as much legitimacy provided by Catholic Apostolic Succession as Catholic priests do.

No the other poster pointed out that they have as much legitimacy provided by Catholic Apostolic Succession as Catholic priests do.

A) You just contradicted yourself. "No, they other poster didn't admit that his priests only have legitamacy in terms of Catholic apostolic succession...His priests have legitamacy provided by Catholic apostolic succession"

B) Seeing as 'my' church is an offshoot of 'your' church, the apostolic line is perfectly intact.

If God is the source, the summit, and the center of all Good, then what do you have if you leave God?

The key word in that is "if." And even "if" god is the source, summit, etc. of good, then wouldn't it be even better to strive to become (morally) better than God?

If God is the source, the summit, and the center of all Good, then what do you have if you leave God?

The key word in that is "if." And even "if" god is the source, summit, etc. of good, then wouldn't it be even better to strive to become (morally) better than God?

Discovery! I'm Catholic..!!

So has anyone else come to discover that they are suddenly massively attracted to a particular religion LATER IN LIFE..!?

I'm especially interested in newly converted Catholics.


(( In the interests of full disclosure, my family WAS catholic about 4 or five generations ago,.. but entirely "irreligious" since that time. ))

I converted 8 years, ago, myself. What exactly do you want to know?

A) You just contradicted yourself. "No, they other poster didn't admit that his priests only have legitamacy in terms of Catholic apostolic succession...His priests have legitamacy provided by Catholic apostolic succession"

B)

No I did not ... he did not say his priests ONLY had legitimacy in terms of Catholic apostolic succession

He said they had as much legitimacy as your priests.

His statement allows for them to have legitimacy through apostolic succession and some other force (lets say divine mandate)

Your statement impled that only apostolic session created legitimacy.

No I did not ... he did not say his priests ONLY had legitimacy in terms of Catholic apostolic succession

He said they had as much legitimacy as your priests.

His statement allows for them to have legitimacy through apostolic succession and some other force (lets say divine mandate)

Your statement impled that only apostolic session created legitimacy.

Dude. He said A ) C. He didn't say (A V B) ) C. He didn't say (A*B) ) C. He said A ) C.

Unfortunately, I hear it is rather difficult to become a full member of the catholic church, and the process can sometimes take years.
I don't think it takes more than one year to become a full member.

As a former Catholic I impart the following advice:
1. One year after your confirmation watch Dogma and Monty Python's Meaning of Life. You will enjoy them on a whole new level.

2. Please, please, please learn the proper definition of immaculate conception. That always bothered me as a Catholic.

Good advice.

I converted to Catholicism from Atheism 3-4 years ago.
I never thought I would find myself here since I always viewed religion as an emotional thing and how people reconcile the reality of their death with their life goals and ideals and I'm really not a very emotional person at all.

So, anything you're curious about, or other people are curious about Catholicism I would be a good person to ask since I generally 'know my stuff'.

So, anything you're curious about, or other people are curious about Catholicism I would be a good person to ask since I generally 'know my stuff'.

1) Ok. Define indulgence. Differentiate between partial and plenery indulgences. State the conditions for recieving a plenery indulgence. Give at least 2 examples of each a plenery and partial indulgence.

2)Define the doctrine of papal infallability, and list the requirements for an Ex Cathedra papal statement. Also, list at least 2 commonly accepted Ex Cathedra statements, and at least 1 probable Ex Cathedra statements.

3) Define the theological speculation of "The Dormition."

4) List the 3 degrees of sacramental Sacred Orders.

5) Define the difference between an act of contrition and an act of attrition.

6) Define the difference between cosubstantiation and transubstantiation.

7) List at least 2 other churches not in full communion with Rome but still possessing valid sacraments.

8) Can any priest give absolution? If not, why

9) Speak extemporaneously on the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.

To make sure you aren't cheating and researching it, I am giving you half an hour. :)

1) Ok. Define indulgence. Differentiate between partial and plenery indulgences. State the conditions for recieving a plenery indulgence. Give at least 2 examples of each a plenery and partial indulgence.

2)Define the doctrine of papal infallability, and list the requirements for an Ex Cathedra papal statement..

3) Define the theological speculation of "The Dormition."

4) List the 3 degrees of sacramental Sacred Orders.

5) Define the difference between an act of contrition and an act of attrition.

6) Define the difference between cosubstantiation and transubstantiation.

7) List at least 2 other churches not in full communion with Rome but still possessing valid sacraments.

8) Can any priest give absolution? If not, why

9) Speak extemporaneously on the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.

Fourth Reich, if you also know this, than I am happy. At least one other person here has studied Apologetics! As such, I will be happy to leave this one to you. *Asks pastor to dedicate a Mass for the inspiration of the defense of the Faith. Spends an hour in adoration.*

Fourth Reich, if you also know this, than I am happy. At least one other person here has studied Apologetics! As such, I will be happy to leave this one to you. *Asks pastor to dedicate a Mass for the inspiration of the defense of the Faith. Spends an hour in adoration.*

Dude, all of that was fairly basic for anyone with half a devotional life. You are a liberal, aren't you?

1) Ok. Define indulgence. Differentiate between partial and plenery indulgences. State the conditions for recieving a plenery indulgence. Give at least 2 examples of each a plenery and partial indulgence.

2)Define the doctrine of papal infallability, and list the requirements for an Ex Cathedra papal statement..

3) Define the theological speculation of "The Dormition."

4) List the 3 degrees of sacramental Sacred Orders.

5) Define the difference between an act of contrition and an act of attrition.

6) Define the difference between cosubstantiation and transubstantiation.

7) List at least 2 other churches not in full communion with Rome but still possessing valid sacraments.

8) Can any priest give absolution? If not, why

9) Speak extemporaneously on the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.

I would probably have to get my catechism out for a lot of that. I think most of this you could look up yourself...not sure if you're just poking fun at me by asking a lot of questions or if you're interested in the answers. I'll give a few off the top of my head.

2)Define the doctrine of papal infallability, and list the requirements for an Ex Cathedra papal statement..
Papal infallability is the idea that the bishop of Rome speaking 'ex cathedra' makes a statement on a theological issue, and the Holy Spirit will guide and protect him from speaking falsehoods about Christian Dogma only.

3) Define the theological speculation of "The Dormition."
The period before mary is fully assumed into heaven. Eastern Catholics have more to say about it than I do most likely (I'm Latin rite).

4) List the 3 degrees of sacramental Sacred Orders.
Don't know off the top of my head.

5) Define the difference between an act of contrition and an act of attrition.
Don't know off the top of my head.

6) Define the difference between cosubstantiation and transubstantiation.
Consubstantiation is the idea that during the consecration (of bread and wine) that both Jesus and the bread and wine are both present under the same objects in some way, coexisting. Transubstantiation is where the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus, and only remain the appearance of bread and wine. The Catholic Church believes in transubstantiation.

7) List at least 2 other churches not in full communion with Rome but still possessing valid sacraments.
The Greek Orthodox Church and the Antiochan Orthodox churches both have valid sacraments.


8) Can any priest give absolution? If not, why
Priests have to be duly authorized by the bishop to hear confessions and administer absolution, although in an emergency (death iminent) any priest may do this.

9) Speak extemporaneously on the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.
Ok that is clearly not serious. But anyway, it's these pieces of brown cloth, a popular devotional that is approved by the Church. Mary came down and said she would give special blessings to people who wear the scapular at all times (mainly that they would spend less 'time' in purgatory) and live in chastity according to their state of life. I think the persons enrolled are also supposed to recite the rosary or one of the divine offices daily. I'm not sure about that since I'm not enrolled.

Sorry, not sure if I violated the half hour. I wrote all that in about five minutes then the boards went down for a second then I remembered that I had this scientific experiment going outside that I had to remove some fake worms from that I was supposed to do hours ago.

Bleh.

SHIT! I just wrote an EXTREMELY long post, and it friggen logged me out. 30 minutes to write, and it went straight out the window...FUDGE! I'll retype it tomorrow.

Hahah, I just came back to see if you replied and obviously holy orders are Deacons, Priests, and Bishops.

What the heck, my brain must not be working today.

SHIT! I just wrote an EXTREMELY long post, and it friggen logged me out. 30 minutes to write, and it went straight out the window...FUDGE! I'll retype it tomorrow.

Try hitting the back button when that happens! It usually works for me.

Yeah it's being flakey tonight though.

SHIT! I just wrote an EXTREMELY long post, and it friggen logged me out. 30 minutes to write, and it went straight out the window...FUDGE! I'll retype it tomorrow.

Yeah I pulled a few of those. Was not normally an issue cause I always wrote them in word to correct for my atrocious spelling ... but now with FF2.0 and its spelling ability ...

Atheists, and Hindus, and Moslems...I doubt you'd like any of those people to be priests.
I would want anyone who possessed the true faith and whom God had chosen to speak through to be a priest.

There is more to being a priest than being made in the image and likeness of God. According to the Church, a priest's main duty is to offer up the same sacrifice of Our Lord at Calvary, as well as administer the other sacraments, such as absolution, last rites, etc.. In so soing, he is persona Christi and alter Christi. Can a woman be in the person of Christ? Can a woman be another Christ?
A priest has more duties than Eucharist; preaching, and caring for individuals, for example. In my experience, and to make a bit of a generalisation, it is the women priests who are better at this last point. Men are just half of God's creation; we will never do justice to His name by excluding the work of the other half.

Whilst I hold my beliefs in apostolic succession and Eucharistic sacrament to be very dear, I also refuse to confine God to them and accept that His almighty power is somehow limited and can only work through ordained, male priests. This is to put God in a cage, in the same way fundamentalists do; not an almighty, loving God, but a God who 'performs' on demand as you want Him too.

