NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering what you, the ever-so-intelligent posters here, think about Roman Catholicism, the first Christian Church? What are your thoughts on the Pope, the Saints, other denominations?

Please remain respectful.

I am a Roman Catholic and believe that the fullness of the Truth of Christ is found in Mother Church, but that most other Christian sects also have been given grace by God. Pax

I think it would be nice if they'd reconsider their stance on birth control and join us here in the 21st century.

I think it would be nice if they'd reconsider their stance on birth control and join us here in the 21st century.

And abortion. And gay marriage. And homosexuality in general. And reality...

i think youre looking for a fight!

the rc church isnt the first christian church. it was part of the early christian church that split into the rc church and the various orthodox churches (and maybe the coptics?)

its a good option if you like your religion mysterious and complicated. if not, try another, there are plenty.

I was wondering what you, the ever-so-intelligent poster here, think about Roman Catholicism, the first Christian Church?What are your thoughts on the Pope, the Saints, other denominations? What have you?

Roman Catholicism wasnt the first Christian Church.
So that being said I dont think I would be interested in discussing a topic like this with you if havnt bothered to straighten your facts.
.

You're just asking to get the Church attacked with this post, you know. :p Anyway, I'm a fanatic, die-hard Roman Catholic, so no complaining/flaming from me.

just another branch of just another cult. entirely uninteresting to me.

i think youre looking for a fight!

the rc church isnt the first christian church. it was part of the early christian church that split into the rc church and the various orthodox churches (and maybe the coptics?)

its a good option if you like your religion mysterious and complicated. if not, try another, there are plenty.

^_^

Roman Catholicism wasnt the first Christian Church.
So that being said I dont think I would be interested in discussing a topic like this with you if havnt bothered to straighten your facts.
.

Just curious then, which church do you consider the first Christian Church?

Just curious then, which church do you consider the first Christian Church?

Read a book. It doesnt matter what I consider...what is historically factual is what matters. Historical Fact says the roman Catholic Church wasnt the first Christian church...no matter how much Catholics try to deny that fact.

One of the worst organised religion disasters to fall on the human race. Especially with how it was during the middle ages.

i think youre looking for a fight!

the rc church isnt the first christian church. it was part of the early christian church that split into the rc church and the various orthodox churches (and maybe the coptics?)

its a good option if you like your religion mysterious and complicated. if not, try another, there are plenty.

Mysteries and rituals are the best parts of religion. The fact that Roman Catholicism still recognises miracles and demonic posession and infestation and has rituals for exorcism and stuff make it a pretty neat religion. The fact that they're against birth control, homosexuals, and abortion kind of fuck it up though.

Roman Catholicism wasnt the first Christian Church.
So that being said I dont think I would be interested in discussing a topic like this with you if havnt bothered to straighten your facts.
.

I am sorry for stating it as such. Yes, there are other Churches of equal age, though none of them were ever given the preeminance of the Roman Church for several reasons. The part of the early Church that was always the most infuential was that based in Rome by the successors of St. Peter. That is why I said "first". The Coptic Churches, Orthodox, and a few others have always coexisted, but have never really had the same say as Rome. Besides, The early Church Fathers all gave credence to Rome even thought they themselves weren't all of that area. Pax

I was wondering what you, the ever-so-intelligent posters here, think about Roman Catholicism, the first Christian Church? What are your thoughts on the Pope, the Saints, other denominations?

Please remain respectful.

I am a Roman Catholic and believe that the fullness of the Truth of Christ is found in Mother Church, but that most other Christian sects also have been given grace by God. Pax

So you believe Christ's fullness is found not in the Gospels but in an institution? I dont know many Catholics who make such a claim, and I know a lot of Catholics.

Read a book. It doesnt matter what I consider...what is historically factual is what matters. Historical Fact says the roman Catholic Church wasnt the first Christian church...no matter how much Catholics try to deny that fact.

I agree what is historically fact is what matters, however I have never heard of any credible argument against the Catholic Church being the first Christian Church... no matter how much Protestants claim otherwise, so post a link if you have some sort of evidence we don't; I'd love to see it. If you require I can post a list of the Popes dating back from St. Peter, so unless you have something similar that contradicts the Church's claim, don't say that you do.

They worship an invisible guy in the sky and are led by a zombie. >_>

Don't make me bring up the middle ages,

EDIT: Actually, he might merely be hopelessly stoned, not a zombie -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BentoXVI-30-10052007.jpg and judge for yourself. Also, the oldest denomination is not "catholicism" or "coptic church" but "judaism".

The Coptic Churches, Orthodox, and a few others have always coexisted, but have never really had the same say as Rome. Besides, The early Church Fathers all gave credence to Rome even thought they themselves weren't all of that area. Pax

Until they ceased to Co-exist with the Roman Catholic Church though, they were all the same religion, the name might not have been "Roman Catholic" but until the first split was made, what cause was there for any other name but Christian?

So you believe Christ's fullness is found not in the Gospels but in an institution? I dont know many Catholics who make such a claim, and I know a lot of Catholics.

The Church was given (and still has) the authority and duty to interpret (though we should all still read) the Holy Bible. The Gospels are divinely inspired documents telling of the life of Christ and is an example as to how we should act. The rest of the NT is also necessary. However, if you would like me to find the verse in the Bible that says that the Bible is to be interpretted by us by God's authority, I can. Pax

...
Wow.

Peter wasnt a Roman catholic Pope.

The roman Catholic Church didnt exist until after the great Schism.

Of course being a Catholic you know that though right?

So you believe Christ's fullness is found not in the Gospels but in an institution? I dont know many Catholics who make such a claim, and I know a lot of Catholics.

Any Catholic who would claim the Church's Authority comes specifically from the Gospels does not understand the teachings of the Church. The Church is based on two "pillars" Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Both are equally important, and any who would claim one is greater or independent of the other is not in accordance with the Catholic Church.

I think, approaching this from a historical perspective, that the Roman Catholic Church is a politicised entity founded upon the exigencies of a Roman emperor, and tempered by the fires of the crusades into a European superstructure that has since declined.

Whilst it may well hold certain anachronistic views, and be responsible for untold suffering and innumerable deaths, I feel that its motives have generally been benign. Essentially no different to any other religion.

Whose decides what is sacred tradition? The Roman Catholic Church doesnt take from the Jerusalem Council, Mosiac Law, Noahic Law, who decided the ritualism of Catholicsim was Sacred...it emmulates Christ in no way.

What is the Scriptural basis for these sacred traditions?

...
Wow.

Peter wasnt a Roman catholic Pope.

The roman Catholic Church didnt exist until after the great Schism.

Of course being a Catholic you know that though right?

Yes, it wasn't officially defined by that name until the Great Schism of East and West. However, the teachings and such existed and the body of believers (the Church) existed prior to this event under those beliefs.

As for Peter, again, his title wasn't defined until later, but Christ gave him special precendence over the other Apostles. Read up on your biblical knowedge.

Until they ceased to Co-exist with the Roman Catholic Church though, they were all the same religion, the name might not have been "Roman Catholic" but until the first split was made, what cause was there for any other name but Christian?

theres the thing that makes it not the first christian church.

the first christian churches were the various communities in the mediterranean area that were visited by the first evangelists. st paul wrote his epistles to several of them. they were not under the control of rome. they existed on their own.

as the theology of christianity was standardized, there came to be bishops who ran the churches in their areas plus the bishop of rome who had extra consideration. in the fullness of time the eastern church disagreed with rome's claim of pre-eminence and the 2 churches went their seperate ways. they are BOTH equally "the first christian church" (if you count all the orthodox churches as one but same same if you see them as seperate)

the coptics likewise are an ancient sect that while small, is as valid as the Rcatholic church in being "the first christian church". it started at the same time so it has the same claim.

Whilst it may well hold certain anachronistic views, and be responsible for untold suffering and innumerable deaths, I feel that its motives have generally been benign. Essentially no different to any other religion.

Thst sounds eerily like this statement:
"Whilst he may well hold certain anachronistic views, and be responsible for untold suffering and innumerable deaths, I feel Slobodan Milosevic's motives have generally been benign. essentially no different than any other tyrant."

they left us some nice churches and art, some good beers and cheese (although i don't know if that outweights the crusades and other atrocities) and some of them are ok i guess, although i don't really know a lot of roman catholics.
Other than that i don't really dislike them more or less than any other organized religion. I think i'm raised rc as in: "i was babtised etc" but i don't really know anybody who takes it seriously except some older people. (currently i'm an atheist)
I also dislike thier stances on almost everything concerning sex and women and gays and contraception and probably some other things i can't think of right now.

in short: do what you want, but don't bother me with it

Whose decides what is sacred tradition? The Roman Catholic Church doesnt take from the Jerusalem Council, Mosiac Law, Noahic Law, who decided the ritualism of Catholicsim was Sacred...it emmulates Christ in no way.

What is the Scriptural basis for these sacred traditions?

What specifc rituals? ALL of the seven Sacraments are based on the teachings of Christ, and many of our rituals as well. Some have been created over time as symbolic representations of the Faith, but none are contradictory to Christ. What knowledge of the Church do you have?

Thst sounds eerily like this statement:
"Whilst he may well hold certain anachronistic views, and be responsible for untold suffering and innumerable deaths, I feel Slobodan Milosevic's motives have generally been benign. essentially no different than any other tyrant."

Hence, make an inference.:rolleyes:

Actually, I imagine the dead caused by Slobodan Milosovic have been counted no?

Whose decides what is sacred tradition? The Roman Catholic Church doesnt take from the Jerusalem Council, Mosiac Law, Noahic Law, who decided the ritualism of Catholicsim was Sacred...it emmulates Christ in no way.

What is the Scriptural basis for these sacred traditions?

1. What in the Council of Jerusalem contradicts the teachings of the Church? Nothing in the Bible at least, considering it is not very specific about that council in the Acts of the Apostles.

2. As I said in my earlier post, the Church does not claim that it needsa Scriptural basis for Sacred Tradition, as they are equal. (ie. Tradition doesn't depend on the Bible) Tradition comes from the teachings and Magisterium of the Church, which gets its authority from the Pope. Again, we do not claim that the Authority of the Pope only comes from the Bible, but a common quote is "Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven." As the Gospels are less than 200 pages long, it would be crazy to say that everything Christ did or taught is in the Gospels, in fact at the end of John it specifically says otherwise.

dude, the catholic church was the first. i'm reading a book on the byzantines, who until they broke away to orthadox, where catholic. all the early christians fallowed the pope, hence they were catholic. plus, the first people to break away from the church were the aryiens (if i didn't butcher that name). they broke away even before rome fell. all of early christanity was based on wether who was right, catholics or the aryiens. sometime, i think around 750ish AD, the byzantine empier held a conference that ended the dispute and aryiens died out. the church held strong until orthodoxy broke away (which was united until the muslam catpure of constantinople in 1453) catholics were the first, always were, and always shall be.

also, about everything else, it's not our fault we still wish hope for humankind. no matter which way you look at it, the "good old days" are much better than now. econmimicly, socily, politicly. all that changed with the sexual revoliton, thanks to birth control. the church (as in all churchs) own marrige. marrige was created by relgion, hence, if the government interfears with it, that breaks seperation of chruch and state. but i am in favor of gay civle unions. they are people.

i know history, don't argue with the above

I agree what is historically fact is what matters, however I have never heard of any credible argument against the Catholic Church being the first Christian Church... no matter how much Protestants claim otherwise, so post a link if you have some sort of evidence we don't; I'd love to see it. If you require I can post a list of the Popes dating back from St. Peter, so unless you have something similar that contradicts the Church's claim, don't say that you do.

If someone had already posted what im about to whatever lol, i didnt read all the post on here. ANYWHO onto by 2 cents

Well basically, the "Catholic church" is just a sect of christianity" YES all christians belonged to one church at one point. It wasnt the "catholic church". Shocking i know. Then the Great Schism happened and Thus the Christian church broke in 2. Eastern and Western Orthodoxs. Then the Western orthodox really turned into the "Catholic Church" which means "universal church", going back to the orignal "church idea". From the western orthodox came the protestants, "protesters of the catholic church". Which today, there are over 300 of these protestants churchs.

I dont really know why we are arguing. i mean... im not catholic but i got no beef with anyone lol. BTW i go to a catholic school and we learned this in a class called "Christian ethics" :D

theres the thing that makes it not the first christian church.

the first christian churches were the various communities in the mediterranean area that were visited by the first evangelists. st paul wrote his epistles to several of them. they were not under the control of rome. they existed on their own.

as the theology of christianity was standardized, there came to be bishops who ran the churches in their areas plus the bishop of rome who had extra consideration. in the fullness of time the eastern church disagreed with rome's claim of pre-eminence and the 2 churches went their seperate ways. they are BOTH equally "the first christian church" (if you count all the orthodox churches as one but same same if you see them as seperate)

the coptics likewise are an ancient sect that while small, is as valid as the Rcatholic church in being "the first christian church". it started at the same time so it has the same claim.

The Catholic Church's claim to being first isn't the fact that Rome was the first location of the Church, but that Peter was the first Pope. In the beginning, there headquarters would have been Jerusalem and not Rome, but that makes no difference. When the Pope moved to Avignon, that didn't change the Church, just the location of its headquarters. If a business decided to change its main office location, that wouldn't make it a new business. Considering Peter was the first Pope and Jerusalem was the first See (older than the other Mediterranean church you mentioned) that is where we get the distinction of being the first. Also, the Orthodox rejected a See older than their own (Rome was established before Byzantium) so they were the ones splitting from the Church, not the Catholic Church splitting from them, therefore they were no longer part of the same religion, giving up their position as the first Church.

Estimated, at least. But then again, milosevic didn't supposedly flood the world.

I have no clue as to what you chimps are talking about...but whatever it is I'm against it!

Well basically, the "Catholic church" is just a sect of christianity" YES all christians belonged to one church at one point. It wasnt the "catholic church". Shocking i know. Then the Great Schism happened and Thus the Christian church broke in 2. Eastern and Western Orthodoxs. Then the Western orthodox really turned into the "Catholic Church" which means "universal church", going back to the orignal "church idea". From the western orthodox came the protestants, "protesters of the catholic church". Which today, there are over 300 of these protestants churchs.


While most of this is correct, it was already the Catholic Church by the time of the Schism. The first use of the word Catholic was in the 3rd century, around the time of the first of the Great Heresies (Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism) It was used to distinguish the Catholic Church from the heretical Christians who had rejected the Catholic Church for various reasons, just as it used now to distinguish between other Christian churches that have split from the Catholic Church. Basically, my point is that the Western Orthodox did not become the Catholic Church, because it already was.

I was wondering what you, the ever-so-intelligent posters here, think about Roman Catholicism, the first Christian Church? What are your thoughts on the Pope, the Saints, other denominations?

Please remain respectful.

I am a Roman Catholic and believe that the fullness of the Truth of Christ is found in Mother Church, but that most other Christian sects also have been given grace by God. Pax

Meh. I believe you're wrong but don't believe it's your right to believe whatever you want.

this is very true. The Catholic Church has always existed since its founding by Christ. It was always the Catholic Church because it was always the "universal" church.Specific names come about as they are needed, but that does not mean that it wasn't always there. Pax

Yes, it wasn't officially defined by that name until the Great Schism of East and West. However, the teachings and such existed and the body of believers (the Church) existed prior to this event under those beliefs.

As for Peter, again, his title wasn't defined until later, but Christ gave him special precendence over the other Apostles. Read up on your biblical knowedge.
No, you read up.