I asked you once. You didn't answer. I'll ask you again. Our Lord so loved Our Blessed Lady that he preserved her from original sin. He assumed her body and soul, upon the completion of her life's course, into everlasting glory. He crowned her Queen of Heaven. He allowed her to share in His sufferings more than anyone else, almost to the degree that she might almost be called Co Redemptrix.

He did not allow Our Lady to participate in that First Mass. If he did not allow his mother to be a priest, certainly, no other woman possibly could be a priest. He did not allow his mother to be a priest. Therefore, certainly, no other woman could be a priest.
I'm not sure how to answer this point without being disrespectful to your beliefs. All I will say, therefore, is that the Catholic tradition of worshiping Mary is not particually traditional at all; you will stuggle to trace it back much further than the origins of my Church.

In addition to this, I will not agree to your argument of the negative. You say 'she didn't, so they can't'; this is a logical absurdity, like me saying 'I didn't run someone over in my car, so I'm incapable of doing so'. The absence of one thing does not disprove the existence of another by itself.

Petitio Principii, also known as petition of the principle, also known as begging the question. The point that women can even be clergy in the first place is precisely the point at hand.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Appeal to Unqualified authority. You are a qualified expert on through whom and in what matter God works...how?
And who, may I ask, are you to deny their calling? Who are you to tell them that God is not calling them by name and asking them to serve him? Who are you to say that God is not working through those who select people for ordination, and guiding them to the right people to pick?

I would be very, very careful before you start to say that 'my faith is stronger than yours', especially seeing as your accusation that I am 'not qualified' can very easily be reversed.

Heheh I love that whole Satan thing with Christianity, it makes no sense at all.

So God is a loving God, who sends you soul to Satan(whom he created BTW) if you don't use your free will to whorship him? That negates free will don't it!

And another thing, soooo Satan who was lucifer a big angel until he revolted, but I thought that the Angels did not have free will, I thought that was reserved only for us humans, so then how can lucifer revolt?

Minor technicality is that Lucifer was the only angel with free will. How he convinced other angels to join his side, whom did not have free will, is beyond me, but he was given free will(if memory serves correctly).

Atheists, and Hindus, and Moslems...I doubt you'd like any of those people to be priests.

There is more to being a priest than being made in the image and likeness of God. According to the Church, a priest's main duty is to offer up the same sacrifice of Our Lord at Calvary, as well as administer the other sacraments, such as absolution, last rites, etc.. In so soing, he is persona Christi and alter Christi. Can a woman be in the person of Christ? Can a woman be another Christ?


Can I answer? If all men(in this context all humans) are created in the image of God, then thus God is all. Now, Christ was not solely Christ, the man, but also God. If all humans are created in the image of God, and Christ is God, as well as man, than all humans are thus Christ as well.

Ta-da.

And you play the "devout Catholic" to a T. Either you are one hell of a Catholic, or you read up before making your puppet.

Also, I find it odd that you are using "Fourth Holy Reich", as Germany was the "third Reich", which was not a Catholic empire, if I recall correctly.

hell yeah why not. I found out a few years back that a lot of my family converted form Hinduism to Catholasim.

Shit perhaps I should explain I come from Imperial English stock, so my folx where out in India for a while and married into the local populase.
My Great-Great-Great Grandfather was born in India, his father was a Military man.

Heheh I love that whole Satan thing with Christianity, it makes no sense at all.

So God is a loving God, who sends you soul to Satan(whom he created BTW) if you don't use your free will to whorship him? That negates free will don't it!

And another thing, soooo Satan who was lucifer a big angel until he revolted, but I thought that the Angels did not have free will, I thought that was reserved only for us humans, so then how can lucifer revolt?

patristic christianity doesn't have any of these contradictions. just because mainstream protestantism and the pop-culture its influenced and been supplanted by are theologically bankrupt, doesn't mean that all christianity is.

I am not saying that you do or don't have apostolic lineage. However, keep in mind that for a sacrament to be valid, there must be matter, form, and intent.

The matter being the bread and wine, and the priest. The form being the words of consecration. The intent being to do what the Church teaches.

Your church doesn't believe in transubstantiation.

Also, don't y'all believe in female "ordinations"?

are you sincere? considering the "reich" in your name, I was assuming you were a troll, but you're one of the most knowledgeable trolls I've met. were you a devout catholic who has now de-converted and become a troll, or are you sincere and unaware how you're coming off?

I believe in transubstantiation. There are more layers to the Church of England than there are stars in the sky; there are many different people, who believe many different things, all united in the belief in Christ. It truly is a universal church.

And yes, we have women priests. They're very good at it. :)

yay! question: I know the anglican communion is being ripped in two over the whole homosexuality issue - are the low-church anglicans the ones who tend to support the more traditional definitions of marriage and the priesthood, or what? I visited St. Mary the Virgin's in times square on holy week this year, and I *loved* it -...the rector also had one hell of a gay-lisp, and the website made it clear gay people were welcome to attend. still, they were worshipping more conservatively than the post vatican 2 catholic church I visited earlier...if they combine liturgical conservatism with certain socially liberal elements, I'll be thrilled. I'm gay, but otherwise I'm so conservative as far as my prefered worship and theology I'd prefer the antiochian or possibly coptic churches. are the anglicans who are ok with gay folks the same ones who reject the virgin birth and miracles and all those other things, or what?

That said, if Our Lord, who certainly loved his Mother to so great a degree that he preserved her from original sin, assumed her body into heaven, and crowned her Queen of Heaven...did not allow the same to partake in the First Mass, then how on earth could you possibly think that any woman, if not even His own Mother, could be a priest?

see, all this stuff appeals to me - (though I prefer the Orthodox position on origional sin - patristic christianity does not view sin in such a way that the immaculate conception was necessary...it took until the 1800s for the romans to figure out they'd changed their sin-theology enough to require it) - the titles Co-Redemtrix and Imperatrix Caelorum and all that...though of course there's the usual patriarchal rubbish thrown in there, too. unfortunately, social "conservatives" (homophobes, war hawks, and bigots) seem to have claimed Our Lady, and the "liberals" seem to think worship should consist of bouncing around holding hands. I read one anglican church celebrated the liturgy in clown-suits to stress the "joy of the lord"...:headbang: is there no middle ground?


And why didn't God want us to eat from the Tree of Knowledge and get pissy when Adam and Eve ate from it, eh?

Precisely why I am maltheist. *nod*

see, again this is not an issue in actual christianity. the convoluted heretical mess most americans have inherited is rediculous, and rightly rejected - unfortunately most people aren't aware that at one point, christians were capable of logic and didn't base their worldview on conflicting points. :rolleyes: I think apostates should be required to read the church fathers before speaking on christianity. the mainstream modern version should be called christian lite(tm) or kristianity, or something.

It was mostly Christianity pushing me off. I couldn't make sense of it because its holy text contradicted itself. And the Christian God just seemed like an abusive arse, if He/She really did endorse "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil". I believe that any God who tries hiding crap from his own followers is not much of a God at all.

see above.

1) Ok. Define indulgence. Differentiate between partial and plenery indulgences. State the conditions for recieving a plenery indulgence. Give at least 2 examples of each a plenery and partial indulgence.

2)Define the doctrine of papal infallability, and list the requirements for an Ex Cathedra papal statement. Also, list at least 2 commonly accepted Ex Cathedra statements, and at least 1 probable Ex Cathedra statements.

3) Define the theological speculation of "The Dormition."

4) List the 3 degrees of sacramental Sacred Orders.

5) Define the difference between an act of contrition and an act of attrition.

6) Define the difference between cosubstantiation and transubstantiation.

7) List at least 2 other churches not in full communion with Rome but still possessing valid sacraments.

8) Can any priest give absolution? If not, why

9) Speak extemporaneously on the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.

seriously, I'm intrigued, are you intellegent, devout, and self-righteous, or a troll?

Your church was established by a horny king. My church was established by Christ himself. Your church (presuming you are of the mainstream Anglican sort) doesn't offer valid eucharist. My Church offers the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of our Dear Lord Jesus Christ at each and every mass.
It is true that the Anglican Church was established by a horny king, but I don't believe that it was Christ's intention to establish a Church that kills, pursues and despises everyone who doesn't worship him. You should learn about what happened in the Dark Ages. No sensible human being can agree with the Catholic decisions made in that period i.e. the Spanish Inquisition, etc. 'Your' church has lied to its parishioners ever since the beginning. The Bible e.g. originally had hundreds of gospels, but the Catholic Church selected only those which didn't mention Christ having a wife or kids and which did mention miracles, which of course never happened. I can't imagine someone turning water into wine and such. The Bible is now a very nice story book, but few of which is true.
I know a thing or two about the Catholic Church, because I live in Belgium, which is catholic, but the agnostics are gaining to them!

Sorry, I can only associate Catholics with child molestation.

that's true, I forgot about that.

yay! question: I know the anglican communion is being ripped in two over the whole homosexuality issue - are the low-church anglicans the ones who tend to support the more traditional definitions of marriage and the priesthood, or what? I visited St. Mary the Virgin's in times square on holy week this year, and I *loved* it -...the rector also had one hell of a gay-lisp, and the website made it clear gay people were welcome to attend. still, they were worshipping more conservatively than the post vatican 2 catholic church I visited earlier...if they combine liturgical conservatism with certain socially liberal elements, I'll be thrilled. I'm gay, but otherwise I'm so conservative as far as my prefered worship and theology I'd prefer the antiochian or possibly coptic churches. are the anglicans who are ok with gay folks the same ones who reject the virgin birth and miracles and all those other things, or what?