Peter was given no more authority then the other Apostles, he was given no superiority, nor was he imbued with anything that any other Apostle was given. Please bring your "A" game if you want to start quoting scripture on this...you are a Catholic scripture isnt your strong suit.

Next the practices of the early Church were not even remotely like the Catholic church today.

There was no such thing as the christian Roman Christian Church until Flavius Theodosius, and that was 300 years after the death and resurrection. Constantine may have been a convert but he didnt not form an official church...and his conversion wasnt until 300 years after the death and Resurrection. So Peter and every Bishop of Rome in the epi couldnt have been Popes until at the monimum 380 AD.

So the papacy doesnt trace back to Christ. Peter never called himself a pope, never made the distinction of authority over the church or the other members, never. SO please tell me again about the Roman Catholic Church being the FIRST chruch.

Or you mean it was derived from the first church, or rather churches, that it later smashed with the aid of Rome not God.

The Catholic Church's claim to being first isn't the fact that Rome was the first location of the Church, but that Peter was the first Pope. In the beginning, there headquarters would have been Jerusalem and not Rome, but that makes no difference. When the Pope moved to Avignon, that didn't change the Church, just the location of its headquarters. If a business decided to change its main office location, that wouldn't make it a new business. Considering Peter was the first Pope and Jerusalem was the first See (older than the other Mediterranean church you mentioned) that is where we get the distinction of being the first. Also, the Orthodox rejected a See older than their own (Rome was established before Byzantium) so they were the ones splitting from the Church, not the Catholic Church splitting from them, therefore they were no longer part of the same religion, giving up their position as the first Church.

yes i understand that but its not reflected by the history of christianity.

the early church was not a totalitarian state run by peter. it was a very loosely connected bunch of communities.

over time rome came to claim leadership of all christianity. the orthodox churches disagreed. that makes them as old as the roman church.

if have no problem with the church claiming the pope to be the direct successor of peter. that is a matter of faith. to claim to have always been the prime church of christianity (and the ONLY church of the early years) is just false.

this is very true. The Catholic Church has always existed since its founding by Christ. It was always the Catholic Church because it was always the "universal" church.Specific names come about as they are needed, but that does not mean that it wasn't always there. Pax

No.

The Roman Catholic Church is not a Universal Church it merely hijacked a name that wasnt used until after the ascendence of Christ.

Christ's ministry, was fulfilled Judaism. He was a Jew and never said he was anything different.

So were James, Peter, Matthew, jews. They were not catholic nor did they ever claim to be, if asked they were Jews.

yes i understand that but its not reflected by the history of christianity.

the early church was not a totalitarian state run by peter. it was a very loosely connected bunch of communities.

over time rome came to claim leadership of all christianity. the orthodox churches disagreed. that makes them as old as the roman church.

if have no problem with the church claiming the pope to be the direct successor of peter. that is a matter of faith. to claim to have always been the prime church of christianity (and the ONLY church of the early years) is just false.

Why are you bothering with this? How many times have you explained this in your life to have it ignored completely?

TO sugest the Roman catholic Church was not the first is slight to some Catholics...not all. Not even most, just some.

Ashmoria I have disagreed with you on many points but you know I am right, these arent people who dont know the history of the church they are people who choose to ignore it. And if you point it out you are anti-catholic.

I admire your effort and composure...I am hitting my head against a wall.

I was wondering what you, the ever-so-intelligent posters here, think about Roman Catholicism, the first Christian Church? What are your thoughts on the Pope, the Saints, other denominations?

Please remain respectful.

I am a Roman Catholic and believe that the fullness of the Truth of Christ is found in Mother Church, but that most other Christian sects also have been given grace by God. Pax


Its a religion that promotes ignorance and intolerace as its doctrine. Genius.
I am a confirmed Catholic btw.

AMK
xxx

Catholicism has produced some fascinating people in the world, amusing literature, disturbing visionaries and beautiful artwork. As a social force, they've had their long, black marks, but they've also had several redeeming moments. The two Catholic services I went to were dull and unpleasant, but that's how I remember most of the religious services I've been too, so I can't really hold that against anyone.

Overall, I give it a B: Good, but with definite room for improvement.

No, you read up.

Peter was given no more authority then the other Apostles, he was given no superiority, nor was he imbued with anything that any other Apostle was given. Please bring your "A" game if you want to start quoting scripture on this...you are a Catholic scripture isnt your strong suit.

Next the practices of the early Church were not even remotely like the Catholic church today.

There was no such thing as the christian Roman Christian Church until Flavius Theodosius, and that was 300 years after the death and resurrection. Constantine may have been a convert but he didnt not form an official church...and his conversion wasnt until 300 years after the death and Resurrection. So Peter and every Bishop of Rome in the epi couldnt have been Popes until at the monimum 380 AD.

So the papacy doesnt trace back to Christ. Peter never called himself a pope, never made the distinction of authority over the church or the other members, never. SO please tell me again about the Roman Catholic Church being the FIRST chruch.

Or you mean it was derived from the first church, or rather churches, that it later smashed with the aid of Rome not God.

1. For the Authority of Peter, I already gave that one quote about binding and loosing in a previous post. The part about "You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church" is also a good indication of his primacy. If you take the time to word count, you will also find that Peter was listed in the Gospel more than twice as much as any other Apostle. You will also have heard of Paul's statement at one point about the Council of Jerusalem, where he argued with the Apostles about whether or not Gentiles needed to convert to Judaism to become Christian. He said that he stood firm before them all at this issue, even against Cephas. Now some would say that this means Peter wasn't in charge if Paul could argue against him, but people have the right to discuss things even with their superiors. Why would Paul say "even Cephas" if Peter were no more than any other Apostle?

2. Constantine did not found the Catholic Church = Correct. The Church did not exist until after the time of Constantine = Incorrect. There are several examples against your argument. Firstly, if the Pope (Bishop of Rome) was not above the other bishops, why were bishops appointed by Rome? Why was the council of Nicaea supervised by Constantine and the Bishop of Rome and not the other bishops jointly? Why did St. Athanasius have to convince the Bishop of Rome above all other Bishops when arguing against Arius?

1. For the Authority of Peter, I already gave that one quote about binding and loosing in a previous post. The part about "You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church" is also a good indication of his primacy. If you take the time to word count, you will also find that Peter was listed in the Gospel more than twice as much as any other Apostle. You will also have heard of Paul's statement at one point about the Council of Jerusalem, where he argued with the Apostles about whether or not Gentiles needed to convert to Judaism to become Christian. He said that he stood firm before them all at this issue, even against Cephas. Now some would say that this means Peter wasn't in charge if Paul could argue against him, but people have the right to discuss things even with their superiors. Why would Paul say "even Cephas" if Peter were no more than any other Apostle?

2. Constantine did not found the Catholic Church = Correct. The Church did not exist until after the time of Constantine = Incorrect. There are several examples against your argument. Firstly, if the Pope (Bishop of Rome) was not above the other bishops, why were bishops appointed by Rome? Why was the council of Nicaea supervised by Constantine and the Bishop of Rome and not the other bishops jointly? Why did St. Athanasius have to convince the Bishop of Rome above all other Bishops when arguing against Arius?

Interesting, it somehow posted as one of my other nations instead of Tolvarus, even though I have never even signed on the forums with that one before...

No, you read up.

Peter was given no more authority then the other Apostles, he was given no superiority, nor was he imbued with anything that any other Apostle was given. Please bring your "A" game if you want to start quoting scripture on this...you are a Catholic scripture isnt your strong suit.

Next the practices of the early Church were not even remotely like the Catholic church today.

There was no such thing as the christian Roman Christian Church until Flavius Theodosius, and that was 300 years after the death and resurrection. Constantine may have been a convert but he didnt not form an official church...and his conversion wasnt until 300 years after the death and Resurrection. So Peter and every Bishop of Rome in the epi couldnt have been Popes until at the monimum 380 AD.

So the papacy doesnt trace back to Christ. Peter never called himself a pope, never made the distinction of authority over the church or the other members, never. SO please tell me again about the Roman Catholic Church being the FIRST chruch.

Or you mean it was derived from the first church, or rather churches, that it later smashed with the aid of Rome not God.

Scripture isn't my strong suit? whatever happened to remaining civil? Oh well.

What does Theodosius have to do with the Church existing? Ye, he made it the official Church of the Roman Empire, however, it was lawful in the empire prior to this thanks to St. Constantine. Also Christ gave the Church authority anyway. It requires no earthly justification.

So, here is Scripture for the Primacy of Peter. We already covered the fact that he wasn't called "Pope" for some time. just because he was never given the title during his life does not mean that he didn't have the authority. As for being the "first Church, I beleive thatmy brother in Christ here already answered that rather well earlier.

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

I would like to suggest a website for you toy check out. It concerns the scriptural basis of the Church and it's teachings.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

I'm glad I left it.

Why are you bothering with this? How many times have you explained this in your life to have it ignored completely?

TO sugest the Roman catholic Church was not the first is slight to some Catholics...not all. Not even most, just some.

Ashmoria I have disagreed with you on many points but you know I am right, these arent people who dont know the history of the church they are people who choose to ignore it. And if you point it out you are anti-catholic.

I admire your effort and composure...I am hitting my head against a wall.

but skib, i have one more dynamite point that im am ready to bring out. what if THAT ONE WORKS?

lol

you are so right.

Interesting, it somehow posted as one of my other nations instead of Tolvarus, even though I have never even signed on the forums with that one before...

dammit tol, i was going to point out to vigil that it was impossible for him to have posted anything before his first post.

sigh.

foiled again.

Meh. Just another religion..

Catholicism has produced some fascinating people in the world, amusing literature, disturbing visionaries and beautiful artwork. As a social force, they've had their long, black marks, but they've also had several redeeming moments. The two Catholic services I went to were dull and unpleasant, but that's how I remember most of the religious services I've been too, so I can't really hold that against anyone.

Overall, I give it a B: Good, but with definite room for improvement.

OOoh, oooh, do my former religion next! What grade do Hindus get?

but skib, i have one more dynamite point that im am ready to bring out. what if THAT ONE WORKS?When you have dynamite with you, you use it, you just do it and never look back. :D

Like I did (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527700) :cool:

Too bad Frees was around to flood the whole area with iced water. :D

I think its 1600 years too old.

Their incense smells icky.

That and, y’know... the whole stifling of scientific enquiry, philosophical debate and political/sexual freedom for the past 2000-odd years.

Not that that’s to say there haven’t been any brilliant scientists, blindingly smart philosophers or honest. hard-working political activists that also happened to be Roman Catholics; quite the contrary. But the Church itself, as an organisation, power structure or supposedly moral guide, has been sorely lacking for the best part of its history.


Sorry. I just couldn’t think of any Roman Catholic sexual revolutionaries.

Benribenri banzai
benribenri banzai
Benribenri banzai ningen
Benribenri banzai
benribenri banzai
Benribenri banzai ningen

Hora biribiri ikarasuka? biribiri ikarasuka?
Biribiri ikarasuka? ningen
Hora biribiri ikarasuka? biribiri ikasasuka?
Biribiri Ikarasuka? ningen

Whats up fuanzai ippai
Hanzai kienai towani
Whats up fuanzai ippai
(uramini wana dare down?)

It's objectively disordered and regularly guilty of grave moral evils.

Not a big fan of the Catholic Church itself, as in the way it's run.

I have no problem with the religious aspects or the people who attend it, I just think the church is... I don't know, not willing to change and sexist.

Mysteries and rituals are the best parts of religion. The fact that Roman Catholicism still recognises miracles and demonic posession and infestation and has rituals for exorcism and stuff make it a pretty neat religion.

The world would be a much more interesting place if the Catholic church was right.

I'm fine with the true dogma, but have quibbles with the laws of man. As imperfect as we are, I do not think it proper to align law of man with law of God. The Church loses my respect.

Specifically, the whole Limbo fiasco.

BTW, I'm a baptised but Fallen Away Catholic. Never confirmed, nothing past baptism, but I believe.

Baptised, Confirmed, Eucharistic Minister here. And I have to ask, why do we do this? Why do the forums spread hate? The wars, the abuses, the disagreements, the persecutions. Why??

They exist with or without religion. They exist in any religion. Name me one organized faith, and I'll give you a list of hypocritic abuses. Evil comes from leftists that want everybody to redress numerous past wrongs. Evil comes from Right-wingers that claim for integration of faith with laws. Evil comes, because at the end of the day, the Catholics, the Protestants, the Greek Orthodoxes, the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Taoists, the Confucians, the Agnostics, the Deists, the Atheists, the Ultra-Conservatives, the Ultra-Liberals, the Socialists, the Communists, the Capitalists, every last system of beliefs you can shake a stick at, everyone has done something wrong.

Everyone. Even you, the idiot reading the above rant.

I'm an ex-Catholic myself, and while I respect certain aspects of the Church (heck, as a musician, I have to respect Catholicism, if only for the sheer volume of brilliant music it's helped to create), I vehemently disagree with it on many issues. The institutionalized sexism of the Church is one obvious example of something that I cannot imagine to be the work of any God worth worshiping, and there are plenty other such examples.

(heck, as a musician, I have to respect Catholicism, if only for the sheer volume of brilliant music it's helped to create)

Agreed, the music it's produced is the only thing that interests me in it.

Baptised, Confirmed, Eucharistic Minister here. My respects to you.
I assume you have studied History and the origins of religion,

Would you please answer these 4 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527700) simple True-False questions.

...

Whose decides what is sacred tradition? The Roman Catholic Church doesnt take from the Jerusalem Council, Mosiac Law, Noahic Law, who decided the ritualism of Catholicsim was Sacred...it emmulates Christ in no way.

What is the Scriptural basis for these sacred traditions?

Ever heard of Gratian?

Look up his Treatise of Laws. Also, another book on the subject is Medieval Canon Law by James Brundage. While you're at it, St. Augustine aslso has something to say about the whole "tradition" from scripture. Canonical law is really quite interesting. ;)

I was wondering what you, the ever-so-intelligent posters here, think about Roman Catholicism, the first Christian Church? What are your thoughts on the Pope, the Saints, other denominations?

I have zero respect for the Catholic Church, due to their extensive and active funding of a campaign of lies that is leaving millions injured and killed. I am speaking, of course, about the Church's anti-condom and anti-contraception campaign. The Vatican specifically endorses completely false statements about condoms and contraception, and uses their influence and money to spread this misinformation throughout the world.

People die because of these lies. Children are infected with AIDS as a result of these lies. The Church victimizes the poor and helps kill countless people simply to advance their anti-sex agenda.

I have no respect for the Church. They're liars, cowards, and murderers. Nor do I have any respect for those who support them. Giving your money to liars, cowards, and murderers is contemptible.

Please note: I am speaking directly about the organization known as the Catholic Church. It's possible for a person to be Catholic and also not an asshole. Kind of like how the US government is full of assholes right now, but it's possible to be an American and totally oppose said assholes. My contempt for the Catholic Church does not automatically extend to all people who happen to be Catholic.

I have zero respect for the Catholic Church, due to their extensive and active funding of a campaign of lies that is leaving millions injured and killed. I am speaking, of course, about the Church's anti-condom and anti-contraception campaign. The Vatican specifically endorses completely false statements about condoms and contraception, and uses their influence and money to spread this misinformation throughout the world.

People die because of these lies. Children are infected with AIDS as a result of these lies. The Church victimizes the poor and helps kill countless people simply to advance their anti-sex agenda.



It seems completely ridiculous for people to blame the Church because they don't use contraception as the Church teaches, but still ignore the Church's other teachings on sex anyway. Sure you could blame a doctor because you gain weight even when exercising, but if you ignore his advice on dieting you have no right to complain. The people who suffer because of this are people who only follow the Church's teaching regarding things that are convenient for them, but if they obeyed the Church's other teachings about sex they would be just fine.