The Anglican Church can generally be split into three wings; Anglo-Catholism, which is more traditional and closer to Roman Catholism; liberal, which encourages thought and reason in our understanding of God in addition to just tradition and Scripture; and Evangelical, which takes the Bible more literally. Generally speaking, the Anglo-Catholic wing is more a distinction based on worship form, and those who worship this way are likely to fit into one of the two other categories as well.

I am a Liberal Anglo-Catholic; I believe in the traditional forms of worship, but do not confine my faith word for word to the Bible. I do this for many reasons; mainly because I see the Bible as the divine word of God, as interpreted and influenced by the cultures of its age. The message is there, but there must be reasonable discussion as to what that message is. This often leads to calls that 'you're not a real Christian!!!' from the more evangelical/fundamentalist wing of the Church, but I live with it.

I believe that God creates us all in His image, and so does not shun us for the way he has created us; this is a logical absurdity. I also believe that the central 'theme' of the New Testament, that love conquers all, overrides any individual verse that says to the contrary. As such, there should be no bar on who becomes his priest, be you black, gay, female, or purple with yellow stripes. All that should be asked is that you have true faith, and have been called by name.

The Church is in the process of tearing itself apart because this internal friction between the different wings has, in homosexuality, reached a point of contention that no one is willing to compromise on. The Evangelicals see it as a sin, an abonination; the Liberals see it much as I have described above - simply another way God has created us; as long as there is love, then there is God.

It's similar to the division of a decade ago over women priests; back then, however, it was the Anglo-Catholics who were the opposing voice, and, as this is a split wing in the first place, the Church was able to do a botched job that kept everyone (relatively) happy. It's difficult to see if they will be able to do the same thing here; I have great faith in Rowan Williams though, and believe that God has chosen exactly the right person in him to see the Church through this period.

I found great joy and inner peace when I accepted Satan as my personal savior.

If God is the source, the summit, and the center of all Good, then what do you have if you leave God?

My bold.

Pretty bif 'If' there chappy.

Discovery! I'm Catholic..!!

So has anyone else come to discover that they are suddenly massively attracted to a particular religion LATER IN LIFE..!?

I'm especially interested in newly converted Catholics.


(( In the interests of full disclosure, my family WAS catholic about 4 or five generations ago,.. but entirely "irreligious" since that time. ))

As a person raised Catholic I can only shake my head. You don't know what you're getting yourself into...

Heheh I love that whole Satan thing with Christianity, it makes no sense at all.

So God is a loving God, who sends you soul to Satan(whom he created BTW) if you don't use your free will to whorship him? That negates free will don't it!

And another thing, soooo Satan who was lucifer a big angel until he revolted, but I thought that the Angels did not have free will, I thought that was reserved only for us humans, so then how can lucifer revolt?

Lol...it's what I've been saying for years. Amen to that, Peep.

Govneauvia, it's wonderful that you're looking into joining the Church. I'll be praying for you! Also, feel free to message me if you find yourself having any questions or "sticking points" - I'm only a cradle Catholic, but I also like to read up on these things.

God Bless,
Cor Iesu Sacratissimum

P.S. Don't listen to Peepelonia up there - the dogma is one of the best parts! I always prefer a worldview that's logical.

i was confirmed the year i was @ Baylor U. for those that don't know, it's the largest baptist university. anyway...i was amazed at the amount of converts from the various forms of Protestantism that we had. a lot of them said that after visiting a Catholic mass, they found we focused more on God's (and mainly Christ's) teachings. and a lot of non-converts thought it nifty we had something like the Catechism. the way they explained it, their church teaches things without explaining why; whereas we have an explanation for damn-near everything.

sorry for being especially long-winded today

My church was established by Christ himself.

actually. it was the deciple james. whoch has been decovered to be actually jesus's brother. taken over from him by the sons of judus. then eventually hijacked by some group of people to get rid of the evenidence that jesus had brothers.

Whilst I hold my beliefs in apostolic succession and Eucharistic sacrament to be very dear, I also refuse to confine God to them and accept that His almighty power is somehow limited and can only work through ordained, male priests. This is to put God in a cage, in the same way fundamentalists do; not an almighty, loving God, but a God who 'performs' on demand as you want Him too.
...
And who, may I ask, are you to deny their calling? Who are you to tell them that God is not calling them by name and asking them to serve him? Who are you to say that God is not working through those who select people for ordination, and guiding them to the right people to pick?
.

God had female disciples, but why were the apostles all men? They were the ones visited with tongues of flame (Holy Spirit). They were the ones chosen to represent Christ in a sacramental role, because the Christian God has a male identity, if a person is to act as 'another Christ' and act in person of Christ then it would naturally be inappropriate for that person to have a female identity. Women are not meant to be priests as men are not meant to be mothers. Neither women or men have greater religious faith, intelligence, or dignity than the other gender, but they are different.


I'm not sure how to answer this point without being disrespectful to your beliefs. All I will say, therefore, is that the Catholic tradition of worshiping Mary is not particually traditional at all; you will stuggle to trace it back much further than the origins of my Church.

Veneration of Mary goes quite far back as I see it. Especially since it is alluded to in the bible:

From now on all generations will call me blessed
-Luke 1:48
Look it up in whatever version, it's pretty clear what is being said and that Mary says it in all of them.
Also, they were calling Mary the Theotokos and her veneration was solidified in Christian belief at the Council of Ephesus which took place in 430. She was venerated and called the Theotokos before that as well and it has been historically documented.

Minor technicality is that Lucifer was the only angel with free will. How he convinced other angels to join his side, whom did not have free will, is beyond me, but he was given free will(if memory serves correctly).
All angels have free will and intellect. Satan abused his intellect and free will to rebel against God.


actually. it was the deciple james. whoch has been decovered to be actually jesus's brother. taken over from him by the sons of judus. then eventually hijacked by some group of people to get rid of the evenidence that jesus had brothers.
James is called the "brother of Christ" in the bible. This is what many Catholics (especially Eastern Catholics) refer to him as. In the original language, brother could mean a brother, a cousin, a second cousin, and several other relatives-it is an extremely vauge familial term that I believe only denotes closeness, not necessarily having the same parents.



see, all this stuff appeals to me - (though I prefer the Orthodox position on origional sin - patristic christianity does not view sin in such a way that the immaculate conception was necessary...it took until the 1800s for the romans to figure out they'd changed their sin-theology enough to require it) - the titles Co-Redemtrix and Imperatrix Caelorum and all that...though of course there's the usual patriarchal rubbish thrown in there, too.



The difference of belief between Orthodox and Catholic Christians on this issue is so slight that I forsee them reconciling it at some point in the future. Catholics believe that Mary was born without the effects of original sin affecting her (and she therefore never sinned). Eastern Orthodox believe that God somehow protected her from the effects of original sin (and she therefore never sinned). The Eastern Orthodox churches are just saying that if she was really born without original sin death would also not effect her (since death is caused by original sin) so they are uncomfortable with the way that the immaculate conception is posed as a theological concept.

I found great joy and inner peace when I accepted Satan as my personal savior.

just curious.... isnt it better if salvation was in your own hands?

OK! I am gonna try this again, Deus volens (God willing.)

1) Ok. Define indulgence. Differentiate between partial and plenery indulgences. State the conditions for recieving a plenery indulgence. Give at least 2 examples of each a plenery and partial indulgence.

An indulgence is the remission of temporal punishment, either in part or in whole, due for sin, which otherwise must be expiated in purgatory. The difference between indulgence and absolution is that indulgence does not remove guilt (worthiness of Hell) due to sin, which is gained through the Sacrament of Confession. An indulgence can be either partial or plenery. A partial indulgence removes part of the punishment owed for sin, whereas plenery indulgences remove the totality. An indulgence can be credited towards oneself, someone else, or towards the Holy Souls in Purgatory.

To recieve a plenery indulgence, you must A) either have gone to confession or go to confession within a certain time period (I think a week or two max) B) recieve The Most Blessed Sacrament C) Pray for the pope (A Pater Noster and Ave Maria for the pope's petitions are sufficient), D) be completely detatched from all sin.

Some examples of partial indulgences: Making the sign of the cross "In nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiriti Sancti," kissing the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel (500 days indulgence!), and private recitations of the rosary.

Some examples of plenery indulgences: Attending a way of the cross on a Friday of Lent, visiting a cemetery during a certain time of the year and offering up pious prayer for the dead (the indulgence can only be applied for the Holy Souls in Purgatory), certain public recitations of the Rosary, and going to confession and recieving The Most Blessed Sacrament on Mercy Sunday.

2)Define the doctrine of papal infallability, and list the requirements for an Ex Cathedra papal statement. Also, list at least 2 commonly accepted Ex Cathedra statements, and at least 1 probable Ex Cathedra statements.

The doctrine of papal infallability states that the Pope is gaurded from error when speaking Ex Cathedra. For Ex Cathedra to apply:


The Pope
by virtue of his office as Pontifex Maximus
must define
a matter of faith and morality
as applicable to the entire Church


Two commonly accepted Ex Cathedra statements have been 1) the Immaculate Conception and 2) Assumption of Our Lady.

One other possible Ex Cathedra statement not as widely accepted by theologeans that I personally like is the last line of Unam Sanctum, by Pope Boniface VIII. "We pronounce, we define, we decree that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

3) Define the theological speculation of "The Dormition."

The idea, particularly popular in the Eastern Churches, that, upon the end of her life, prior to her Assumption, she merely fell asleep (rather than died).

4) List the 3 degrees of sacramental Sacred Orders.

Deacon, priest, and bishop.

5) Define the difference between an act of contrition and an act of attrition.

An act of contrition is when one feels sorrow for his sins out of love for God. An act of perfect contrition, when coupled with the desire and intent to recieve the sacrament of Confession, attains the complete pardon of guilt owed for sins, including mortal sins.

An act of attrition is when one feels sorrow for sins out of impious reasons, such as fear as hell. It does not attain pardon for sins, but is still a gift from God, because it nonetheless brings an aversion to sin. It is sufficient to gain absolution.

]6) Define the difference between cosubstantiation and transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation: When a validly ordained priest says the words of consecration, the wine and wafers BOTH become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Dear Lord Jesus Christ.

Cosubstantiation (heresy): Jesus is in the bread and wine.

7) List at least 2 other churches not in full communion with Rome but still possessing valid sacraments.

Old Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Greek Orthodoxy, Polish National Catholic, certain Anglican churches.

8) Can any priest give absolution? If not, why

A prist can only give absolution if the diocesian bishop gives him the faculties to do so.

9) Speak extemporaneously on the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.

The Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel was given us by Our Lady herself! It is a special sign of salvation and devotion to Our Lady. "Whoever dies in this shall not suffer eternal fire." Kissing a (Blessed) Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel brings 500 days of indulgence. Wearing the (blessed) scapular brings the graces and special protections of The Mother of God. Wearing the scapular is a sign that you are always thinking of Our Mother, and that She in turn is always thinking of you. The scapular must be blessed by a priest. Also, the scapular medal must not be worn out of vanity in place of the Scapular.

If God is the source, the summit, and the center of all Good, then what do you have if you leave God?

Free time on Sunday morning?

Just to clarify, I come from a family of strongly devout Roman Catholics. Over the last few years however, I made it a point to truly study what I could about Catholicism in regards to what the Bible teaches in the hopes that it would strengthen my faith in the Roman Catholic church and its teachings.

What I found was surprising, really.

In comparision of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to the Bible (any version if you wish), I found that the Catholic Church is treading dangerous ground, for many of the "laws" and dogmas stated within the Catechism are contradicting the Bible!

Yes, you heard me.

For example:

I am not saying that you do or don't have apostolic lineage. However, keep in mind that for a sacrament to be valid, there must be matter, form, and intent.

The matter being the bread and wine, and the priest. The form being the words of consecration. The intent being to do what the Church teaches.

Your church doesn't believe in transubstantiation.

Also, don't y'all believe in female "ordinations"?

Read Ephesians 2:8-9. That alone tells you that good works cannot get you to Heaven, but faith alone. If that's the case, then that would mean that Christ's death on the Cross was once for all. This is supported by the fact that Christ was found missing from the tomb three days after he died.

So then, why do Catholics think that it is necessary to yank the guy outta heaven and force him into a bodily form? To me, it's almost as if the Eucharist is not a profession of faith, but rather along the lines of "I believe in your saving power...but, I'm going to keep "transubstantiating" to make sure you live up to your end of the deal."

To be precise: Seems to me that it's a lack of faith.

Anyone else see a problem with this?

As John: 3:16 states, 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Doesn't say that "Believers must take the bread and body of the Eucharist, and believe it becomes the actual flesh and blood of Christ." In Jesus's own words, repeated quite a few times in the New Testament, he said "Do this in memory of me." (emphasis mine), thereby denoting that he is simply using metaphoric terminology to help the disciples understand how his sacrifice could be related to (but never duplicated).

How's that for "justifying" the most important sacrament of the Catholic faith?

A quick note:

Why is the Catechism of the Catholic Church thicker than the Bible? (logically choosing a book of each that are the same dimensions, except in depth). If God's word is in the Bible...why are Catholics relying on the Catechism as the absolute truth?


Unfortunately, I hear it is rather difficult to become a full member of the catholic church, and the process can sometimes take years.

That is true. Now compare it with what is said in the Bible. All one must do is simply believe in Christ as savior. Nothing else!

Another thought:
Why is there statues of saints and even of Mary herself scattered throughout the church? Doesn't the first and second Commandment warn against this?


Meh, another thing that drove me to maltheism. Christianity is a rip-off of Paganism, no matter how hard they try to deny it.

Incorrect. Catholicism input pagan symbology into the Catholic faith in order to help "smooth" the transition from the old religions to their faith. ie: The mass, altar, etc.

Catholics declare that Christ is savior, but still believe that no matter what they do, they must still go to purgatory, no matter how "good" they live their lives. Where does it say in the Bible, that there is even a purgatory? How about the time when the guy on the cross next to Christ said, "Remember me in heaven, and Christ replied, "This day you shall be with me in heaven."

Whoa! Wait a minute! What about purgatory?!

Thus, I have turned away from the Roman Catholic Church. I am now non-denominational, choosing to read the Bible and take it for its true meaning. While the Catholic Church may be the oldest christian church...God's word came first.

Laymen should NOT be allowed to read the bible. They start reading the bible, and this sort of drivel is what they come up with. :headbang:

Why is the Catechism of the Catholic Church thicker than the Bible? (logically choosing a book of each that are the same dimensions, except in depth). If God's word is in the Bible...why are Catholics relying on the Catechism as the absolute truth?

You are creating a false dichotomy. "Either God's word is soley in the bible, or God's word is soley in this other place." That's not the case. The bible is not the authentic Word of God. Jesus is the Word. That said, think for a moment.

What has been revealed to us? God. In what manner? Through Christ. How did Christ reveal himself? Through preaching. He preached to his apostles.

The apostles, not the bible, have the fullness of doctrinal authority.

The apostles preached. PART of what they preached was written down. Do you know how much was not written down? Check out the last line of John.

John 21:25

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.


That is true. Now compare it with what is said in the Bible. All one must do is simply believe in Christ as savior. Nothing else!

James 2:14

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.


Why is there statues of saints and even of Mary herself scattered throughout the church? Doesn't the first and second Commandment warn against this?

The first and second commandment warn against idolotry and paganism. Neither of which are practiced are practiced in Catholicism.

Incorrect. Catholicism input pagan symbology into the Catholic faith in order to help "smooth" the transition from the old religions to their faith. ie: The mass, altar, etc.

Neither the mass nor the altar are pagan in origin. The altar comes from the ancient Hebrew sacrificies, and the Mass was given us by Christ himself.

http://fisheaters.com/mass.html

Where does it say in the Bible, that there is even a purgatory?

Where does it say in the bible that it must be in the bible? The bible says not to look for the bible for truth. It says to accept the teachings of the Church:

1 Timothy 3:15

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Whoa! Wait a minute! What about purgatory?!

2 Maccabees 12:42

Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. 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 dead that they might be freed from this sin.


While the Catholic Church may be the oldest christian church...God's word came first.

Petitio principii.

Read Ephesians 2:8-9. That alone tells you that good works cannot get you to Heaven, but faith alone. If that's the case, then that would mean that Christ's death on the Cross was once for all. This is supported by the fact that Christ was found missing from the tomb three days after he died.
It says in Matthew 16:27 "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works."

In the passage you mentioned, it says that Christ saves all, we can not save ourselves. It SAYS THIS in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 168: "Salvation comes from God alone;"
So, our salvation does come from Christ, but we have to cooperate with him to get salvation. But don't take my word for it:
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?"-James 2:21


"So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself."-James 2:17



Anyone else see a problem with this?

As John: 3:16 states, 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Doesn't say that "Believers must take the bread and body of the Eucharist, and believe it becomes the actual flesh and blood of Christ." In Jesus's own words, repeated quite a few times in the New Testament, he said "Do this in memory of me." (emphasis mine), thereby denoting that he is simply using metaphoric terminology to help the disciples understand how his sacrifice could be related to (but never duplicated).

How's that for "justifying" the most important sacrament of the Catholic faith?


In the gospel of John 6:53-67 it mentions how Jesus said many times "This IS my flesh". It also mentions how people were confused by what he was saying. He goes on to say several times that it is his flesh. After hearing this some of his followers leave him. He doesn't stop them and say "wait! It is symbolic!" They were confused at the nature of the eucharist and he cleared it up for them. Some people didn't like the idea. If it had just been a misunderstanding I think that Jesus would have said so.
Read that passage, I don't see how you can deny what He meant in that one.



Another thought:
Why is there statues of saints and even of Mary herself scattered throughout the church? Doesn't the first and second Commandment warn against this?

Do we keep pictures of our loved ones in our wallet to remind us of them? That is usually not considered idolatry. Idolatry implies worship. I have never met anyone who worships statues of saints or Mary. I have never met anyone who worships Mary. Catholics venerate Mary because she was a wonderful person. It isn't worship to love one's wife or respect a very good person.



Incorrect. Catholicism input pagan symbology into the Catholic faith in order to help "smooth" the transition from the old religions to their faith. ie: The mass, altar, etc.

The mass is only scripture reading with the celebration of the eucharist at its center. I already mentioned the real presence so unless reading the bible is a pagan symbol I think Catholic liturgies are acceptable.

Altars are mentioned in the old and new testaments repeatedly. I mean, they're just everywhere. Also, remember that the eucharist is the sacrifice of the lamb (Christ) what is more appropriate than an altar?


Catholics declare that Christ is savior, but still believe that no matter what they do, they must still go to purgatory, no matter how "good" they live their lives. Where does it say in the Bible, that there is even a purgatory? How about the time when the guy on the cross next to Christ said, "Remember me in heaven, and Christ replied, "This day you shall be with me in heaven."