It seems completely ridiculous for people to blame the Church because they don't use contraception as the Church teaches, but still ignore the Church's other teachings on sex anyway.

Read more carefully.

Why is the Catholic Church LYING about condoms? Why is the Catholic Church LYING about contraception?

Are you actually saying it's impossible to preach abstinence without lying to people? Are you saying that the teachings of the Catholic Church require lying to people?


Sure you could blame a doctor because you gain weight even when exercising, but if you ignore his advice on dieting you have no right to complain. The people who suffer because of this are people who only follow the Church's teaching regarding things that are convenient for them, but if they obeyed the Church's other teachings about sex they would be just fine.
The Catholic missionaries in Africa are currently telling married, monogamous women NOT to use condoms with their HIV+ husbands. Seriously. A woman is married to a man who already has HIV, and the Church tells her she will burn in Hell if she uses a condom. However, they also tell her that God wants her to be fruitful and multiply with her husband.

Voila! HIV+ mother and baby! Thanks, Catholic Church!

The fun thing is, they know that the whole going-to-Hell thing won't really work so well, because people are smart enough to realize that a loving God wouldn't send them to Hell for protecting their children against HIV. So the Church must also lie about the condoms to really ensure that nobody protects their life or health by using contraception.

They tell people HIV passes through the pores of latex condoms (lie).

They tell people that family planning organizations actually APPLY the HIV virus to condoms, because those organizations are racist and want to kill Africans (lie).

They tell people that using condoms increases your chances of passing HIV (lie).

They're liars and cowards.

Read more carefully.

Why is the Catholic Church LYING about condoms? Why is the Catholic Church LYING about contraception?

Are you actually saying it's impossible to preach abstinence without lying to people? Are you saying that the teachings of the Catholic Church require lying to people?


The Catholic missionaries in Africa are currently telling married, monogamous women NOT to use condoms with their HIV+ husbands. Seriously. A woman is married to a man who already has HIV, and the Church tells her she will burn in Hell if she uses a condom. However, they also tell her that God wants her to be fruitful and multiply with her husband.

Voila! HIV+ mother and baby! Thanks, Catholic Church!

The fun thing is, they know that the whole going-to-Hell thing won't really work so well, because people are smart enough to realize that a loving God wouldn't send them to Hell for protecting their children against HIV. So the Church must also lie about the condoms to really ensure that nobody protects their life or health by using contraception.

They tell people HIV passes through the pores of latex condoms (lie).

They tell people that family planning organizations actually APPLY the HIV virus to condoms, because those organizations are racist and want to kill Africans (lie).

They tell people that using condoms increases your chances of passing HIV (lie).

They're liars and cowards.

I am sure that I fall under the category of the Catholics you would hate then, so there is no need for me to discuss anymore. In the case of married people, I would say the same thing as the African priests, so feel free to consider me a liar, coward, and murderer if you wish. However it seems the coward part was just added in to add more emphasis to your argument, as I don't see anything cowardly about it, even if I did agree with your point of view.

I am sure that I fall under the category of the Catholics you would hate then, so there is no need for me to discuss anymore. In the case of married people, I would say the same thing as the African priests, so feel free to consider me a liar, coward, and murderer if you wish. However it seems the coward part was just added in to add more emphasis to your argument, as I don't see anything cowardly about it, even if I did agree with your point of view.
So you're admitting you would encourage women to have sex with their HIV-postitive husbands without protection.

Oh dear. Oh deary, deary me.

So you're admitting you would encourage women to have sex with their HIV-postitive husbands without protection.

Oh dear. Oh deary, deary me.

Actually, I would recommend abstinence from sex, like those priests do. Unfortunately the people won't listen to that. Then when the priests continue to teach that contraception is wrong for other people, the HIV couple also assume that it is wrong for them (which it is). The end result is that they have sex anyway, and get sick because of it. Its not that the Church tells them to, its that they refuse to listen to the Church's advice as I said before.

Actually, I would recommend abstinence from sex, like those priests do. Unfortunately the people won't listen to that. Then when the priests continue to teach that contraception is wrong for other people, the HIV couple also assume that it is wrong for them (which it is). The end result is that they have sex anyway, and get sick because of it. Its not that the Church tells them to, its that they refuse to listen to the Church's advice as I said before.

The problem is that people want to have sex. Human nature is like that. I'd rather be practical and support contraception, but not being Catholic, I have no say in what the Church should espouse. It just seems a shame that such a policy leads, directly or indirectly, to the spread of HIV.

I am a catholic.

I despise the actions of those african priests. That is wrong in so many levels that I won't even argue with that. However, I can't say the catholic priests here in my country do the same thing. They try to discourage people into having sex proposing abstinence, but not saying the stupid things those africans say.

I do not agree with the policies of my church regarding contraception, condoms, and family planning. A friend of mine is excommunicated because she used artificial fertilization to have kids, because she wasn't able to. That is also wrong in soo many levels. I hope that my church will fix that some day, although with Ratzinger in power, that is not going to change soon.

It's sad.

Actually, I would recommend abstinence from sex, like those priests do.

No, they don't. They say she should have sex with her HIV infected husband and get pregnant. That she will get HIV as well is an unimportant detail to them.

Its not that the Church tells them to, its that they refuse to listen to the Church's advice as I said before.

It is true that people do not obey the full advice of the church. It is also true that a significant part of said advice is based on lies and deceit.

The problem is that people want to have sex. Human nature is like that. I'd rather be practical and support contraception, but not being Catholic, I have no say in what the Church should espouse. It just seems a shame that such a policy leads, directly or indirectly, to the spread of HIV.

It is unrealistic, and the priests know that people are going to disobey them, but that's a matter of their own free will. It's the same as when God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit; He knew they were going to anyway, but he told them not to, the rest was up to their free will. The Church also teaches that it is better to die than commit a mortal sin. As people can be excommunicated for contraception and other things as Aelosia's post points out, it is serious enough to be a mortal sin. Because of this, according to the Church it is preferable to get HIV then to condemn your soul to Hell.

Note regarding Aelosia's post: Porro Ago Benedictvs!

Sorry you don't like him, I've heard that there are a considerable number that don't, but if you are truly Catholic you must recognize that he is the legitimate Pope chosen by the cardinals, and therefore by God. (Not trying to start an argument with people about whether the Pope is chosen by God, just stating something that is part of the Catholic teachings, whether we like it or not.)

[)QUOTE=All Holy Canadian See;12681716]I was wondering what you, the ever-so-intelligent posters here, think about Roman Catholicism, the first Christian Church? What are your thoughts on the Pope, the Saints, other denominations?[/QUOTE]

Well, you can really speak of Catholic Church only after Nycaea (that would be in the V century iirc).

Anyway:
Pope Ratzinger (or Natzinger ;)): one of the worst reactionaries ever. He wants to smash down whatever the II Vatican Council has done to modernise the Church.

The Saints: too much worshipped. Catholicism isn't supposed to be polytheism.

Generally, I'd say that the Roman Church has long lost its path, and has become just a mundane power. Paul VI and poor John Paul I tried to stop that and to reform the Church, but John Paul II and Benedict XVI have kicked in the reverse.

No, they don't. They say she should have sex with her HIV infected husband and get pregnant. That she will get HIV as well is an unimportant detail to them.



It is true that people do not obey the full advice of the church. It is also true that a significant part of said advice is based on lies and deceit.

No where in the world do priests teach that you must have sex and do not have the right to abstinence. The Church does not specifically teach abstinence as what must be done because there is no moral reason for a married couple not to have sex, but it is never considered wrong to abstain.

No where in the world do priests teach that you must have sex and do not have the right to abstinence. The Church does not specifically teach abstinence as what must be done because there is no moral reason for a married couple not to have sex, but it is never considered wrong to abstain.

So according to you priests do not state that married couples should go forth and multiply, nor that it is a wifes duty to give her husband children ?

I also notice you carefully avoid adressing the "priests use lies and deceit to promote abstinence" part.

Note regarding Aelosia's post: Porro Ago Benedictvs!

Sorry you don't like him, I've heard that there are a considerable number that don't, but if you are truly Catholic you must recognize that he is the legitimate Pope chosen by the cardinals, and therefore by God. (Not trying to start an argument with people about whether the Pope is chosen by God, just stating something that is part of the Catholic teachings, whether we like it or not.)

I recognize him as the Pope, I didn't say otherwise. But I don't like him. I think it is my right to do so. I also refuse to believe that God really elected those Borgia popes...

[)QUOTE=All Holy Canadian See;12681716]I was wondering what you, the ever-so-intelligent posters here, think about Roman Catholicism, the first Christian Church? What are your thoughts on the Pope, the Saints, other denominations?

Well, you can really speak of Catholic Church only after Nycaea (that would be in the V century iirc).

Anyway:
Pope Ratzinger (or Natzinger ;)): one of the worst reactionaries ever. He wants to smash down whatever the II Vatican Council has done to modernise the Church.

The Saints: too much worshipped. Catholicism isn't supposed to be polytheism.

Generally, I'd say that the Roman Church has long lost its path, and has become just a mundane power. Paul VI and poor John Paul I tried to stop that and to reform the Church, but John Paul II and Benedict XVI have kicked in the reverse.[/QUOTE]

I suppose you mean what you think the Vatican Council did to "modernize" the Church, not what it really did. If anyone ever took the time to read the Vatican II papers, they would find that almost all of what is commonly held is media propaganda. The so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" that occurred especially in the United States was just an excuse to do whatever they wanted, as the media could say pretty much anything about it since almost no one had access to the Vatican II papers, now that they are available to the public, people already have their fully-developed prejudices about what they thought it said and ignore the truth.

Also, Ratzinger was never a member of the Nazi party. He was a member of the German Army in a time of a compulsory draft. In fact, he rejected Hitler's government and deserted from the army as soon as possible.

I recognize him as the Pope, I didn't say otherwise. But I don't like him. I think it is my right to do so. I also refuse to believe that God really elected those Borgia popes...

Yes, you do have the right to dislike him. As to R. Borgia (don't know too much about the others) I believe he had free will and made poor choices, but that doesn't make his election illegitimate. No Pope has ever been heretical, even if their own personal morality was in question, and it is only their infallible teaching on moral and theological issues that God guarantees, not their ability to get into Heaven.

So according to you priests do not state that married couples should go forth and multiply, nor that it is a wifes duty to give her husband children ?

I also notice you carefully avoid adressing the "priests use lies and deceit to promote abstinence" part.

Priests do teach that, but the Church also teaches that people have the right to abstinence, which is the whole basis of NFP, which is the only Church-sanctioned form of pregnancy "postponement." I cannot answer for individual people, so if the priests neglect to mention that it is because they are personally mistaken, not because the Church does not teach it.

I avoided the second part because I do not specifically know what you meant for it. I never needed anything more than "The Church says its wrong so don't do it" to convince me, so I don't really know what you're talking about.

Yes, you do have the right to dislike him. As to R. Borgia (don't know too much about the others) I believe he had free will and made poor choices, but that doesn't make his election illegitimate. No Pope has ever been heretical, even if their own personal morality was in question, and it is only their infallible teaching on moral and theological issues that God guarantees, not their ability to get into Heaven.

about the bold....how do you know God guarantees that?

about the bold....how do you know God guarantees that?

Arrgh, I already had this discussion with you on that other thread :p You basically said that you believed in the Bible because the Bible said to, and that it was a circular argument. How about I just say the same thing for this? The Pope says that God guarantees his infallibility, he's infallible because God guarantees it, so I know he's correct. There are several Biblical references used for this though, the two that first comes to mind is "You are Peter and upon this Rock I shall build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." and "Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven."

It doesn't say whatever that is already included in the bible so far so you really don't need to mention it you bind on Earth, it say WHATEVER which means anything.

I was totally for it when I was younger (good Irish Family and so on).
But then I noticed how... well... backward it is when it comes to matters of reality, so I've kinda walked away from it.

But if the Pope was to liberal up abit I'd totally go back, if only for this movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_%28film%29).

Yes, you do have the right to dislike him. As to R. Borgia (don't know too much about the others) I believe he had free will and made poor choices, but that doesn't make his election illegitimate. No Pope has ever been heretical, even if their own personal morality was in question, and it is only their infallible teaching on moral and theological issues that God guarantees, not their ability to get into Heaven.

Point taken. I hope the next one will be a reformist

The Catholic Church.

My main focuses on the Church have always been their role in developing nations and early Christianity.

As for the claim that the Catholic Church was the first Christian church, I would have to disagree.

This website gives a good overview, with references at the bottom:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_chov.htm

It would be more correct to say that the Catholic Church is the longest lasting and most powerful of the early churches. Many of the early 'heresies' were merely attempts by the early Catholic church to destroy or discredit other Christian churches that were also around at the time.

The Church's increasingly farcical mismanagement of liberation theologians has ranged from the hilarious to the disturbing. Tissa Balasuriya's story is a prime example of this:

We are quite aware that the final act of lifting the excommunication has not come gracefully from the Church and that some humiliating events to Fr. Balasuriya and some of his friends have taken place - a face-saving device quite understandable at a moment of coming to terms with one of the greatest scandals that the Catholic Church has caused itself in recent times. Despite this, the achievement of Fr. Balasuriya and all of his supporters in Sri Lanka and elsewhere are historic.

This story will be remembered by future generations. Fr. Balasuriya needs to be congratulated for his tenacious and unbending stand against falsehood and false accusations of heresy. We know that it was painful for him to stand up against the authorities of the very Church that he has served loyally all his life. Even at this moment as his excommunication is lifted, it is regrettable that it has not been done with much regard for his feelings. In this, his position is similar to many others who have had to pay a heavy price for standing up for truth and for basic rights. However, his example will encourage many others to stand up against any future repetitions of similar misdemeanours by the Church.

It is unfortunate that the Church has lost another opportunity for re-establishing its credibility. Had the Church openly admitted its mistakes and apologised, the credit for lifting the excommunication would have been the Church's. Unfortunately, even the final act of reconciliation by the Church has been achieved through a statement made to save face. It is a great pity.


http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/1998/13/

I'm currently nominally a catholic.

My thoughts about the RC Church? At the lower echelons, full of decent people who take the Gospels to heart and try to make the world a better place.

At the upper echelons, full of self-righteous old dinosaurs who would have us go back to living in the Dark Ages. Sexist, homophobic, irresponsible, irrealistic, hypocritical old men who have made their organisation into a political party, focusing on dogma, pick-and-choosing from scripture in order to justify and bolster their agenda. They have completely forgotten the core messages that Jesus preaches in the Gospels, and have grown into the very "Temple Authorities" Jesus used to warn believers against.

I'm currently looking at apostasy. I feel bad for all the good apples in that basket, but the fact of the matter is that it's the bad apples who gets to take the decisions and get all the visibility.

Arrgh, I already had this discussion with you on that other thread :p You basically said that you believed in the Bible because the Bible said to, and that it was a circular argument. How about I just say the same thing for this? The Pope says that God guarantees his infallibility, he's infallible because God guarantees it, so I know he's correct. There are several Biblical references used for this though, the two that first comes to mind is "You are Peter and upon this Rock I shall build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." and "Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven."

It doesn't say whatever that is already included in the bible so far so you really don't need to mention it you bind on Earth, it say WHATEVER which means anything.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree about all this. ;) However, it just irks me a bit that people believe someone who says they are infallible because they said they were. It even irks me sometimes that I believe the Bible is true based on such obviously circular logic, my only defense in my own illogicality is that the Bible on some fronts can be verified, however a person is just a person, they lie, they cheat, they seek to control......I don't trust people, heck, most of the time I don't even trust myself.