Whoa! Wait a minute! What about purgatory?!

I don't believe that 'time' necessarily has the same meaning in the afterlife as it will here. So the time in a day could seem like an eternity, like no time at all, or be completely irrelevant in purgatory. Who can say how long a purification process will take?
The word purgatory isn't even used by Eastern Catholics, but they still believe in it. Purgatory has negative connotations that you couldn't quite make it into heaven. None of us are ready to stand before God when we die. We go through a process where we remove sin from ourselves, this may be difficult (it is certainly difficult on earth) but purgatory is not a bad place. The people there are joyful because they know that they have been saved and that when they are ready they will reach heaven and be in eternal joy with God.

There is much mention in the bible of purgatory, not explicit mention mind you. The same is true with the trinity.

I think a quote from the first letter to the Corinthians really just spells it out:
"Every man's work shall be manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire. And the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is.
If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."
-1 Corinthians 3:13-15


Thus, I have turned away from the Roman Catholic Church. I am now non-denominational, choosing to read the Bible and take it for its true meaning. While the Catholic Church may be the oldest christian church...God's word came first.
God's word came to us through the apostles and the Church.

Matt.16:18-19: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Laymen should NOT be allowed to read the bible. They start reading the bible, and this sort of drivel is what they come up with.

That's ridiculous, doing something like that is the equivalent of Gnosticism where only a select few may have Truth revealed to them. All people are entitled to know the truth.

That's ridiculous, doing something like that is the equivalent of Gnosticism where only a select few may have Truth revealed to them. All people are entitled to know the truth.

At one point in time Catholic laymen were in fact prohibited from reading the bible. Your point is moot. The bible is not the only way in which we recieve doctrinal Truth. It's not even the most important way in which we recieve doctrinal Truth. People should close their bibles and let the Magisterium tell them what to think.

It's because people read the bible that homosexuality is now legal and people are having abortions.

At one point in time Catholic laymen were in fact prohibited from reading the bible. Your point is moot. The bible is not the only way in which we recieve doctrinal Truth. It's not even the most important way in which we recieve doctrinal Truth. People should close their bibles and let the Magisterium tell them what to think.

It's because people read the bible that homosexuality is now legal and people are having abortions.

So you're attributing homosexuality and abortion to the bible? The bible speaks against both homosexual acts and abortion.
The bible is a wonderful gift to humanity, I don't think it is a moot point because scripture is VERY important to Catholic worship and our understanding of Christ.
"The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures "because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior."
-Catechism of the Catholic Church 125

The gospel is the main way in which Tradition is passed down! Right there in the catechism. I do not believe in the restriction of the bible.

So you're attributing homosexuality and abortion to the bible?

Absolutely not. I am attributing both to people having read the bible. Consider this for a moment. The bible is highly ambiguous. It is a very complicated text. That said, when someone says "Here, read it for yourself?" How is that interpreted? That basically says "Think for yourself," and so Martin Luther did. He read the bible. He questioned Catholicism.

Well, if you can question the biggest branch of Christianity, and the oldest, why not Christianity in general? In schism and heresy.

If not Christianity, all religion? In comes atheism.

If not all religion, why not their morality? In comes relativism.

I blame Luther for the enlightenment, for relativism, for atheism, etc.

And I blame Luther on the freedom to read the bible.

Thus, because one man read the bible, we have legal homosexuality, abortion, and all sorts of other crap.

The gospel is the main way in which Tradition is passed down!

Not necessarily.

Absolutely not. I am attributing both to people having read the bible. Consider this for a moment. The bible is highly ambiguous. It is a very complicated text. That said, when someone says "Here, read it for yourself?" How is that interpreted? That basically says "Think for yourself," and so Martin Luther did. He read the bible. He questioned Catholicism.

Well, if you can question the biggest branch of Christianity, and the oldest, why not Christianity in general? In schism and heresy.

If not Christianity, all religion? In comes atheism.

If not all religion, why not their morality? In comes relativism.

I blame Luther for the enlightenment, for relativism, for atheism, etc.

And I blame Luther on the freedom to read the bible.

Thus, because one man read the bible, we have legal homosexuality, abortion, and all sorts of other crap.



The gospel is the main way in which Tradition is passed down!

Not necessarily.

All Catholics I know, their faith is strengthened by reading the bible. Pope Leo XIII granted and indulgence to those who read the bible for at least fifteen minutes.

So the cathecism of the Catholic Church, issued by the Catholic Church is incorrect?

It seems to me that you're the one disagreeing with the Church.
Been reading too much of the bible lately?

All Catholics I know, their faith is strengthened by reading the bible. Pope Leo XIII granted and indulgence to those who read the bible for at least fifteen minutes.

So the cathecism of the Catholic Church, issued by the Catholic Church is incorrect?

The catechism said that the gospels are the heart of the scriptures. Duh. That doesn't mean that people should read them on their own.

The catechism said that the gospels are the heart of the scriptures. Duh. That doesn't mean that people should read them on their own.

The point is, the Church encourages the reading of the bible by the laity.
By stating that you disagree with the Church and disagreeing with statements from the catechism, made by the magisterium, you are (perhaps unintentionally) speaking heresy. But, perhaps you are not; you seem to just be trolling. So you may simply be a non-Catholic, thereby not actually a heretic.

"And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food, for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life.." Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.:
-Catechism of the Catholic Church 131, quoting Dei Verbum

The point is, the Church encourages the reading of the bible by the laity.
By stating that you disagree with the Church

Disagreeing with the Church? Reading the bible isn't doctrinal. Gosh, I hate JPII liberalism.

<snipped for brevity>

Thus, I have turned away from the Roman Catholic Church. I am now non-denominational, choosing to read the Bible and take it for its true meaning. While the Catholic Church may be the oldest christian church...God's word came first.

I could selectively quote scipture and relate pieces of theology regarding a person of any church's views in an effort to make them look horrendously erroneous. But I don't. I would appreciate you giving the same consideration to me.

If you're going to try to justify abandoning Catholicism, please do me a favor and give better reasons than a set of Potestant anti-Catholic talking points.

Discovery! I'm Catholic..!!

So has anyone else come to discover that they are suddenly massively attracted to a particular religion LATER IN LIFE..!?

I'm especially interested in newly converted Catholics.


(( In the interests of full disclosure, my family WAS catholic about 4 or five generations ago,.. but entirely "irreligious" since that time. ))

I recently converted to Islam, its been really great for me in so many ways.

I recently converted to Islam, its been really great for me in so many ways.

And I am sure it'll continue to be great...until you are burning in the fiery pits of Hell with Satan and His angels for having denied the name of the Only Son of God.

I was raised Catholic, but am converting to Taoism.

And I am sure it'll continue to be great...until you are burning in the fiery pits of Hell with Satan and His angels for having denied the name of the Only Son of God.

I'm sure you're frightening everyone here into being good Christians with that kind of talk.

Ooh, Hell. Satan. Spoooooky.

And I am sure it'll continue to be great...until you are burning in the fiery pits of Hell with Satan and His angels for having denied the name of the Only Son of God.
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." -Catechism of the Catholic Church 841
Please be respectful to our Moslem brothers and sisters.


Disagreeing with the Church? Reading the bible isn't doctrinal. Gosh, I hate JPII liberalism.
What are you some kind of schismatic?

I'm confused how you believe that the Church is the only entity that can possibly have the capacity to understand the bible, yet you are in disagreement with the magisterium? So you respect the authority of the magisterium but you presume to understand what they're saying better than they? Beware of pride, it is one of the most insidious sins.

And I am sure it'll continue to be great...until you are burning in the fiery pits of Hell with Satan and His angels for having denied the name of the Only Son of God.

You mean, burning in Hell with God?

If the Bible really is God's Word (which I doubt), then that would prove God to be lying, narcissistic, and abusive. I liken the Christian God to the Christian Satan.

And you sir, are now a trolling fundie.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Appeal to Unqualified authority. You are a qualified expert on through whom and in what matter God works...how?

I think we can safely apply this very line to every single living being on this planet. The universe is much larger than just this planet, and may contain millions more sentient species, any of which is just as likely for a God who may or may not exist to have created in His own image. More likely, God is so busy making sure the laws of physics remain constant and the fabric of space-time is kept from tearing too much to even care about some insignificant species having a midlife crisis on a small system off the southern arm of the Milky Way Galaxy.

In addition, string theory proposes strong evidence that our universe both contains quintillions of tiny universes at every point along the fabric of its space-time, but that it is inside another tiny universe, one of quintillions more that exist at every point along the space-time fabric of another universe so massive in comparison to us we cannot even comprehend it; and so on to infinity.

How can we, being of total insignificance, possibly be so arrogant as to claim that the creator of everything even gives a damn about us?

And I am sure it'll continue to be great...until you are burning in the fiery pits of Hell with Satan and His angels for having denied the name of the Only Son of God.

Oh how the Christians never cease to amaze. Listen, Jesus(pbuh) was a prophet, yes. However he most certainly was NOT the son of God. If he were, God would not have sent Muhammed(pbuh) to reveal the true word. This talk of Jesus(pbuh) being the son of God led people away of God towards worshipping Jesus(pbuh) as if he is God. Worshipping false Gods will not get you to Paradise. So when judgement day comes it will not be me going to hell. I am going to Paradise.

Oh how the Christians never cease to amaze. Listen, Jesus(pbuh) was a prophet, yes. However he most certainly was NOT the son of God.

Jesus said that he is God. That renders him either God, a liar, or insane. It is impossible, however, that he can merely be considered only a prophet.

Jesus said that he is God. That renders him either God, a liar, or insane. It is impossible, however, that he can merely be considered only a prophet.