I'm currently looking at apostasy. I feel bad for all the good apples in that basket, but the fact of the matter is that it's the bad apples who gets to take the decisions and get all the visibility.

Don't feel too bad for us, we have the ability to leave just as much as you do, and it seems that you are strongly considering it. I hope you find what is right for you, but don't apostatize merely in protest, because it won't hurt anyone except for yourself and those "good apples" on the lower levels who actually care for you. One person leaving the Church, or even 100 is not even noticeable to the higher members of the Church, so leaving just to protest against them does nothing.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree about all this. ;) However, it just irks me a bit that people believe someone who says they are infallible because they said they were. It even irks me sometimes that I believe the Bible is true based on such obviously circular logic, my only defense in my own illogicality is that the Bible on some fronts can be verified, however a person is just a person, they lie, they cheat, they seek to control......I don't trust people, heck, most of the time I don't even trust myself.

And a book, well, it is just a book. Books also cheat and lie. Mainly because they are written by people, that also cheat and lie.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree about all this. ;) However, it just irks me a bit that people believe someone who says they are infallible because they said they were. It even irks me sometimes that I believe the Bible is true based on such obviously circular logic, my only defense in my own illogicality is that the Bible on some fronts can be verified, however a person is just a person, they lie, they cheat, they seek to control......I don't trust people, heck, most of the time I don't even trust myself.

The Pope can definitely make mistakes, the Church's teaching only says that he in infallible on moral and theological issues, that does not include science or history or anything else that the Church might still have a position on. It seems to me though, that when Christ founded a Church, he wouldn't just leave it alone by itself with any help, or everyone would get lost and confused, this is another reason I believe in the Pope's infallibility, but unless you're Catholic you have no obligation to believe this.

And a book, well, it is just a book. Books also cheat and lie. Mainly because they are written by people, that also cheat and lie.
well, of course. Throughout the ages it's been "translated" and "interpreted" by people with agendas too.

The Pope can definitely make mistakes, the Church's teaching only says that he in infallible on moral and theological issues, that does not include science or history or anything else that the Church might still have a position on. It seems to me though, that when Christ founded a Church, he wouldn't just leave it alone by itself with any help, or everyone would get lost and confused, this is another reason I believe in the Pope's infallibility, but unless you're Catholic you have no obligation to believe this.

I think God gives us the Holy Spirit to help us. I don't think I could ever be Catholic...I am too rebellious. ;)

I think God gives us the Holy Spirit to help us.

Exactly, Catholics just believe that the Holy Spirit works through the Pope in a special way, in addition to His personal relationship with us.

I think God gives us the Holy Spirit to help us. I don't think I could ever be Catholic...I am too rebellious. ;)

Rebellious?

I am confused...Weren't you...a submissive wife?

Exactly, Catholics just believe that the Holy Spirit works through the Pope in a special way, in addition to His personal relationship with us.

I guess I just don't see the need for a pope or why God would put one person above all others.

Rebellious?

I am confused...Weren't you...a submissive wife?

I submit to my husband because I respect him and live in service to him. I don't like anyone else ;)

Perhaps it's because I'm not Catholic, and wasn't raised Catholic, but my understanding is that Jesus didn't found any church. He was "preaching" Judaism, which was the religion he was born into. He was teaching people to live by God's word, not HIS word. Christians began to worship Jesus Christ, because we believe him to be the savior, the messiah, we believe that God sent his son to earth in human form. We believe him worthy of being worshiped. By dying and being resurrected, he was placed at the right hand of God, giving him "status" for lack of a better word.

Again...I am not a theologist, scripture isn't my strong point. I can't quote chapter or verse. I have, however, read the entire Bible, cover to cover...and I have a good memory of almost everything I read. So, my disclaimer is that I might be completely and totally off on what I believe, regarding Jesus forming a "church" and I am interested enough to call my minister and ask him his thoughts.

I guess I just don't see the need for a pope or why God would put one person above all others.

God already put someone above others when he gave the Law to Moses instead of making it a public speech. Going further, he favoured one person when he decided to be impersonated in Jesus, instead of impersonating himself in everyone.

Don't feel too bad for us, we have the ability to leave just as much as you do, and it seems that you are strongly considering it. I hope you find what is right for you, but don't apostatize merely in protest, because it won't hurt anyone except for yourself and those "good apples" on the lower levels who actually care for you. One person leaving the Church, or even 100 is not even noticeable to the higher members of the Church, so leaving just to protest against them does nothing.

For the record, I'm both agnostic and homosexual. So yeah, I'll be damned if I stay part of an organisation that has driven me away by saying such hateful things as "homosexual people bring nothing good to society" (quoted literally from some Church Doctrine papers I forget the name, and has been repeated by our local Cardinal, Mgr Marc Ouellet, during the whole gay marriage debate at the Canadian Commons two years ago).

I'll also be damned if I ever allow a Church who has, as an institution, protected and kept from the justice some of their priests who have abused of children for years. I'll never let the pope, his cardinals or bishops pretend like they have the moral high ground. I'll never sit down and be judged by them as useless, dangerous, unnatural and all the hatred they spout, knowing that what I do out of love with another consenting adult has NOTHING in common with the monstrosities that they have hidden from the public eyes, sheltering criminals only to save face and avoid scandals.

Don't get me wrong: despite my agnosticism, I hold a fair deal of academic interest towards things religious. I have read the entire Bible, and found that behind much of what can be dismissed as antiquated history recountings in the old testament, the Gospels included in the new testament have a good deal of nice values and morals to convey. However, should I ever develop faith on top of that, that hypotetical faith would be groomed with the guidance of another Church, certainly not the Roman Catholic. I feel like the pope and his advisers would do well to re-read the Gospels. They obviously have forgotten about basic lessons such as "Judge not lest ye be judged as well", "Love thy neighbour", and "turn the other cheek".

I guess I just don't see the need for a pope or why God would put one person above all others.

The Pope serves a similar purpose to a government. Some people dislike the government, but only a few radical anarchists would actually say we don't need a government and that it's unjust for the government to be put above other people.

For the record, I'm both agnostic and homosexual. So yeah, I'll be damned if I stay part of an organisation that has driven me away by saying such hateful things as "homosexual people bring nothing good to society" (quoted literally from some Church Doctrine papers I forget the name, and has been repeated by our local Cardinal, Mgr Marc Ouellet, during the whole gay marriage debate at the Canadian Commons two years ago).

I'll also be damned if I ever allow a Church who has, as an institution, protected and kept from the justice some of their priests who have abused of children for years. I'll never let the pope, his cardinals or bishops pretend like they have the moral high ground. I'll never sit down and be judged by them as useless, dangerous, unnatural and all the hatred they spout, knowing that what I do out of love with another consenting adult has NOTHING in common with the monstrosities that they have hidden from the public eyes, sheltering criminals only to save face and avoid scandals.

Don't get me wrong: despite my agnosticism, I hold a fair deal of academic interest towards things religious. I have read the entire Bible, and found that behind much of what can be dismissed as antiquated history recountings in the old testament, the Gospels included in the new testament have a good deal of nice values and morals to convey. However, should I ever develop faith on top of that, that hypotetical faith would be groomed with the guidance of another Church, certainly not the Roman Catholic. I feel like the pope and his advisers would do well to re-read the Gospels. They obviously have forgotten about basic lessons such as "Judge not lest ye be judged as well", "Love thy neighbour", and "turn the other cheek".

That's fine, I wasn't saying you have to stay, I was just saying don't leave specifically to spite other people because it won't work. Also are you sure the quote wasn't "Homosexual unions bring nothing to society?" I have heard that before, but the other quote that you said is not very much in line with the Church's other teachings on homosexuality. Officially, the Church does not condemn people for being homosexual, but only for giving in to those desires, it views homosexuality as a disease, not a sin, although it might lead people into sin.

i feel catholicism needs to become more attune with how the world flows these days.
they still live in the old, ancient days and need to understand that the times have changed.

Yeh, i'm all for the Roman Catholic Church, most of their teaching seem like a decent stance to take. I am an Anglican (church of England) but I still go to a Catholic school and some of their attitude towards issues have rubbed off on me.
For example
- I now do believe abortion is wrong after being showed all the facts
- I disagree with divorce
and various other things.

However contraception is always an issue for me, especially because Jesus never said anything about it, just a tudor scholar who invented natural law:S

That's fine, I wasn't saying you have to stay, I was just saying don't leave specifically to spite other people because it won't work.

Well, it will work if people realise being a believer does not necessairly mean you have to listen to all the stupidity that comes out of the higher echelons.

A pope is nothing more than an old man with a funny hat if nobody listens to him anymore.

Also, leaving the Roman Catholic church doesn't mean losing their faith for those believers. My ex boyfriend was himself very religious, but he ended up leaving the Roman Catholics to join the United Church of Canada (a protestant denomination) because there he could actually live his faith without having to deal with hatred and judgement from an archaic organization who refuses to acknowledge reality when it doesn't feel like it.


Also are you sure the quote wasn't "Homosexual unions bring nothing to society?" I have heard that before, but the other quote that you said is not very much in line with the Church's other teachings on homosexuality. Officially, the Church does not condemn people for being homosexual, but only for giving in to those desires, it views homosexuality as a disease, not a sin, although it might lead people into sin.

I am quite certain that my quote is correct. I was infuriated at the time. Also, their badwill at trying to call it a disease, or "confusion of genres", or whatever else the hell they like to say about us, is nothing short of inexcusable. Homosexuality is nothing like a disease. It's been decades since psychologists all over the world realised that. Yet the Church does not let science stand in their way. They would have us live alone, deny us the joy of sharing our life with someone else, for no better reason than we don't happen to want to share our life with someone of the opposite sex? Get real. If they don't like the fact that I don't have the same aspirations as they do, tough cookies on them. Their attempts at culpabilizing me into living a lonely, miserable, unfulfilled life simply because they're prejudiced against people like me will not make me pretend not to be who I am.

They're proving their hypocrisy on the issue of contraception, as well. They've been giving out false information in africa in order to discourage people from using a condom. The pope has repeated his admonition against sex outside the bounds of marriage in Brazil recently, as well. All of this is almost criminal in its irresponsibility, for a lot of people who really listens to what the RC church says then adopt unsafe sex practices, thinking the condom useless to stop the spread of diseases such as HIV and AIDS.

Then again, it's consistent with their past stance of trying to argue against reality. Galileo's imprisonment for saying the earth orbits around the sun comes to mind. Some things never change.

I'm sorry if I sound all disillusionned, but I really think you christians in the Roman Catholic Church would benefit from a fresh start. You know, leaving the old, crumbling house, and build a shiny new one. Preferably with a "under new management" sign planted on the front law.

i feel catholicism needs to become more attune with how the world flows these days.
they still live in the old, ancient days and need to understand that the times have changed.

Ok, I've seen several similar posts on this thread, so I think I'll address this issue a bit. The Catholic Church does not need to become more in line with the modern world, or more aware of reality or whatever. The bottom line is, (whether you personally agree or not), the Catholic Church claims to be correct. Things that contradict them therefore are incorrect, regardless of public opinion. The Pope and the rest of the Church answer to no authority but God, so there is no reason for them to change. Also, the Church exists to help people, and that is what it does. It doesn't hurt the Church when people don't join, it hurts the people themselves. Perhaps the Church could be more effective if it changed a few minor things, but on important issues it's going to stay the same because 1) It can; and 2) It believes it should.

Well, it will work if people realise being a believer does not necessairly mean you have to listen to all the stupidity that comes out of the higher echelons.

A pope is nothing more than an old man with a funny hat if nobody listens to him anymore.

Also, leaving the Roman Catholic church doesn't mean losing their faith for those believers. My ex boyfriend was himself very religious, but he ended up leaving the Roman Catholics to join the United Church of Canada (a protestant denomination) because there he could actually live his faith without having to deal with hatred and judgement from an archaic organization who refuses to acknowledge reality when it doesn't feel like it.



I am quite certain that my quote is correct. I was infuriated at the time. Also, their badwill at trying to call it a disease, or "confusion of genres", or whatever else the hell they like to say about us, is nothing short of inexcusable. Homosexuality is nothing like a disease. It's been decades since psychologists all over the world realised that. Yet the Church does not let science stand in their way. They would have us live alone, deny us the joy of sharing our life with someone else, for no better reason than we don't happen to want to share our life with someone of the opposite sex? Get real. If they don't like the fact that I don't have the same aspirations as they do, tough cookies on them. Their attempts at culpabilizing me into living a lonely, miserable, unfulfilled life simply because they're prejudiced against people like me will not make me pretend not to be who I am.

They're proving their hypocrisy on the issue of contraception, as well. They've been giving out false information in africa in order to discourage people from using a condom. The pope has repeated his admonition against sex outside the bounds of marriage in Brazil recently, as well. All of this is almost criminal in its irresponsibility, for a lot of people who really listens to what the RC church says then adopt unsafe sex practices, thinking the condom useless to stop the spread of diseases such as HIV and AIDS.

Then again, it's consistent with their past stance of trying to argue against reality. Galileo's imprisonment for saying the earth orbits around the sun comes to mind. Some things never change.

I'm sorry if I sound all disillusionned, but I really think you christians in the Roman Catholic Church would benefit from a fresh start. You know, leaving the old, crumbling house, and build a shiny new one. Preferably with a "under new management" sign planted on the front law.

1. Perhaps disease is not the correct term, but inclination to homosexuality is a physical trait based in the brain, is it not? Whether or not it in unnatural, it is not a choice a person makes, but something that is part of that person.

2. Sex outside of marriage is bad for anyone, homosexual or otherwise, the fact that homosexuals cannot be married in the eyes of the Church makes their sex a sin, not the fact that they are homosexual.

3. You may say what you want about "crumbling old houses" but contrary to what its criticizers may say, the Church is continuing to grow, not shrink. There is no need for a "shiny new one" the one we have right now is just fine, and so is its management.

The bottom line is, (whether you personally agree or not), the Catholic Church claims to be correct. Things that contradict them therefore are incorrect, regardless of public opinion.

Or facts ;)

Or facts ;)

Show me a fact that actually contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church, and not just opinions of individual priests or bishops.

1. Perhaps disease is not the correct term, but inclination to homosexuality is a physical trait based in the brain, is it not? Whether or not it in unnatural, it is not a choice a person makes, but something that is part of that person.

Indeed, far from a choice, far from a disease, and also far from unnatural, as it happens quite frequently in nature.

Also, it should be noted homosexuality is only mentionned like... about 5 times in the Bible. None of which is from the mouth of Jesus. Youd think if God cared that much the gender of the person we have sex with, he'd have told Junior to peep up about it.


2. Sex outside of marriage is bad for anyone, homosexual or otherwise, the fact that homosexuals cannot be married in the eyes of the Church makes their sex a sin, not the fact that they are homosexual.

Saying that "Sex outside marriage is bad" and "You guys can't get married, nyah!" like the Church is both hypocritical and immature from an objective point of view. Note also that Jesus didn't hammer down on sex outside of marriage. All the railed about was adultery, meaning that if you do get married, then don't be unfaithful to your spouse. Nothing about not showing your love in a physical manner with your partner even outside the bounds of marriage.

The sex outside of marriage issue was created by the Church, it's not from the mouth of Jesus. Remember he was the first one to stand up in defense of the local prostitute, Mary Magdalene.

3. You may say what you want about "crumbling old houses" but contrary to what its criticizers may say, the Church is continuing to grow, not shrink. There is no need for a "shiny new one" the one we have right now is just fine, and so is its management.
We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I know full well the Roman Catholic's influence is becoming extinct fast in western democracies(especially with a very conservative new pope like Benedict), and that rival Churches with more modern outlooks on the world are making gains
at their expense in South America. Meanwhile, Africa's support is still solid, but many factions threathens to Schism should the Church do indeed adopt a modern outlook on social questions. The Opus Dei was the only division of the church to maintain a solid growth in believers in the last few years. The Roman Catholic Church is facing tough times, and it's dubious whether or not there is a way for them to represent all those very different braches while remaining united.

he Church is continuing to grow, not shrink.

Quick question...how is the church continuing to grow, when less and less young men are going into the priesthood, they are closing convents...while there may be believers, the religion will die out, if there are no ordained persons to preach.

if that is not the current trend, forgive me. It is something my mother in law and I discussed when they were building the rectory for her church. They built it as a 4 bedroom home, looking forward to a time when the person "in charge" of the church would be a lay person, such as a deacon, rather than a priest. Why would they do that, if plenty of young men were entering the priesthood?

Just curious. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, these are things I've thought about, but never really had anyone to ask.

There are plenty of decent Catholics, but the Roman Catholic Church is a foul institution. I oppose it's misogyny, it's homophobia, and it's general bigotry. I don't approve of lying to people, and I believe it has blood on its hands due to its shameful behaviour concerning contraception. The Pope's frequent attempts to interfere in the process of government irritates me, and the idea of a crowd of old, celibate men trying to control women's fertility is both absurd and disturbing.

As a reward for anyone who read my rant, here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ7elKNfSpc) a youtube video which sums up many of my views on the Vatican. :p

Show me a fact that actually contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church, and not just opinions of individual priests or bishops.

I'd rather have it the other way around. That is, you providing facts in favour of its teachings. You can start with proving beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus existed and that he founded the church in the manner you believe.

Do not stay up too late though. Many brilliant minds have tried before and failed miserably.

I'd rather have it the other way around. That is, you providing facts in favour of its teachings. You can start with proving beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus existed and that he founded the church in the manner you believe.

Do not stay up too late though. Many brilliant minds have tried before and failed miserably.

you made the claim that the Catholic church is working independent of facts, therefore the burden is on you.

Ok, I've seen several similar posts on this thread, so I think I'll address this issue a bit. The Catholic Church does not need to become more in line with the modern world, or more aware of reality or whatever. The bottom line is, (whether you personally agree or not), the Catholic Church claims to be correct. Things that contradict them therefore are incorrect, regardless of public opinion.

"We're right so screw reality!"

Quick question...how is the church continuing to grow, when less and less young men are going into the priesthood, they are closing convents...while there may be believers, the religion will die out, if there are no ordained persons to preach.

if that is not the current trend, forgive me. It is something my mother in law and I discussed when they were building the rectory for her church. They built it as a 4 bedroom home, looking forward to a time when the person "in charge" of the church would be a lay person, such as a deacon, rather than a priest. Why would they do that, if plenty of young men were entering the priesthood?

Just curious. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, these are things I've thought about, but never really had anyone to ask.

The number of priests is declining yes, but the number of ordinations is growing. Basically the old priests from the "good old days" are dying out, but more new priests are being ordained than any time after 1970, and it increases every year. We're on the recovery, sort of like after the Great Depression in the United States. Things were very bad for awhile, but they are getting better.

As a reward for anyone who read my rant, here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ7elKNfSpc) a youtube video which sums up many of my views on the Vatican. :p

You win this thread.

*Hands over the cookie jar*

Saying that "Sex outside marriage is bad" and "You guys can't get married, nyah!" like the Church is both hypocritical and immature from an objective point of view. Note also that Jesus didn't hammer down on sex outside of marriage. All the railed about was adultery, meaning that if you do get married, then don't be unfaithful to your spouse. Nothing about not showing your love in a physical manner with your partner even outside the bounds of marriage.


If you need Jesus to say something or you won't believe it, I agree that you should find another Church. I believe that the Pope is infallible on moral and theological teachings, regardless of if anyone taught the same things before. To be honest, I would believe the Pope over anything short of God, and that includes myriads of angels trying to convince me otherwise.

There are plenty of decent Catholics, but the Roman Catholic Church is a foul institution. I oppose it's misogyny, it's homophobia, and it's general bigotry. I don't approve of lying to people, and I believe it has blood on its hands due to its shameful behaviour concerning contraception. The Pope's frequent attempts to interfere in the process of government irritates me, and the idea of a crowd of old, celibate men trying to control women's fertility is both absurd and disturbing.

As a reward for anyone who read my rant, here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ7elKNfSpc) a youtube video which sums up many of my views on the Vatican. :p

Quoted for massive agreement.

If you need Jesus to say something or you won't believe it, I agree that you should find another Church. I believe that the Pope is infallible on moral and theological teachings, regardless of if anyone taught the same things before. To be honest, I would believe the Pope over anything short of God, and that includes myriads of angels trying to convince me otherwise.

Which is one of the reasons why this specific religion is very dangerous. It idolizes a man and makes him godlike - people follow him to where he tells them to follow him, without question. That's never a good thing, even if he is a man of god - a good leader should always worry when people don't question him or his judgement.

If you need Jesus to say something or you won't believe it, I agree that you should find another Church. I believe that the Pope is infallible on moral and theological teachings, regardless of if anyone taught the same things before. To be honest, I would believe the Pope over anything short of God, and that includes myriads of angels trying to convince me otherwise.
Bolded the important part. As long as your realise all of this stems from an irrational belief that has no ground in reality whatsoever, that's fine by me. I, on the other hand, do not believe in the pope's infaillibility. As such, I am perfectly able to criticize all the decisions he makes, and free to condemn the Church on actions I deem immoral. Because I have been given free will(be it inherited by God or a mundane creation of evolution, who cares? I have it) and I, unlike you, have chosen to use it.

Re-read your Gospels. Particularly the parts where Jesus warns people against the decadent Temple authorities. If you do not see a parrallel with what is going today, then you are either blind, or blinding yourself. And if you deem Benedict's word as more important than Jesus' then you are indeed a good Roman Catholic. A very poor Christian, however.

There are plenty of decent Catholics, but the Roman Catholic Church is a foul institution. I oppose it's misogyny, it's homophobia, and it's general bigotry. I don't approve of lying to people, and I believe it has blood on its hands due to its shameful behaviour concerning contraception. The Pope's frequent attempts to interfere in the process of government irritates me, and the idea of a crowd of old, celibate men trying to control women's fertility is both absurd and disturbing.

As a reward for anyone who read my rant, here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ7elKNfSpc) a youtube video which sums up many of my views on the Vatican. :p

I've just remembered another reason why I don't like the RC Church: the new Pope recently suggested that Naturalistic Evolution isn't an adequate explanation for the variety of living creatures and plants which we see.

*Sigh* This argument is stressing me out too much for me to continue with it, I have more important things to do than argue against 20 different people alone. Claim whatever you wish, we shall see who is correct eventually. Cya in Heaven, Hell, or the infinite blackness of nothingness. One last thing that I feel compelled to do:

Benedictvs in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spritvs Sancti.

*Wave*

I've just remembered another reason why I don't like the RC Church: the new Pope recently suggested that Naturalistic Evolution isn't an adequate explanation for the variety of living creatures and plants which we see.

One last thing before I go. This is a false statement. While the Church cannot have official teachings about science as it does not fall into morality or theology, evolution is currently considered by the Church to be the most accurate explanation of the development of life on Earth, if not the actual cause of it (which is Abiogenesis I believe so its a different idea altogether)

*Sigh* This argument is stressing me out too much for me to continue with it, I have more important things to do than argue against 20 different people alone. Claim whatever you wish, we shall see who is correct eventually. Cya in Heaven, Hell, or the infinite blackness of nothingness. One last thing that I feel compelled to do:

Benedictvs in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spritvs Sancti.

*Wave*

don't leave! just take a break.....come back later.....ignore some of us......don't leave!

don't leave! just take a break.....come back later.....ignore some of us......don't leave!

I'm not leaving NS or even NSG, just this thread. I have a suspicion that my arguing in favor of the Church actually causes more arguments against it, so my theory is that if I just shut up, so will everyone else :p

Still biggest denomination of biggest religion in the world.

There are over 2 billion catholics.

I'm not leaving NS or even NSG, just this thread. I have a suspicion that my arguing in favor of the Church actually causes more arguments against it, so my theory is that if I just shut up, so will everyone else :p

they never shut up. ;)

I find you entertaining though, most Catholics won't answer any of my questions because they think I am trying to be an ass, I really am not, I just have a lot of questions.

Don't forget to re-read your gospels and exercise your free will a bit. Don't just take everything anyone else says at face value, even if that anyone happens to wear a robe and funny hat.

...


Especially if he wears a robe and a funny hat :p

I am sure that I fall under the category of the Catholics you would hate then, so there is no need for me to discuss anymore. In the case of married people, I would say the same thing as the African priests, so feel free to consider me a liar, coward, and murderer if you wish.

I'm not calling you a liar, a coward, or a murderer.

You appear to be freely identifying yourself as a liar, and with full knowledge that your lies would result in people contracting a deadly, incurable disease. You are self-identifying. I don't need to insult you.


However it seems the coward part was just added in to add more emphasis to your argument, as I don't see anything cowardly about it, even if I did agree with your point of view.
If you support lying to people in order to trick them into doing what you want, knowing full well that your actions will endanger their lives and the lives of their children, but you don't have the guts to just be honest about what you're doing, then yes. I think you're a coward. I think you're the definition of coward.

Your decision to run away from this thread does nothing to change my impression.

Still biggest denomination of biggest religion in the world.

There are over 2 billion catholics.

They're counting a lot of people who are nominally catholics but in reality reject the Church's Doctrine massively. Hell, they try to boast 20 milion believers here in Canada, and most people, even if religious, feel like the Church is completely disconnected from their reality. There's a reason the western churches are empty. So even though they say 2 billion catholics... *shrugs* Real numbers are less than this. 2 billion Christians, maybe, but not 2 billion practising Catholics.

*Sigh* This argument is stressing me out too much for me to continue with it, I have more important things to do than argue against 20 different people alone. Claim whatever you wish, we shall see who is correct eventually. Cya in Heaven, Hell, or the infinite blackness of nothingness. One last thing that I feel compelled to do:

Ah, a thinly veiled Pascal's Wager. How original.

I was wondering what you, the ever-so-intelligent posters here, think about Roman Catholicism, the first Christian Church? What are your thoughts on the Pope, the Saints, other denominations?

Please remain respectful.

I am a Roman Catholic and believe that the fullness of the Truth of Christ is found in Mother Church, but that most other Christian sects also have been given grace by God. Pax

As a Lutheran, I have some theological issues with the church. I believe that since there is access to the means of grace, God's word and sacraments, that there are many Christians in the Catholic Church. I think there are many non-Christians even within Protestant churches.

The main dividing point theologically is the idea of salvation by grace or works. How do Catholics interpret St. Paul when he says

Ephesians 2:8-10
***
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."
***

That passage seems to say that grace saves us and that doing good works comes as a response. Martin Luther explained grace and deeds using a natural illustration of seeing the wind blow a tree. You cannot 'see' wind in the same way that you cannot see grace, but it is evidenced by the moving tree. But surely you would not suggest that the tree is moving, causing the wind to blow.

This is the concept behind the next passage from James, as well. Deeds are used as proof of a saving faith, but have no direct effect on our salvation.

James 2:14-18
***
"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
***

Martin Luther summed up this passage saying, "We are saved by faith alone, but a saving faith is never alone."

Beyond the theological points, the division is also because of the use of councils and church authority. Catholics I've talked to say that Peter was the first Pope, and the foundations of the church can be found here:

Matthew 16:13-19
***
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome 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."
***

The Rock that Jesus is building the church on certainly is Peter, and I don't deny his leadership of the early Church, but the foundation for the church was also his clear testimony of Christ. To take the idea and run with it all the way to ideas of papal infallability and excommunication seems a little extreme. The Bible even says that Peter screwed up some doctrinal teachings before he was corrected by Paul.

Galatians 2:11-14
***
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
***

So that's basically what I think about Catholics. I tend to agree with them more often than I disagree, with most of the disagreements displayed above. I agree with them about homosexuality, which the Bible is very clear about.

Some general questions I've always wanted to ask a Catholic:
1. Purgatory. Does everyone go?
2. Whatever happened to Limbo?
3. Why does everything have to be in Latin? Does it anymore? Are they switching back?
4. Why do you do first communion so young?

i am not one to insult any other religon being of a not so liked religion myself...
i am not fond of catholics nor christians i dont believe in a central god that created the whole universe and i do celebrate christmas even though the date it should be is wrong they say he died when the crops were growing at full bloom and that is early fall not mid winter.
when i get into arguemets with my grandmother who is way catholic she trys to convert me at any givin turn :headbang: and it leaes me in a :upyours: mood lol.

oh and i am wiccan so i belive in a higher power but not a god and we are very earthly and no we dont fly on broomsticks and use magic wands(much :D )

and the roman catholic church wasnt the first as im sure youve been told

they never shut up. ;)

I find you entertaining though, most Catholics won't answer any of my questions because they think I am trying to be an ass, I really am not, I just have a lot of questions.


that was my thinking too...someone to answer my questions. I meant it sincerely when I said I wasn't trying to be disrespectful.

I think it's wonderful that you have so much faith in your particular brand of religion. It took me a long long time to be comfortable enough in mine to talk about it. So, don't be stressed....you can ignore the people that stress you....but I want to be able to ask more questions if they come to me. (yes, I am EXTREMELY selfish)

Actually, I would recommend abstinence from sex, like those priests do.

Read more carefully.

The priests do NOT recommend abstinence from sex. They recommend (hell, they practically COMMAND) women to submit to sex. They further insist that said women do nothing to protect themselves.

Of course, the fact that the Catholic Church regards women as subhumans is nothing new. Their hatred of women just kind of blends in to the background drone of bigotry.


The end result is that they have sex anyway, and get sick because of it. Its not that the Church tells them to, its that they refuse to listen to the Church's advice as I said before.
The Church tells them to fuck, and to do it with out protection, and they tell as many lies as are necessary to convince people to follow their direction.

At best, they're dishonest snake-oil salesmen. Personally, I think they're also genocidal.

Mostly crap. Pretty churches. Some kind old ladies.

Well, I think you can get your answers, is just that you don't really care but to disregard any statement done by a catholic. And if the answers corner you, you just go to argur someone else's (more easy) arguments

One last thing before I go. This is a false statement. While the Church cannot have official teachings about science as it does not fall into morality or theology, evolution is currently considered by the Church to be the most accurate explanation of the development of life on Earth, if not the actual cause of it (which is Abiogenesis I believe so its a different idea altogether)

He calls himself a theistic evolutionist but some of his public statements have hinted at sympathy for Intelligent Design. There's also the suspicious manner in which the Vatican astronomer was fired shortly after strongly criticising the IDists. Here's a nice quote:

"the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

This shows a complete ignorance of both the scientific method and the evidence for evolution.

They're counting a lot of people who are nominally catholics but in reality reject the Church's Doctrine massively. Hell, they try to boast 20 milion believers here in Canada, and most people, even if religious, feel like the Church is completely disconnected from their reality. There's a reason the western churches are empty. So even though they say 2 billion catholics... *shrugs* Real numbers are less than this. 2 billion Christians, maybe, but not 2 billion practising Catholics.catholics are roughly 1.1 billion.