I say I'm God. That renders me either God, a liar, or insane. It is impossible, however, that I can merely be considered only a prophet.

Now take a knee and worship me, OR ELSE!

I think we can safely apply this very line to every single living being on this planet. The universe is much larger than just this planet, and may contain millions more sentient species, any of which is just as likely for a God who may or may not exist to have created in His own image. More likely, God is so busy making sure the laws of physics remain constant and the fabric of space-time is kept from tearing too much to even care about some insignificant species having a midlife crisis on a small system off the southern arm of the Milky Way Galaxy.

In addition, string theory proposes strong evidence that our universe both contains quintillions of tiny universes at every point along the fabric of its space-time, but that it is inside another tiny universe, one of quintillions more that exist at every point along the space-time fabric of another universe so massive in comparison to us we cannot even comprehend it; and so on to infinity.

How can we, being of total insignificance, possibly be so arrogant as to claim that the creator of everything even gives a damn about us?

oh, Czardas how much I have missed you! :D

I say I'm God. That renders me either God, a liar, or insane. It is impossible, however, that I can merely be considered only a prophet.

Right, and, considering the fact that you are neither God nor insane, that makes you a liar (sarcasm, but neh). The Islamic and Jewish view, however, is ridiculous. He can't just be a prophet. He said he is God.

Oh how the Christians never cease to amaze. Listen, Jesus(pbuh) was a prophet, yes. However he most certainly was NOT the son of God. If he were, God would not have sent Muhammed(pbuh) to reveal the true word. This talk of Jesus(pbuh) being the son of God led people away of God towards worshipping Jesus(pbuh) as if he is God. Worshipping false Gods will not get you to Paradise. So when judgement day comes it will not be me going to hell. I am going to Paradise.

I have a far better solution.

God sent me to Earth so I could reveal the true word. It is "hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliaphobia".

Now worship me, foolish mortals! I demand that you sacrifice 144 lemmings to me every night with an uncut potato while facing towards Melbourne, Australia! And dance through the streets naked, painted green and wearing a necklace of sausages, while reciting "The Waste Land" backwards!

I say I'm God. That renders me either God, a liar, or insane. It is impossible, however, that I can merely be considered only a prophet.

Now take a knee and worship me, OR ELSE!

Lunatic Goofballs is God (a good God, not the Christian one). Have you ever tried to impersonate LG?

I have a far better solution.

God sent me to Earth so I could reveal the true word. It is "hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliaphobia".

Now worship me, foolish mortals! I demand that you sacrifice 144 lemmings to me every night with an uncut potato while facing towards Melbourne, Australia! And dance through the streets naked, painted green and wearing a necklace of sausages, while reciting "The Waste Land" backwards!

I am now toying with the option of atheism. According to my beliefs, you're now a raving lunatic.

oh, Czardas how much I have missed you! :D

Awesome, the christian with common sense is still around. Thought you might get tired of all the bullshit... most people do eventually. (Don't take anything I say too personally, you know the drill. :p)

I've got nothing against Christians in particular, by the way. The world would likely be a better place if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus Christ to the letter. The problem is when people think that they can argue for all the stuff in his teachings they like and then ignore the parts they don't, or base their assumptions about the world on the Church rather than Jesus, which being crewed by men, imperfect beings, is necessarily corrupt.

I am now toying with the option of atheism. According to my beliefs, you're now a raving lunatic.

I'm not known as the NS General Sarcasm Master for nothing, 'Pancake'.

I'm not known as the NS General Sarcasm Master for nothing, 'Pancake'.

I was kidding. I'm not really toying with atheism because of you. :rolleyes:

Right, and, considering the fact that you are neither God nor insane, that makes you a liar (sarcasm, but neh). The Islamic and Jewish view, however, is ridiculous. He can't just be a prophet. He said he is God.

Who says I'm not God?

You know, if you don't believe in God, you're going to go to... Gell. Yeah. And you'll burn there for eternity. The dark minions will hook your nutsack up to a car battery and force you to listen to Brittney Spears's whining. I am obviously not a liar, since I say I'm God, and I'm obviously not a prophet, that would be ridiculous - I said I'm God.

Therefore I am.

Hooray!

Jesus said that he is God. That renders him either God, a liar, or insane. It is impossible, however, that he can merely be considered only a prophet.

Well, it is impossible that he is God as there is no God but God. So draw your own conclusions as to what he was. Worshipping false idols will only lead to trouble.

Well, it is impossible that he is God as there is no God but God.

So you show your true colors. You consider Jesus a liar. Certainly, that says a lot about how much of a "prophet" you think Christ was.

You are a blasphemer. In the words of St. Paul, "Anathema to all who do not love Christ."

I was kidding. I'm not really toying with atheism because of you. :rolleyes:

Oh, I hadn't noticed. It's rather difficult to see a glowstick perched 100 yards from the sun.

Seriously however... I realised that, I just thought I should clarify for the benefit of the newbies (i.e. anyone created after about, oh, September 1 2005).

The Anglican Church can generally be split into three wings; Anglo-Catholism, which is more traditional and closer to Roman Catholism; liberal, which encourages thought and reason in our understanding of God in addition to just tradition and Scripture; and Evangelical, which takes the Bible more literally. Generally speaking, the Anglo-Catholic wing is more a distinction based on worship form, and those who worship this way are likely to fit into one of the two other categories as well.

I am a Liberal Anglo-Catholic; I believe in the traditional forms of worship, but do not confine my faith word for word to the Bible. I do this for many reasons; mainly because I see the Bible as the divine word of God, as interpreted and influenced by the cultures of its age. The message is there, but there must be reasonable discussion as to what that message is. This often leads to calls that 'you're not a real Christian!!!' from the more evangelical/fundamentalist wing of the Church, but I live with it.

I believe that God creates us all in His image, and so does not shun us for the way he has created us; this is a logical absurdity. I also believe that the central 'theme' of the New Testament, that love conquers all, overrides any individual verse that says to the contrary. As such, there should be no bar on who becomes his priest, be you black, gay, female, or purple with yellow stripes. All that should be asked is that you have true faith, and have been called by name.

The Church is in the process of tearing itself apart because this internal friction between the different wings has, in homosexuality, reached a point of contention that no one is willing to compromise on. The Evangelicals see it as a sin, an abonination; the Liberals see it much as I have described above - simply another way God has created us; as long as there is love, then there is God.

It's similar to the division of a decade ago over women priests; back then, however, it was the Anglo-Catholics who were the opposing voice, and, as this is a split wing in the first place, the Church was able to do a botched job that kept everyone (relatively) happy. It's difficult to see if they will be able to do the same thing here; I have great faith in Rowan Williams though, and believe that God has chosen exactly the right person in him to see the Church through this period.

cool =) after attending orthodox church I was a bit weirded out by the idea of female priests (even though I'm gay I'm apperently still prone to sexism...I can only imagine how hard people have to work to overcome it who aren't gender-fucked themselves...) - but when I attended the liturgy at St. Mary's, it was actually incredibly beautiful to see the female priests celebrating the mass along with the male ones - I loved it.


Veneration of Mary goes quite far back as I see it. Especially since it is alluded to in the bible:

From now on all generations will call me blessed
-Luke 1:48
Look it up in whatever version, it's pretty clear what is being said and that Mary says it in all of them.
Also, they were calling Mary the Theotokos and her veneration was solidified in Christian belief at the Council of Ephesus which took place in 430. She was venerated and called the Theotokos before that as well and it has been historically documented.

indeed - the first part of the hail mary is nothing but quoting scripture.

that God somehow protected her from the effects of original sin (and she therefore never sinned)

the way I was taught, it seems that the Orthodox do not believe origional sin to have the effects romans seem to attribute to it. I was told Our Lady needed no special dispensation to make her pure enough to be Theotokos, because the nature of sin and atonement is understood *very* differently from the roman west. anselm and the like mucked it up with fuedal judiciary metaphor...the way the Orthodox church understands sin also explains why it never fell into the revolting error of selling indulgences, and why it never spawned any major and lasting heresies which slander the nature of humanity like calvinism...or really hardly any heretical movements at all, compared to the politicised western church.

The idea, particularly popular in the Eastern Churches, that, upon the end of her life, prior to her Assumption, she merely fell asleep (rather than died).

erm...what? the eastern church calls the feast of the assumption the Feast of the Dormition...but that's because *all* death of believers is referred to as "falling asleep in christ" in the east. nobody actually thinks they are literally just sleeping.


Old Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Greek Orthodoxy, Polish National Catholic, certain Anglican churches.

the greek orthodox church *is* an eastern orthodox church. unless by greek, you meant eastern orthodox, and by eastern orthodox, you meant oriental (non-chalcedonian) orthodox...

Laymen should NOT be allowed to read the bible. They start reading the bible, and this sort of drivel is what they come up with. :headbang:

I actually rather agree with you there.

You are creating a false dichotomy. "Either God's word is soley in the bible, or God's word is soley in this other place." That's not the case. The bible is not the authentic Word of God. Jesus is the Word. That said, think for a moment.

What has been revealed to us? God. In what manner? Through Christ. How did Christ reveal himself? Through preaching. He preached to his apostles.

The apostles, not the bible, have the fullness of doctrinal authority.

thank you! it severely annoys me when protestants replace the Living Christ with a book 99.9% of people can't even read except in translation.

I blame Luther for the enlightenment, for relativism, for atheism, etc.

I think Calvin is more repsonsible than Luther, but that's just me.

I recently converted to Islam, its been really great for me in so many ways.

yay! I've been reading about it alot since your post.