He calls himself a theistic evolutionist but some of his public statements have hinted at sympathy for Intelligent Design. There's also the suspicious manner in which the Vatican astronomer was fired shortly after strongly criticising the IDists. Here's a nice quote:

"the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

This shows a complete ignorance of both the scientific method and the evidence for evolution.

Doesn't surprise me anymore.

Doesn't surprise me anymore.Could be worse. Could be Mormon.... or Rastafarian...

Sigh. Most people don't ever consider what the middle ages would've been like without the Catholic Church. Human nature being what it is, I think Europe was far better off with the Church than without.

The Crusades also fall under human nature more neatly than as an evil act perpetrated by the church. As an interesting prelude to THAT old chestnut, we have the muslim invasion of Spain in 711, the attempted invasion of France stopped at the battle of Tours, and the invasion of Italy in 800-something (don't have the exact year in front of me and won't post a made up number). The fact is, invasions and atrocities are a hallmark of human history, NOT something the Catholic Church went around doing to horror of pagans, muslims, and other bystanders.

I'm not catholic, but I get really sick of people painting the medieval church (and medieval Europe in general) as little more than cavemen with better clothes. Yes, the Galileo incident was downright shameful. So were the methods for interrogating, trying and condeming witches. But most (possibly all) ancient cultures had elements that we would find equally bad. Its just SO in vogue to say bad stuff about the Catholic Church, and medieval Europe. Don't forget, the so called "middle ages" covers 1000 years over an entire continent, and so the "medieval church" does too.

Sigh. Most people don't ever consider what the middle ages would've been like without the Catholic Church. Human nature being what it is, I think Europe was far better off with the Church than without.

You're certainly a lost cause.

The Crusades also fall under human nature more neatly than as an evil act perpetrated by the church. As an interesting prelude to THAT old chestnut, we have the muslim invasion of Spain in 711, the attempted invasion of France stopped at the battle of Tours, and the invasion of Italy in 800-something (don't have the exact year in front of me and won't post a made up number). The fact is, invasions and atrocities are a hallmark of human history, NOT something the Catholic Church went around doing to horror of pagans, muslims, and other bystanders.

"Evil men will do evil regardless, but it is only with the aid of religion that good men will do evil."

I'm not catholic, but I get really sick of people painting the medieval church (and medieval Europe in general) as little more than cavemen with better clothes. Yes, the Galileo incident was downright shameful. So were the methods for interrogating, trying and condeming witches. But most (possibly all) ancient cultures had elements that we would find equally bad. Its just SO in vogue to say bad stuff about the Catholic Church, and medieval Europe. Don't forget, the so called "middle ages" covers 1000 years over an entire continent, and so the "medieval church" does too.

Which is why they call it "The Dark Ages"..

I was wondering what you, the ever-so-intelligent posters here, think about Roman Catholicism, the first Christian Church? What are your thoughts on the Pope, the Saints, other denominations?

Please remain respectful.

I am a Roman Catholic and believe that the fullness of the Truth of Christ is found in Mother Church, but that most other Christian sects also have been given grace by God. Pax

Not a fan of the large bureaucracy at all, also not a fan of papal fallacy either, the idea that a human can never be wrong as far as church doctrine goes seems questionable

Sigh. Most people don't ever consider what the middle ages would've been like without the Catholic Church. Human nature being what it is, I think Europe was far better off with the Church than without.

The Crusades also fall under human nature more neatly than as an evil act perpetrated by the church. As an interesting prelude to THAT old chestnut, we have the muslim invasion of Spain in 711, the attempted invasion of France stopped at the battle of Tours, and the invasion of Italy in 800-something (don't have the exact year in front of me and won't post a made up number). The fact is, invasions and atrocities are a hallmark of human history, NOT something the Catholic Church went around doing to horror of pagans, muslims, and other bystanders.

I'm not catholic, but I get really sick of people painting the medieval church (and medieval Europe in general) as little more than cavemen with better clothes. Yes, the Galileo incident was downright shameful. So were the methods for interrogating, trying and condeming witches. But most (possibly all) ancient cultures had elements that we would find equally bad. Its just SO in vogue to say bad stuff about the Catholic Church, and medieval Europe. Don't forget, the so called "middle ages" covers 1000 years over an entire continent, and so the "medieval church" does too.

I can't speak for anyone else but my criticisms have focused solely on the Church's current behaviour rather than its blood-spattered history.

If we were talking about history, I'd have brought up the hundreds (thousands?) executed for 'host desecration' and anti-semetism.

Doesn't surprise me anymore.

Well, to be Pope you just have to be an old, celibate man who's popular with a bunch of other old, celibate men. Scientific literacy isn't a requirement. :D

*
Without then inquisition far more "witches" would have fallen victim to the mob.

Well, to be Pope you just have to be an old, celibate man who's popular with a bunch of other old, celibate men. Scientific literacy isn't a requirement.So in this pope it's coincidence?

So in this pope it's coincidence?

Eh? The phrase "scientifically proven theory" is an oxymoron, as Benedict would have known if he understood the scientific method.

EDIT: and if he was scientifically literate then he'd know that the modern theory of evolution is better supported than the modern theory of gravity.

Eh? The phrase "scientifically proven theory" is an oxymoron, as Benedict would have known if he understood the scientific method.Mind to point out where and when exactly he said this? And did he speak English?

EDIT: gravity can be experienced very easily: we all fall down. evolution is much harder to experience: not everyone evolves :p

..catholics..
they try to boast 20 milion believers here in Canada...20 million?

do you have a link for that?

Without then inquisition far more "witches" would have fallen victim to the mob.

It is interesting to note that of the European countries, Spain had one of the lowest counts of executions of witches, even though it was the one under the control of the Inquisition and Torquemada. In fact, the countries with the two highest amounts of witches executed were Germany and Holland, both of which had already split from the Catholic Church and became mostly Lutheran.

The Inquisitions duty was to find heretics, not witches, it is a common misconception because those found guilty and handed over to the Spanish government were burned at the stake, as witches were. Also, the Inquisition was started by Queen Isabella of Spain, without the approval of Rome. When the Pope realized what was happening and what a poor job they were doing, he sent Torquemada and the Dominicans to take control of it. Ironically, it is the Dominicans and the Catholic Church who receive all the blame, even though it was started by the Spanish government and run by local Spanish priests.

Also, the Inquisition did not execute anyone on the authority of the Church, but only handed them over to the Spanish government. The reason for this was that heretics, especially coverts from Islam and Judaism, were considered to be traitors to the Spanish crown as Catholicism was the official religion of Spain and it was illegal not to be Catholic. In reality, the Inquisitors were basically the jury, the Church did not condemn the heretics, but it sent the Dominicans to insure that innocent people were not executed. If the Church had not gotten involved, it is almost certain that the Spanish government would have executed many more people. It is also an important thing to remember that of the many thousands of people tried by the Inquisition, less than 1% were given to the Spanish government for execution, and all of those condemned to death were given the chance to repent and be released, and many not counted in that 1% took that opportunity.

Edit: Had a paper to work on before, now that it's finished I thought I'd come back for a bit, sorry to disappoint anyone.

20 million?

do you have a link for that?

CIA world factbook has it at 14.2 million.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html

the first Christian Church

Um sorry buddy, that distiction belongs to Orthodox Christianity.. LOSER

:p

Mind to point out where and when exactly he said this? And did he speak English?

Link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-11-pope-evolution-creation_N.htm)

In the book, Benedict reflected on the 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who told the academy that Charles Darwin's theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin's theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis."

"The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this," Benedict said. "But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

"We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory," he said.

He was writing in German, but the context makes his meaning clear.

EDIT: gravity can be experienced very easily: we all fall down. evolution is much harder to experience: not everyone evolves :p

Notice that I said 'the theory of evolution' and the 'theory of gravity'. The theories describe the fact. The modern conception of gravity is facing several problems, including dark matter, wheras the whole fields of biology, paleontology, genetics, anthropology, comparative anatomy, and geology support the theory of evolution. It's as proven as any theory can be.

>Which is why they call it "The Dark Ages".

Nope. It's only "Dark ages" from Fall of Rome to Crowning of Charlemagne. Really though, those are just imaginary lines drawn in history. See, "medieval" covers 500 to 1500AD, give or take (the imaginary line thing again) and the "Dark ages" is only a subsection of that 1000 years.

>>"Evil men will do evil regardless, but it is only with the aid of religion that good men will do evil."

Snappy quotes don't substitute for a real attempt to understand the goings-on of human history. Birth rates and the weather have far more to with wars than popes, princes or counties, far as I can tell. Thats just my opinion of course, I do subscribe to a view of history rather like that presented by Asimov in "Foundation".

I get the impression that a lot of people who don't like current politics tend to project their opinions backwards in time, and, as I said, ignore the goings on of other cultures to take the churches actions outside the context of human nature, which is not good science.

Notice that I said 'the theory of evolution' and the 'theory of gravity'. The theories describe the fact. The modern conception of gravity is facing several problems, including dark matter, wheras the whole fields of biology, paleontology, genetics, anthropology, comparative anatomy, and geology support the theory of evolution. It's as proven as any theory can be.

Technically then, the Pope is correct in saying that it is not a complete scientifically proven theory, if theories cannot be completely scientifically proven? Also, the Pope does have a good scientific background, even from before he was a priest, so the statement that he doesn't understand the scientific method is incorrect.

Here is another statement from the Pope, made much more recently than those:

"We congratulate the advances made in the study of evolution."

>Which is why they call it "The Dark Ages".

Nope. It's only "Dark ages" from Fall of Rome to Crowning of Charlemagne. Really though, those are just imaginary lines drawn in history. See, "medieval" covers 500 to 1500AD, give or take (the imaginary line thing again) and the "Dark ages" is only a subsection of that 1000 years.

And?

>>"Evil men will do evil regardless, but it is only with the aid of religion that good men will do evil."

Snappy quotes don't substitute for a real attempt to understand the goings-on of human history. Birth rates and the weather have far more to with wars than popes, princes or counties, far as I can tell. Thats just my opinion of course, I do subscribe to a view of history rather like that presented by Asimov in "Foundation".

That's really silly. Popes have directly caused war - birth rates and weather, not so much. I really can't make it any clearer than that.

I get the impression that a lot of people who don't like current politics tend to project their opinions backwards in time, and, as I said, ignore the goings on of other cultures to take the churches actions outside the context of human nature, which is not good science.

Human nature should not affect a church led by a man who is supposedly infallable..

Human nature should not affect a church led by a man who is supposedly infallable.Who is a supposedly infallible man?
That infallible thing only applies to matters of the church and doctrine when the pope speaks ex cathedra with the authority of the church as such.

.

when are you going to learn to quote properly?

all you have to do is start with a [quote] tag and end with a [ /quote] tag (no spaces)

it's not hard.

Human nature should not affect a church led by a man who is supposedly infallable.


As I have said on this thread before, the Pope is only infallible on moral and theological teachings. War is political, he was acting as a political leader causing that war, never was there an official Church teaching in favor of any war. As a man, the pope can make mistakes, which is part of human nature, he can lose at a game of chess, forget someone's name, or use the wrong word when he's translating between his multiple languages. What he can't do is be wrong when using the Magisterium of the Church to teach on issues of morality of theology.

Technically then, the Pope is correct in saying that it is not a complete scientifically proven theory, if theories cannot be completely scientifically proven?

Technically the theory of evolution is also not a small pink walrus ;) However, declaring that in public really does not indicate a huge level of understanding of what it *is*.

Who is a supposedly infallible man?

The lolpope.

when are you going to learn to quote properly?

all you have to do is start with a [ quote] tag and end with a [ /quote] tag (no spaces)

it's not hard.

Typing is much quicker than typing . When I'm quoting multiple people, I use the quote tags, but for just one person I reply using bold type.

[QUOTE=Tolvarus;12685664]As I have said on this thread before, the Pope is only infallible on moral and theological teachings. War is political, he was acting as a political leader causing that war, never was there an official Church teaching in favor of any war.

[b]Not to say that a war is a moral dilemma or ever influenced by theological forces, right?

As a man, the pope can make mistakes

He's always a man, regardless.

which is part of human nature, he can lose at a game of chess, forget someone's name, or use the wrong word when he's translating between his multiple languages.

Like, from a book. Say, a 2000 year old book with mistranslations.

What he can't do is be wrong when using the Magisterium of the Church to teach on issues of morality of theology.

Again, I'd say you're wrong. He's still just a man, regardless of what he's using, what he's saying, what he's doing. He's always just a man. Morality is entirely subjective, so he can never be "wrong" or "right" from any general moral standpoint - you'd have to pick a specific morality and gauge him based on that. Say, a morality that would encourage people in a country ravaged by AIDS to NOT use protection while having sex. By that morality, he's a good person. However, that's not my morality, and I look down upon that morality with everything I have. To me, the pope is a bad person.

Szanth,
Anybody who doesn't think five droughts in a row or the tripling or halving of a nations population in a single generation won't have consequences for history (which may or may not come as actions by individual leaders) needs to read more.

As for the "And?" comment about the Dark Ages, I thought my point was self evident but I'll spell it out for you. Here goes:
And... you were wrong, "they" do not call that constructed epoch, spanning roughly 500 to 1500 AD the Dark Ages at all, and the Dark Ages aren't called that because the Church was present as you implied with your placemnt of that comment. Oh, just so we're on the same page, are "they" the academic community, Hollywood, or who? Or was that just another attempt at a snappy one liner to replace doing your homework?

PS:
Good thread everybody. Y'know, a good read about the inquisition in Italy is "Night Battles". Covers the interaction between secular gov't and Church, lotsa translations of original court documents, etc.

The lolpope.That infallibility thing only applies to matters of the church and doctrine when the pope speaks ex cathedra with the authority of the church as such. And then what he says does not only reflect his personal opinions but what has been discussed and thoroughly reviewed within the church. This infallibility thing has mainly been meant to keep the government of a country from trying to determine the doctrine of the catholic church in the respective country.

Szanth,
Anybody who doesn't think five droughts in a row or the tripling or halving of a nations population in a single generation won't have consequences for history (which may or may not come as actions by individual leaders) needs to read more.

And what is this referencing?

As for the "And?" comment about the Dark Ages, I thought my point was self evident but I'll spell it out for you. Here goes:
And... you were wrong, "they" do not call that constructed epoch, spanning roughly 500 to 1500 AD the Dark Ages at all, and the Dark Ages aren't called that because the Church was present as you implied with your placemnt of that comment. Oh, just so we're on the same page, are "they" the academic community, Hollywood, or who? Or was that just another attempt at a snappy one liner to replace doing your homework?

"They", as in, history books. I know the whole medieval time period isn't the Dark Ages, and it's fairly unnecessary for you to point that out. Fact remains, the church was doing badly during that time. It had absolute power over most of Europe, and was pretty much absolutely corrupt. But don't let that bother you - it's not like it's the same church as it was back then. Y'know. Because the church changes so often.

.

Typing [b] is much quicker than typing [ quote]. When I'm quoting multiple people, I use the quote tags, but for just one person I reply using bold type.
it may be quicker, but it makes it difficult for people to reply in kind.

Fine, two can play at that game :p


Originally Posted by Szanth


Not to say that a war is a moral dilemma or ever influenced by theological forces, right?

I already said that the Church never made an official teaching on it, the Pope in entitled to personal opinions too, and as long as he didn't use the Magisterium he could say the sky is green and it wouldn't matter. Also, theology is the study of God, so unless God declared war, than war doesn't have theological aspects, although you are correct in saying it can be a moral dilema.


He's always a man, regardless.

That's obvious, however when people have different roles, their actions can be from a certain aspect, such as a doctor giving advice to a friend, not as a friend, but as a licensed doctor.

Like, from a book. Say, a 2000 year old book with mistranslations.

I'm not arguing about the Bible, go find Protestants if you want to do that, but considering the Pope doesn't personally translate the Bible, that quip doesn't really mean anything.

Again, I'd say you're wrong. He's still just a man, regardless of what he's using, what he's saying, what he's doing. He's always just a man. Morality is entirely subjective, so he can never be "wrong" or "right" from any general moral standpoint - you'd have to pick a specific morality and gauge him based on that. Say, a morality that would encourage people in a country ravaged by AIDS to NOT use protection while having sex. By that morality, he's a good person. However, that's not my morality, and I look down upon that morality with everything I have. To me, the pope is a bad person.

Subjective is an interesting word, one that a person can abuse very easily. Personally, I believe that things can change in certain situations, but there are things that are always wrong and things that are always right. Likewise, an action in the exact same situation is the same. One can have their own opinion on a matter if they wish, but that does not make it correct or not.

That infallibility thing only applies to matters of the church and doctrine when the pope speaks ex cathedra with the authority of the church as such. And then what he says does not only reflect his personal opinions but what has been discussed and thoroughly reviewed within the church. This infallibility thing has mainly been meant to keep the government of a country from trying to determine the doctrine of the catholic church in the respective country.

So it's bullshit. Right, that's what I said.

So it's bullshit. Right, that's what I said.

How do you get that from his statement?

it may be quicker, but it makes it difficult for people to reply in kind.

Copypasta.

Fine, two can play at that game :p

I already said that the Church never made an official teaching on it, the Pope in entitled to personal opinions too, and as long as he didn't use the Magisterium he could say the sky is green and it wouldn't matter. Also, theology is the study of God, so unless God declared war, than war doesn't have theological aspects, although you are correct in saying it can be a moral dilema.

Morally challenging, when your morals are given by god? Sounds like a theological problem to me.

That's obvious, however when people have different roles, their actions can be from a certain aspect, such as a doctor giving advice to a friend, not as a friend, but as a licensed doctor.

Well let's use your example. A doctor tells a friend, as a friend, that he recommends his friend get an operation. He then tells his friend, as a doctor, to not get it, because his friend could die (as opposed to live in suffering). What this tells us is that this doctor is a schizo, and should've been speaking as a friend with medical experience instead of confusing his friend all to hell with the doublespeak he's been giving him.

Basically what this translates to in terms of the pope is that just because he puts on a funny hat doesn't mean he knows more or less or is able to say more or less than he would've normally, as a person. He's always a person, he's also always the pope. I know it's just more convenient to say "He's just a person when he's taking a shit - the pope doesn't take shits." but in reality, the pope's giving birth to Oprah's arm.

I think this stems from the trinity line of thought. I've never understood this. If it's one person, it's one person - if it's two people, it's two people. You can't have it both ways.

So if Benedict says some racist-ass bullshit about "zeh fuckin kikes", then it makes the pope look bad as well, because they're the same person regardless of if he wears the hat.


Subjective is an interesting word, one that a person can abuse very easily. Personally, I believe that things can change in certain situations, but there are things that are always wrong and things that are always right. Likewise, an action in the exact same situation is the same. One can have their own opinion on a matter if they wish, but that does not make it correct or not.

Right, you believe certain things are always wrong and right regardless, and I believe you're wrong. We just have two different sets of moral and intellectual wirings, so we operate differently on a fundamental level. We will NOT agree on this subject, or many others.

I was wondering what you, the ever-so-intelligent posters here, think about Roman Catholicism, the first Christian Church? What are your thoughts on the Pope, the Saints, other denominations?

Please remain respectful.

I am a Roman Catholic and believe that the fullness of the Truth of Christ is found in Mother Church, but that most other Christian sects also have been given grace by God. Pax

As a Lutheran, the churches are divided theologically on the idea of salvation by faith or works. How do Catholics interpret this:

Ephesians 2:8-10
***
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
***

To me, this passage points out that salvation is by grace alone, but that works aren't removed from Christian life- they are just a reaction, a response.

Martin Luther used a natural analogy. You cannot 'see' the wind, but you can see a tree swayed by the wind. In the same way, you cannot 'see' grace or faith, but you can see its results: good deeds. But you wouldn't say that the trees had caused the wind.

This point is brought up again in James.

James 2:14-18
***
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
***

James makes the point that since good deeds are the product of faith, they can be used as evidence of faith. They contribute nothing to salvation itself, however. Luther summarized this saying, "We are saved by faith alone, but a saving faith is never alone." The Catholic teaching is putting the cart before the horse.

One other main division between Protestants and Catholics is the authority of the Pope. Luther said it best at the Diet of Worms.

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason —I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other— my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me. Amen."

Random questions I have for Catholics:
1. Does everyone go to Purgatory, or just some people?
2. Whatever happened to Limbo?
3. Why do everything in Latin? Does that happen anymore? Is it switching back to Latin?
4. Do you feel that having a too ritualized setting sometimes inhibits the Gospel message?

How do you get that from his statement?

Well let's look at it.

That infallibility thing only applies to matters of the church and doctrine when the pope speaks ex cathedra with the authority of the church as such.

Translation: "He's infallable, but only after speaking two words of latin. That makes all the difference." Essentially - bullshit.

And then what he says does not only reflect his personal opinions but what has been discussed and thoroughly reviewed within the church.

Translation: "He doesn't just get the divine message of infallability from god, he has to get it from talking to other fallable humans. One fallable human + lots of other fallable human = infallable human." Essentially - bullshit.

This infallibility thing has mainly been meant to keep the government of a country from trying to determine the doctrine of the catholic church in the respective country.

Translation: "All bullshit aside, it's a political maneuver."

Quick question...how is the church continuing to grow, when less and less young men are going into the priesthood, they are closing convents

In developed countries fewer and fewer men are joinging the priesthood, however, in South and Central American and in Asia, the Church continues to grow, and has an overabundance of priests, which explains why many priests in the US are from Asia.



...while there may be believers, the religion will die out, if there are no ordained persons to preach.

This is true, but the Catholic Church has no shortage of ordained persons especially among the Deacons. My church in Houston has 3 priests, 1 from Asia, and 42 Deacons. Except fo Confession, the Deacons perform all the same ceremonies as the priests.

if that is not the current trend, forgive me.

You are forgiven.

It is something my mother in law and I discussed when they were building the rectory for her church. They built it as a 4 bedroom home, looking forward to a time when the person "in charge" of the church would be a lay person, such as a deacon, rather than a priest. Why would they do that, if plenty of young men were entering the priesthood?

Obviously, your mother-in-law's Church does not have an Asian or Hispanic priest at this time.

Random questions I have for Catholics:
1. Does everyone go to Purgatory, or just some people?

Only some people, that is one of the main reasons for Annointing of the Sick. Catholics believe that in addition to the eternal punishment sins can cause, there is also temporal punishment due to sin that is left after Confession. The only ways for temporal punishment to be removed are Perfect Contrition, Baptism, Eucharist, Annointing of the Sick, or a plenary indulgence (which does not forgive you of sins or hive permission to commit sins, but only removes temporal punishment due to already forgiven sins contrary to what many believe.) If one is free from the temporal punishment due to sin, then they go straight to heaven.

2. Whatever happened to Limbo?

Limbo was never an official Church teaching, but was a hypothesis of some theologians. The Church now says that limbo never existed, and was an incorrect idea. Alternately, some call limbo the place where the good people who lived before the time of Christ went after their death until he opened the Gates of Heaven. People who might have been in this limbo include Moses, Abraham, and others from the Old Testament. This is also just a hypothesis and not an actual Church teaching.

3. Why do everything in Latin? Does that happen anymore? Is it switching back to Latin?

We no longer use Latin in most masses, instead mass is said in the vernacular or language of the area. Latin masses are held only by permission of the bishop for some people who prefer them. Latin mass is also said in the Vatican as Latin is its official language. I believe it is said the way current masses are said in English though, just with a translation of words as opposed to the old Tridentine Mass that had been said from the Middle-Ages until Vatican II.

Latin was used before because it unified us, you could go to Mass anywhere in the world and fit right in. Priests could also say Mass anywhere in the world, because it was always the same, so countries with extra priests could send some to countries with less priests. The readings and homily have been said in the native language for quite some time even before Vatican II, because people couldn't understand them. The rest of the Mass was standardized so that most people understood what was going on because they could simply memorize it.

4. Do you feel that having a too ritualized setting sometimes inhibits the Gospel message?

Nope, not at all



I hope that answers your questions sufficiently.

I was wondering what you, the ever-so-intelligent posters here, think about Roman Catholicism, the first Christian Church? What are your thoughts on the Pope, the Saints, other denominations?



It wasn't the first church. the original christian doctrine has been lost to corruption by mankind. The RC church is a main cause of that corruption, by teaching us to worship Prophet Isa(AS), instead of Allah only. Allah cannot have a partner, and why would he need to have a son?

The pope is a phoney, the saints should not be idolized as they are in the church, and the other denominations are just as corrupt.

<snip>

Pax

I don't believe in Latin.

I hope that answers your questions sufficiently.

You know that quoting style feels good! =)

Originally Posted by UB
That infallibility thing only applies to matters of the church and doctrine when the pope speaks ex cathedra with the authority of the church as such.

Translation: "He's infallable, but only after speaking two words of latin. That makes all the difference." Essentially - bullshit.

And then what he says does not only reflect his personal opinions but what has been discussed and thoroughly reviewed within the church.

Translation: "He doesn't just get the divine message of infallability from god, he has to get it from talking to other fallable humans. One fallable human + lots of other fallable human = infallable human." Essentially - bullshit.

1. That doesn't mean he has to say two words of Latin :p It means he has to be seated on his cathedra (throne) which basically is a symbol of it being an official statement.

2. Technically the Pope is not required to consult other people, but he generally does.

"We're right so screw reality!"

No, there is faith, and then there is public opinion. The Catholic Church does not have to bow to public opion, only its faith, and the faith of its followers. If the Church chooses to have faith that God does not condone homosexuality, then it doesn't have to. If it chooses to argue that having sex with someone you are not married to is adultry, because that person could one day be someone elses spouse, then it has the right to. That is the point.

Reality is not an issue. Faith is.

If you need Jesus to say something or you won't believe it, I agree that you should find another Church.

This is true.

I believe that the Pope is infallible on moral and theological teachings, regardless of if anyone taught the same things before.

As a Catholic, I cannot agree you statement. The Pope is human, and therefore he cannot be infallable on any aspect. No human is perfect, if we were there would be no need for faith of any sort. But most of us believe that their must be something greater than us. There must be some greater power for us to strive to reach. Hence, the importance of God within our society.

To be honest, I would believe the Pope over anything short of God, and that includes myriads of angels trying to convince me otherwise.

Ok, I suppose this could be mostly true, although, I tend to take a slightly different view on the various issues of the Church. When the Pope makes and edict on some aspect of the Bible, I rarely believe everything he says. I believe the Bible, and religion on its own is open for interpretation of the reader and is ultimately responsible for providing a basis for level-headed rational thought, and morals. That said, the Pope is the leader, much like a leader of any government, that chooses the direction our faith should go as it expands, and manages the political climate, and situations around it.

1. That doesn't mean he has to say two words of Latin :p It means he has to be seated on his cathedra (throne) which basically is a symbol of it being an official statement.

Beauracracy and faith should never mix in the first place.

2. Technically the Pope is not required to consult other people, but he generally does.

*shrugs* He's still a fallable human being, regardless.

No, there is faith, and then there is public opinion. The Catholic Church does not have to bow to public opion, only its faith, and the faith of its followers. If the Church chooses to have faith that God does not condone homosexuality, then it doesn't have to. If it chooses to argue that having sex with someone you are not married to is adultry, because that person could one day be someone elses spouse, then it has the right to. That is the point.

Reality is not an issue. Faith is.

Funny - for me, it's the exact opposite.

I've just remembered another reason why I don't like the RC Church: the new Pope recently suggested that Naturalistic Evolution isn't an adequate explanation for the variety of living creatures and plants which we see.

I hate to say this, because I do believe in evolution; however, he is partially right on that. As the Theory of Evolution stands today, it is very hard to believe that every living creature with all its extremely specific adaptation, could have developed on Earth in just a few million years.

Now, if you believe, as some do, that the Earth is only 6 or 7 thousand years, then evolution makes absolutely no sense what so ever because adaptation takes far longer than a few thousand years, unless you have a divine presense controlling it.

I hate to say this, because I do believe in evolution; however, he is partially right on that. As the Theory of Evolution stands today, it is very hard to believe that every living creature with all its extremely specific adaptation, could have developed on Earth in just a few million years.

Now, if you believe, as some do, that the Earth is only 6 or 7 thousand years, then evolution makes absolutely no sense what so ever because adaptation takes far longer than a few thousand years, unless you have a divine presense controlling it.

Try BILLIONS of years. So the divine thing is pretty much moot.

As a Catholic, I cannot agree you statement. The Pope is human, and therefore he cannot be infallable on any aspect. No human is perfect, if we were there would be no need for faith of any sort. But most of us believe that their must be something greater than us. There must be some greater power for us to strive to reach. Hence, the importance of God within our society.





Catechism of the Catholic Church : 891

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium."

Later in the same Article:

"This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

Read up a bit in the Canon Law and the Catechism and you will find that most, if not all of what I have posted here is approved by the Church. I do not write my opinion and claim it to be the teachings of the Church without evidence, I just don't show all the quotes because it takes time, but if you require them, I can supply them.

They're counting a lot of people who are nominally catholics but in reality reject the Church's Doctrine massively. Hell, they try to boast 20 milion believers here in Canada, and most people, even if religious, feel like the Church is completely disconnected from their reality. There's a reason the western churches are empty. So even though they say 2 billion catholics... *shrugs* Real numbers are less than this. 2 billion Christians, maybe, but not 2 billion practising Catholics.

Coming from a church of 6500 active members, where there is standing room only in all 15 of our weekend masses, I have a hard time believing that all western churches are empty.

Ok, I do know of one Church that is relatively empty, but it has a good reason. Immaculate Conception in Port Arthur, Tx, is relatively empty, but its priest, though well intentioned, has a tendency to be very long winded, and pauses often. His stories seldom have anything to do with the Readings and when they do it takes the entire homily to realize that and sometimes you end of leaving Church before you make the connection he intended.

But other Churches I attend are usually alway packed, and not just on holidays either.

Coming from a church of 6500 active members, where there is standing room only in all 15 of our weekend masses, I have a hard time believing that all western churches are empty.

Ok, I do know of one church that is relatively empty, but it has a good reason. Immaculate Conception in Port Arthur, Tx, is relatively empty, but its priest, though well intentioned, has a tendency to be very long winded, and pauses often. His stories seldom have anything to do with the Readings and when they do it takes the entire homily to realize that and sometimes you end of leaving Church before you make the connection he intended.

But other Churches I attend are usually alway packed, and not just on holidays either.

Yeah, our Church generally has about 1,000 of our 2,000 something members in a week. I'd say probably only around 1,700 or 1,800 are active, but there are still many more active members than inactive ones.

Then there are the Hispanics, almost none of whom are counted by the Church, because they do not keep records because they are not legal residents.

Coming from a church of 6500 active members, where there is standing room only in all 15 of our weekend masses, I have a hard time believing that all western churches are empty.

Ok, I do know of one Church that is relatively empty, but it has a good reason. Immaculate Conception in Port Arthur, Tx, is relatively empty, but its priest, though well intentioned, has a tendency to be very long winded, and pauses often. His stories seldom have anything to do with the Readings and when they do it takes the entire homily to realize that and sometimes you end of leaving Church before you make the connection he intended.

But other Churches I attend are usually alway packed, and not just on holidays either.

Interesting. The only time I've ever known any church to be full was on christmas. And then it was usually full of people discussing their neighbours in whispers. But then again, I haven't been inside a church in well over 4 years now, so things might have changed. *shrugs*

The priests do NOT recommend abstinence from sex. They recommend (hell, they practically COMMAND) women to submit to sex.

OK, I have no idea where you get this from, but after having spent 30 odd years as a Catholic, and attending countless religion classes, this is news to me.

They further insist that said women do nothing to protect themselves.

Again, this is not a total truth either. The Church argues, and has been arguing since Pope John Paul, that abstinence is the only true way to prevent AIDS and HIV, and is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Of course, the fact that the Catholic Church regards women as subhumans is nothing new.

Again, after 30 odd years, this is news to me. Heck, I was certain that the Church preaches to revere women, it holds Mary in high regard and I know many women that would utterly disagree with you on this. They are called nuns, and tend to perform good work in the name of the Church.

Interesting. The only time I've ever known any church to be full was on christmas. And then it was usually full of people discussing their neighbours in whispers. But then again, I haven't been inside a church in well over 4 years now, so things might have changed. *shrugs*

The funny thing is that the most crowded Mass at our church every year is the 4:30am Feast of Our Lady of Guadeloupe Mass. There is standing room only, in a Church that was built only two years ago, and expected to be larger than we would need in the next 20.

OK, I have no idea where you get this from, but after having spent 30 odd years as a Catholic, and attending countless religion classes, this is news to me.





That's what I was trying to say.

Um sorry buddy, that distiction belongs to Orthodox Christianity.. LOSER

:p


No that is not true. Christianity found its church in Rome when Emperor Constintine declared Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire back in 312, I think.

Sometime around there Peter was declared to be the first Bishop of Rome, and eventually was declared to be the first Pope. It was around this time that the Othodox Church broke off from the Catholic Church.

OK, I have no idea where you get this from, but after having spent 30 odd years as a Catholic, and attending countless religion classes, this is news to me.

Really? Our RE teacher told us that as far as sins are concerned, masturbation is regarded as worse than rape by the church. A Dominican priest, in case you're wondering.


Again, this is not a total truth either. The Church argues, and has been arguing since Pope John Paul, that abstinence is the only true way to prevent AIDS and HIV, and is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

That's about the same logic as saying that the best way to stop global warming is to ban all cars and force people to walk wherever they want to go... it's true, but couldn't possibly be any more impracticable.


Again, after 30 odd years, this is news to me. Heck, I was certain that the Church preaches to revere women, it holds Mary in high regard and I know many women that would utterly disagree with you on this. They are called nuns, and tend to perform good work in the name of the Church.

I've known a couple of these in my time leaving the order (and the church) because they felt like second-class humans in the way the male clergy treated them. *shrugs*

Really? Our RE teacher told us that as far as sins are concerned, masturbation is regarded as worse than rape by the church. A Dominican priest, in case you're wondering.

That is crazy, masturbation and rape are equally sinful as far as it effects oneself possibly, but the fact that rape also harms someone else makes it worse. Either your remembrance of the Domincan's teachings are incorrect, or he individually was incorrect.

That's about the same logic as saying that the best way to stop global warming is to ban all cars and force people to walk wherever they want to go... it's true, but couldn't possibly be any more impracticable.

It shouldn't be that hard. "Abstain from sex or die," seems like an obvious choice. After all most priests and religious do it, so why can't other people?

I've known a couple of these in my time leaving the order (and the church) because they felt like second-class humans in the way the male clergy treated them. *shrugs*

You were a nun or a priest? Your statement leaving the order is too vague. Anyway, the only complaint I have ever heard against the Church for being sexist is its refusal to allow women priests, which is not based off of sexism but other reasons.

...

That is crazy, masturbation and rape are equally sinful as far as it effects oneself possibly, but the fact that rape also harms someone else makes it worse. Either your remembrance of the Domincan's teachings are incorrect, or he individually was incorrect.




Erm...wait why is masturbation sinful?

It shouldn't be that hard. "Abstain from sex or die," seems like an obvious choice. After all most priests and religious do it, so why can't other people?...

Right, because we've only got millions of sexual years of evolution telling us to screw and propogate and make babies, and the average male thinks about sex every five seconds - shouldn't be a problem at all, no. It's obviously just the people's fault, as opposed to the priest giving shitty advice.

That is crazy, masturbation and rape are equally sinful as far as it effects oneself possibly, but the fact that rape also harms someone else makes it worse. Either your remembrance of the Domincan's teachings are incorrect, or he individually was incorrect.




Erm...wait why is masturbation sinful?

Because the body god has given to you is sinful. Don't ask why he gave it to you that way, because you'll be lectured about original sin and Eve and other shit that doesn't make sense.

That is crazy, masturbation and rape are equally sinful as far as it effects oneself possibly, but the fact that rape also harms someone else makes it worse. Either your remembrance of the Domincan's teachings are incorrect, or he individually was incorrect.




Erm...wait why is masturbation sinful?

I said possibly, all I meant was that it can't possibly be more sinful, not trying to say specifically how sinful it was.

I said possibly, all I meant was that it can't possibly be more sinful, not trying to say specifically how sinful it was.

Ok.

Well what's the Catholic Church's official stance on it, and why? (if you know, and if you don't, no big deal.)

That is crazy, masturbation and rape are equally sinful as far as it effects oneself possibly, but the fact that rape also harms someone else makes it worse. Either your remembrance of the Domincan's teachings are incorrect, or he individually was incorrect.

His reasoning was that any sexual act should server reproduction. Masturbation will never accomplish that, rape might. Therefore, masturbation was worse than rape.
I'm not going to dig for quotes or sources on that, as personally I really don't care what the church says. I've experienced enough of its organised cruelty to give anybody associated with that club a wide, wide berth indeed.


It shouldn't be that hard. "Abstain from sex or die," seems like an obvious choice. After all most priests and religious do it, so why can't other people?

Most Yanomami never use a car, they walk. So why can't the rest of the world?

Cause it's pointless. We have cars, and we have condoms. The church doesn't teach to walk so you'll never die in a car crash, does it? Learn to drive, learn how to use protection. It's not that hard.
Sex is good. Sex is healthy. Sex is something that should be enjoyed.


You were a nun or a priest? Your statement leaving the order is too vague. Anyway, the only complaint I have ever heard against the Church for being sexist is its refusal to allow women priests, which is not based off of sexism but other reasons.
...

Funny you should mention... not even that priest I talked about could give us any sensible reason why women aren't allowed apart from "They're women".
No, I was no nun. I've got an aunt who was one, and I spent my entire youth in a Catholic convent school. I got to know 8 nuns who joined the convent in that time, and 6 of them left by now.

Right, because we've only got millions of sexual years of evolution telling us to screw and propogate and make babies, and the average male thinks about sex every five seconds - shouldn't be a problem at all, no. It's obviously just the people's fault, as opposed to the priest giving shitty advice.

I notice you didn't bother to mention that if priests and religious can abstain from sex regardless of your argument. I agree that it would be very difficult, but since clergy and religious do it, it must be possible. Maybe they're just different from average people? No, that's crazy, believing in God and serving Him can't actually make you a better person or more able to do His will, I mean come on! :p

I was wondering what you, the ever-so-intelligent posters here, think about Roman Catholicism, the first Christian Church? What are your thoughts on the Pope, the Saints, other denominations?

Please remain respectful.

I am a Roman Catholic and believe that the fullness of the Truth of Christ is found in Mother Church, but that most other Christian sects also have been given grace by God. PaxI think the best thing I can say about Catholicism is that it is one of the few denominations indigenous traditions could be successfully blended into. So some of us could 'pretend' to be Catholic, but still retain our traditions. Unfortunately, too many of us aren't pretending anymore...but I'll save that rant for another day, because I can promise you, nothing else I have to say on Catholicism would be respectful.

I notice you didn't bother to mention that if priests and religious can abstain from sex regardless of your argument. I agree that it would be very difficult, but since clergy and religious do it, it must be possible. Maybe they're just different from average people? No, that's crazy, believing in God and serving Him can't actually make you a better person or more able to do His will, I mean come on! :p

You do remind me of Father Ted there ... "Oh, come on, there's 3 million Catholic priests. And maybe 10% of them abuse little boys, that's still only 300 000..."

I notice you didn't bother to mention that if priests and religious can abstain from sex regardless of your argument. I agree that it would be very difficult, but since clergy and religious do it, it must be possible. Maybe they're just different from average people? No, that's crazy, believing in God and serving Him can't actually make you a better person or more able to do His will, I mean come on! :p

I felt pity on you. The insult was too easy.





Many priests don't abstain. Just leave it at that.

It's no fun having your mouth washed out with Pope-on-a-Rope soap :(

I always thought the Catholic church was first, then people got tired of it and split off into the several different protestant churches that we see today. They just didn't care for all of the ceremonial stuff and felt it wasn't neccessary.

Right, because we've only got millions of sexual years of evolution telling us to screw and propogate and make babies, and the average male thinks about sex every five seconds - shouldn't be a problem at all, no. It's obviously just the people's fault, as opposed to the priest giving shitty advice.

That's irresponsible. People are big enough to be able to deal with sexual urges. Don't say that it's too great of an expectation- God demands perfection.

I always thought the Catholic church was first, then people got tired of it and split off into the several different protestant churches that we see today. They just didn't care for all of the ceremonial stuff and felt it wasn't neccessary.

Or the corruption. Y'know. That played a small part in it.

Funny you should mention... not even that priest I talked about could give us any sensible reason why women aren't allowed apart from "They're women".
No, I was no nun. I've got an aunt who was one, and I spent my entire youth in a Catholic convent school. I got to know 8 nuns who joined the convent in that time, and 6 of them left by now.

Catechism of the Catholic Church : 1577

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

Catechism of the Catholic Church : 1578

"No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."

Erm...wait why is masturbation sinful?Because it's a wasted life (theoretically). This comes out of the OT where, according to some Jewish interpretations, not having children could even be viewed as murder.

You do remind me of Father Ted there ... "Oh, come on, there's 3 million Catholic priests. And maybe 10% of them abuse little boys, that's still only 300 000..."

The number is below 1% which is why I said most in my original post. The number of people able to abstain from sex would be much greater among the clergy even if it was 10% so that still suggests that there's either something different about them, or that other people just don't even try.

Edit: Taken as a percentage, the number of priests that abuse children is smaller than many other groups percentage of abusing children, it is just brought up more to discredit the Church, but if you check crime report listings (I believe they are available online after a certain amount of time but I don't remember the website.) you will find that the percentage of Protestant ministers who abuse children is actually greater than the percentage of Catholic priests that do, which is odd because they don't even have to abstain from sex considering many of them are married.

Catechism of the Catholic Church : 1577

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

Catechism of the Catholic Church : 1578

"No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."

Right but that's just another way of saying "No, because they're women."

Right but that's just another way of saying "No, because they're women."

Of course it is, but he asked for the reason we don't let women become priests. That is the reason why women aren't allowed to become priests, but you could always simplify it to "because they're women" that's like when your parents used to tell you "No, because I said so." Generally if they were good parents they had other reasons, but sometimes the simplest one works.

Right but that's just another way of saying "No, because they're women."

No. It's saying "Jesus said so."
I don't agree with it, but it's hard not to glean from that.

Erm...wait why is masturbation sinful?
because every sperm is sacred?

I was told by a catholic on here once that any sex that wasn't pro-creative was a sin.....because sex is for making babies. They were also disturbed that I lust after my husband.

because every sperm is sacred?

I was told by a catholic on here once that any sex that wasn't pro-creative was a sin.....because sex is for making babies. They were also disturbed that I lust after my husband.

Well that's silly. That reminds me of that Washington State "Make babies or be annulled" legislation.

I was told by a catholic on here once that any sex that wasn't pro-creative was a sin.....because sex is for making babies. They were also disturbed that I lust after my husband.

The second part is just strange, there is no reason a husband and wife shouldn't be able to enjoy their sexual relations.

I misread it, nevermind, they had the general idea, but not completely on the first part.

Catechism of the Catholic Church : 1577

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

Catechism of the Catholic Church : 1578

"No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."

*lol In true biblical tradition, isn't it?
It's right because the book says it is. And the book is right because the book says so.

The number is below 1% which is why I said most in my original post. The number of people able to abstain from sex would be much greater among the clergy even if it was 10% so that still suggests that there's either something different about them, or that other people just don't even try.

Edit: Taken as a percentage, the number of priests that abuse children is smaller than many other groups percentage of abusing children, it is just brought up more to discredit the Church, but if you check crime report listings (I believe they are available online after a certain amount of time but I don't remember the website.) you will find that the percentage of Protestant ministers who abuse children is actually greater than the percentage of Catholic priests that do, which is odd because they don't even have to abstain from sex considering many of them are married.

Glad to see you've got the same aptitude for humour I remember so well from my school days :p

Right but that's just another way of saying "No, because they're women."

This could be true, but it also says that Jesus and his apostles chose men, therefore the college of bishops, and priests they are united with will be bound by the choice made by the Lord himself. Since the Lord, through is son chose men, so shall the college of bishops and the priesthood.

The number is below 1% which is why I said most in my original post. The number of people able to abstain from sex would be much greater among the clergy even if it was 10% so that still suggests that there's either something different about them, or that other people just don't even try.

Edit: Taken as a percentage, the number of priests that abuse children is smaller than many other groups percentage of abusing children, it is just brought up more to discredit the Church, but if you check crime report listings (I believe they are available online after a certain amount of time but I don't remember the website.) you will find that the percentage of Protestant ministers who abuse children is actually greater than the percentage of Catholic priests that do, which is odd because they don't even have to abstain from sex considering many of them are married.

It's not so much the number of priests that molested children that gets people (though it does get people) but how it was handled by the catholic church - people's lives were fucked up permenantly, and many times they just switched the priest to a different place where they didn't know he was a pedophile, and more children were victimized. The current pope himself had a hand in such dealings.

Also, keep in mind that many rape victmis do not report the crime. What makes you think it's different for children molested by people they trust? I bet not even the entirety of all the reported cases are even half the total crimes committed.

This could be true, but it also says that Jesus and his apostles chose men, therefore the college of bishops, and priests they are united with will be bound by the choice made by the Lord himself. Since the Lord, through is son chose men, so shall the college of bishops and the priesthood.

Untrue. Mary was an apostle, the church simply doesn't recognize her as such. Another example of the church degrading women.

*lol In true biblical tradition, isn't it?
It's right because the book says it is. And the book is right because the book says so.

Actually, the book is correct because the Pope says its correct, and the Pope is correct because the book says he is, you left out the Pope, which is the more important part of this circle.

No. It's saying "Jesus said so."
I don't agree with it, but it's hard not to glean from that.

Well, the interesting thing is that Jesus never specified any apostles. When the Holy Ghost gave them all the order and ability to spread Jesus' teachings, it gave Mary and Mary Magdalene the exact same role as any of the male followers present.

Early church history is a real fun read for anybody convinced that all humans should be regarded as equal. ;)

The second part is just strange, there is no reason a husband and wife shouldn't be able to enjoy their sexual relations.

I misread it, nevermind, they had the general idea, but not completely on the first part.

I was told that you can enjoy sex, but you shouldn't think about it