I was raised Catholic, but am converting to Taoism.

yay! taoism is wonderful. have you ever read "Christ the Eternal Tao" by Hieromonk Damascene? I'm not actually a christian, but in the book they discuss the ancient christian understanding that *all* religions are precursors of christ, not just judaism. it's a wonderful book.

Jesus said that he is God. That renders him either God, a liar, or insane. It is impossible, however, that he can merely be considered only a prophet.

or, he never said that and the gospels we have attributed to him are false. the "liar, lunatic, or lord" thing is very poor logic. most people argue he never said anything of the sort, or was a mythical or mostly mythical charactor. huge portions of the gospels (nearly the entire sermon on the mount, for example) are borrowings from earlier jewish and gnostic literature. (just because I said the word "gnostic", please don't take me for a davinchi-code idiotic, I'm not), and most modern scholarship reflects that even these gospels are copies of earlier sources. the greatest and most frequently voiced challenge to the claim that jesus is the son of god is that he never said he was in the first place. this is also the claim most frequently ignored by christians, and most strongly supported by scholarship.

Oh, I hadn't noticed. It's rather difficult to see a glowstick perched 100 yards from the sun.

Seriously however... I realised that, I just thought I should clarify for the benefit of the newbies (i.e. anyone created after about, oh, June 2005).

Hey, I was totally aware of the sarcasm mastery thing.

Hey, I was totally aware of the sarcasm mastery thing.

Well yeah, people like you, Smunkee, Posi, Grainne etc. have honorary non-newbie status. Actually I might consider extending the newbie deadline to November 2005 or so, to screen out the people who joined when I was still a major driving force on the forums.

So you show your true colors. You consider Jesus a liar. Certainly, that says a lot about how much of a "prophet" you think Christ was.

You are a blasphemer. In the words of St. Paul, "Anathema to all who do not love Christ."

:rolleyes: Fundie.

Lunatic Goofballs is God (a good God, not the Christian one). Have you ever tried to impersonate LG?

Sorry, he's not a god. He's a demon. I cast him out.

So you show your true colors. You consider Jesus a liar. Certainly, that says a lot about how much of a "prophet" you think Christ was.

You are a blasphemer. In the words of St. Paul, "Anathema to all who do not love Christ."

I don't recall Jesus ever actually saying he was God. He did say he was the Son of God at a certain point, but not God Himself. I recall that one of the apostles equated Jesus with God ex post facto, but I don't remember Jesus himself saying this.

Please give me a line reference, I'm honestly curious (as a blasphemous, immoral, condemned atheist, of course).

I honestly think this Fourth Holy Reich fellow is just trolling.

I mean, he's supposed to be Catholic but he blatantly disregards what the magisterium says because he has it all figured out, yet people shouldn't be allowed to read the bible because they wouldn't be able to figure it out?

Either he's just having a bit of fun with everyone or he has an enormous ego.

So you show your true colors. You consider Jesus a liar. Certainly, that says a lot about how much of a "prophet" you think Christ was.

You are a blasphemer. In the words of St. Paul, "Anathema to all who do not love Christ."

I never called him a liar. It is possible that even though he preached the word of God that what he said was misinterpted by his followers. This would lead to errors in the Gospel(which was not as well protected or documented as the Qur'an) that made it seem as if he claimed to be the son of God, when in fact he was claiming simply to be a prophet of God.

I don't recall Jesus ever actually saying he was God. He did say he was the Son of God at a certain point, but not God Himself. I recall that one of the apostles equated Jesus with God ex post facto, but I don't remember Jesus himself saying this.

Please give me a line reference, I'm honestly curious (as a blasphemous, immoral, condemned atheist, of course).

Philip said to him, "Master, show us the Father, 7 and that will be enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?


Ahem.

I honestly think this Fourth Holy Reich fellow is just trolling.

So sayeth the JP II liberal.

I mean, he's supposed to be Catholic but he blatantly disregards what the magisterium says

Show me a single point in which I've disregarded Magisterial teaching.

I don't recall Jesus ever actually saying he was God. He did say he was the Son of God at a certain point, but not God Himself. I recall that one of the apostles equated Jesus with God ex post facto, but I don't remember Jesus himself saying this.

Please give me a line reference, I'm honestly curious (as a blasphemous, immoral, condemned atheist, of course).
There is plenty of evidence. I don't know how Jehovah's witnesses get around all of it.

"The he said to Thomas; Put in thy finger hither and see my hands. And bring hither thy hand and put it into my side. And be not faithless, but believing.
Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God.
Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed."
John 20:27-29

"The Jews therefore said to him: Thou are not yet fifty years old. And hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM."
John 8:57-58

So sayeth the JP II liberal.



Show me a single point in which I've disregarded Magisterial teaching.

JP II liberal? I don't think labels like 'liberal' and 'conservative' matter in my religion, orthodoxy is important, liberal/conservative is irrelevant and not applicible. I'm also a bit upset to see you invoke the name of his holiness John Paul with a negative conotation.

"And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food, for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life.." Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.:
-Catechism of the Catholic Church 131, quoting Dei Verbum
Dei Verbum is a document from an ecumenical council.

Laymen should NOT be allowed to read the bible. They start reading the bible, and this sort of drivel is what they come up with.

...Can I be the first reformed catholic to say 'I gave up catholicism for lent'?

Felt silly for drinking the kool-aid all those years prior to studying the origins of Judaism and Christianity. Oh yeah, and Buddhism, too. Seems that like man, religions tend to have a common ancestor they evolved from....
So that's why I gave it up. I simply haven't heard anything from the mouth or writings of man to convince me that they have any clue as to the nature of god or gods, and if the behavior of believers are any indicator of a religion's wisdom, then I made a good personal choice. Buddhism, intrinsically, isn't deistically driven, although it grew out of Hinduism and tends to take on certain cultural flavors like deism... I've been intriqued by that.
Catholicism had wonderful traditions that I've missed, so if you find yourself a believer; Enjoy! And don't look to closely at what you believe or you'll end up like me. In some cases, ignorance really is bliss.
(I think I can still say a rosary...will have to give it a shot...)
:)

Ahem.

I believe Jesus is speaking metaphorically there, considering himself the vessel his Father appointed to bring His word to the people of Earth, rather than his Father Himself. I could be mistaken, however, as I'm far from an authority on the subject.

There is plenty of evidence. I don't know how Jehovah's witnesses get around all of it.

"The he said to Thomas; Put in thy finger hither and see my hands. And bring hither thy hand and put it into my side. And be not faithless, but believing.
Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God.
Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed."
John 20:27-29

"The Jews therefore said to him: Thou are not yet fifty years old. And hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM."
John 8:57-58
Granted. Those passages are open to a whole lot of interpretation, of course (as is everything in the Bible), but it appears I have been mistaken. Carry on.

I'm also a bit upset to see you invoke the name of his holiness John Paul with a negative conotation.

This speaks for itself. (http://www.traditio.com/nos.htm)

Dei Verbum is a document from an ecumenical council.

VII wasn't a dogmatic council. It was a pastoral council. That said, you keep throwing around the suggestion that I am going against Church teaching. That isn't true. I am disagreeing with certain policies of discipline. That's not wrong.

I believe Jesus is speaking metaphorically there, considering himself the vessel his Father appointed to bring His word to the people of Earth, rather than his Father Himself. I could be mistaken, however, as I'm far from an authority on the subject.

That's not what Jesus said. "Whoever has seen me has seen the father." That is black and white what it says. Jesus is the Father. I don't care if you think Jesus is speaking metaphorically or not. What he said is what he said. Fuck off, man.

That's not what Jesus said. "Whoever has seen me has seen the father." That is black and white what it says. Jesus is the Father.

Not at all. It could mean that the process of seeing the Son of God, fills one with the equivalent of seeing God. It could also mean that since Jesus is God's son, you are literally seeing the father in the son in the same way that looking at someone's child, you can spot pieces of their parents. Like "his father's eyes." Only in the case of God, it's a bit more profound.

So it's not black and white. Don't feel bad about being wrong though. It could happen to anyone.

That's not what Jesus said. "Whoever has seen me has seen the father." That is black and white what it says. Jesus is the Father. I don't care if you think Jesus is speaking metaphorically or not. What he said is what he said. Fuck off, man.

What a rude and inappropriate response to what Czardas said. He gave his opinion and then said "I'm not the authority". Your crass ending of your post is highly inappropriate and in my opinion gives some insight into your character.

That's not what Jesus said. "Whoever has seen me has seen the father." That is black and white what it says. Jesus is the Father. I don't care if you think Jesus is speaking metaphorically or not. What he said is what he said. Fuck off, man.

I thought his words were in red.

This speaks for itself. (http://www.traditio.com/nos.htm)



VII wasn't a dogmatic council. It was a pastoral council. That said, you keep throwing around the suggestion that I am going against Church teaching. That isn't true. I am disagreeing with certain policies of discipline. That's not wrong.

So you send me a website with "It is hard to deny any longer that the Novus Ordo service, in any version, is unCatholic, sacrilegious, irreverent, scandalous, blasphemous, idolatrous, and conclusively invalid,"
Where they refer to the Eucharist as a cookie? That is inaccurate and offensive, I don't care how you feel about discipline, that is vulgar and insulting to the dignity of God.

Remove the hate from your heart and pray for the gift of humility to better obey the teachings of our Lord through His Church.

That's not what Jesus said. "Whoever has seen me has seen the father." That is black and white what it says.
Given.

Jesus is the Father.
That does not follow.

"Whoever sees Sam sees his father" implies that there is something about Sam that reminds people of his father, or that he is doing or saying or embodying something his father did or stood for. It does not mean Sam literally is his own father; it's a metaphor. Logically it is impossible for anyone to be his own parent.


I don't care if you think Jesus is speaking metaphorically or not.
So you'll disregard the pivotal piece of evidence? Nice work.
Fuck off, man.
How very mature. (And how like unto the teachings of Christ, after all. Did He not say to love one's enemies?)

Given.

That does not follow.

"Whoever sees Sam sees his father" implies that there is something about Sam that reminds people of his father, or that he is doing or saying or embodying something his father did or stood for. It does not mean Sam literally is his own father; it's a metaphor. Logically it is impossible for anyone to be his own parent.


So you'll disregard the pivotal piece of evidence? Nice work.

How very mature. (And how like unto the teachings of Christ, after all. Did He not say to love one's enemies?)

FHR is a troll.

FHR is a troll.

Indeed.

as I wrote before stupid jolt died: (sorry for feeding the troll...)


So you show your true colors. You consider Jesus a liar. Certainly, that says a lot about how much of a "prophet" you think Christ was.

You are a blasphemer. In the words of St. Paul, "Anathema to all who do not love Christ."

and in the words of st john the evangelist:

ἐάν τις εἴπῃ ὅτι ἀγαπῶ τὸν θεόν, καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μισῇ, ψεύστης ἐστίν· ὁ γὰρ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ὃν ἑώρακεν, τὸν θεὸν ὃν οὐχ ἑώρακεν οὐ δύναται ἀγαπᾶν.

Si quis dixerit: Quoniam diligo Deum, et fratrem suum oderit, mendax est. Qui enim non diligit fratrem suum quem vidit, Deum, quem non vidit, quomodo potest diligere?

If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

and in the words of Christ
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς,

Ego autem dico vobis: diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos, et orate pro persequentibus et calumniantibus vos:

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you

and in the words of the Paschal Diving Liturgy of our father among the Saints John Chrysostom

"Let us call brothers even those who hate us, and forgive all things in the resurrection"


I honestly think this Fourth Holy Reich fellow is just trolling.

I mean, he's supposed to be Catholic but he blatantly disregards what the magisterium says because he has it all figured out, yet people shouldn't be allowed to read the bible because they wouldn't be able to figure it out?

Either he's just having a bit of fun with everyone or he has an enormous ego.

agreed.

Buddhism, intrinsically, isn't deistically driven, although it grew out of Hinduism and tends to take on certain cultural flavors like deism... I've been intriqued by that.

buddhism takes on extremely theistic and animistic flavours in various parts of the world - buddhism is as much theistic as atheistic.

This speaks for itself. (http://www.traditio.com/nos.htm)


"Afro" Mess during which people dressed as African "gods" and "goddesses", while a pagan priestess acted as an acolyte of the presbyter
awesome! Candomblé =) that's my religion, incidentally. I hate to break it to you honey, but the vast majority of those attending catholic masses throughout history have been syncretists like these folks.

"Charismatic" Mess
in which members of the congregation bark like dogs, oink like pigs, and roll on the floor

er, by this you mean do exactly what is described in the old testament

"Fetish" Mess
in which semi-naked natives wearing fetish feathers gather around the "sanctuary"

you know, I strongly suspect there were some stuck-up pricks of greek christians who objected to people who wore *pants* to the liturgy. if it's not intended to be lewd, it's not a fucking problem.

"Field" Mess
in which the presbyter performs the Mess in a field while the kids loll around in the grass

...? how is this even a problem?

Papal "Buddha" Mess
in which Mess is celebrated with a Buddha atop the Novus Ordo "table"

that's actually really impressive. I'm tempted more than ever to convert when I see things like this.

Papal "Hindu" Mess
in which what appear to be Hindu ceremonies are performed in front of the papal Mess

again, impressive. the catholics have come a *long* way.

Papal "Nudie" Mess
in which a bare-breasted lectoress reads the Epistle in front of the pope and his clergy

considering this takes place in PAPUA NEW GUINEA I think anyone with any kind of understanding wouldn't mind. there was a time when a woman's ankles were considered provocative and erotic - but to the natives here in new guinea, bare-breastedness is not eroticism, but practicality. the denizens of paradise were nude, after all.

"Skull" Mess
in which a grotesque skull image was projected on a screen above the altar, and a man and woman, back to back and totally naked, were projected on the same screen

memento, homo, quad cinis est.

"Squat" Mess
in which the presbyter performs Mess squatting down in front of a "stool-altar" in the woods

again...who gives a fuck? God is a better architect than anyone who has ever lived.

"Voodoo" Mess
at which witch doctors of voodoo participate, and animist (pagan) practices are included

incidentally, this is probably not voodoo but Candomblé Jeje, a dahomey branch of brazilian candomblé which only resembles voodoo. and again, MOST CATHOLICS THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE BEEN SYNCRETISTS. they were praying Salva nos, Stella Maris to Isis before Christ was born.

seriously...get a grip.

Another soul is lost to the Devil...please reconsider the wise decision one of your ancestors made.

Another soul is lost to the Devil...please reconsider the wise decision one of your ancestors made.

What to be pagen? good chance some of our ancestors were specialy thoughts of European decent.

Intriguing...
This thread has prompted me to explore my own Catholic faith much more in-depth and become more sure and knowledgeable about what I believe in (and I think that I have a long way to go), which is a good thing.
But then again, I feel disillusioned and saddened that there are such uncompromising people out there, especially amongst fellow Catholics - I feel that I may not be 'Catholic' enough for Fourth Holy Reich here...

Intriguing...
This thread has prompted me to explore my own Catholic faith much more in-depth and become more sure and knowledgeable about what I believe in (and I think that I have a long way to go), which is a good thing.
But then again, I feel disillusioned and saddened that there are such uncompromising people out there, especially amongst fellow Catholics - I feel that I may not be 'Catholic' enough for Fourth Holy Reich here...

I think Fourth Holy Reich may be trolling or he have the importance of certain aspects of the faith confused, and also hold certain beliefs that are not held by most Catholics, or by the magesterium.

When I converted to Catholicism I got the Catechism of the Catholic Church and it basically explains everything and is well cited. It also has an easy index so you can look things up by topic.

If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them. Helping others learn more is a great way to learn more yourself I always say.

What to be pagen? good chance some of our ancestors were specialy thoughts of European decent.

I mean whoever decided to drop Catholicism in their family was a very wise person.

I think Fourth Holy Reich may be trolling

Why do you think I am a troll when there are literally masses of other people who think almost exactly like I do? Surely, I am not the first Trad (Well, border line Trad) you've come across?

or he have the importance of certain aspects of the faith confused

There isn't much more important than Tradition.

sorry the clip was too boring for me to watch. my was it ofensive?

"Afro" Mess during which people dressed as African "gods" and "goddesses", while a pagan priestess acted as an acolyte of the presbyter
awesome! Candomblé =) that's my religion, incidentally. I hate to break it to you honey, but the vast majority of those attending catholic masses throughout history have been syncretists like these folks.

Those people deserve to be hung! The Mass is the representation of the Sacrifice of Our ONE Lord. What they did is sacrilidgeous.

"Charismatic" Mess
in which members of the congregation bark like dogs, oink like pigs, and roll on the floor

er, by this you mean do exactly what is described in the old testament

There is no point in the Old Testament in which God ordained barking like dogs, oinking like pigs, and rolling around on the floor.

"Fetish" Mess
in which semi-naked natives wearing fetish feathers gather around the "sanctuary"

you know, I strongly suspect there were some stuck-up pricks of greek christians who objected to people who wore *pants* to the liturgy. if it's not intended to be lewd, it's not a fucking problem.

Dude, we are talking about the Holiest thing on earth. That necessitates wearing pants.

"Field" Mess
in which the presbyter performs the Mess in a field while the kids loll around in the grass

...? how is this even a problem?

It's incredibly disrespectful to have people rolling around on the ground while Jesus is being crucified.

Papal "Buddha" Mess
in which Mess is celebrated with a Buddha atop the Novus Ordo "table"

The altar is a thing of sacrifice. It is on the altar that Christ is being offered up to the father. Having a statue of Buddha placed upon the altar is sacrilidgeous. This sort of thing interests you. This sort of thing makes me fear for Pope John Paul II's soul!

Papal "Hindu" Mess

Same as above.

"Skull" Mess
in which a grotesque skull image was projected on a screen above the altar, and a man and woman, back to back and totally naked, were projected on the same screen

Dude! Naked people on the screen is NOT cool at a mass!

That said, you skipped over the various masses presented there in which INVALID MATTER was used for the "consecration."

Those people deserve to be hung! The Mass is the representation of the Sacrifice of Our ONE Lord. What they did is sacrilidgeous.


Hung? That goes even against the old testament morality of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We are Christians, we must forgive. At worst, the death penalty can only be used for one who has killed another, even then I and many bishops agree that it should not be used unless there are no other options to practically prevent the person from repeating the offense.
We can not judge as God can, we have to forgive and educate, not rage against and punish.




There isn't much more important than Tradition.

Christ's message is the most important and that comes to us through Tradition, apostolic authority, and scripture.

When I say you are confused, I think you are having difficulty discerning Tradition from tradition in some instances.

I discovered that I was highly attracted to Zoroastrianismj early this year. Now I am rading further into it and I may convert eventually [I know of somebody who is willing to perform the conversion when I am read[.

I discovered that I was highly attracted to Zoroastrianismj early this year. Now I am rading further into it and I may convert eventually [I know of somebody who is willing to perform the conversion when I am read[.

Zoroastrianism? :confused: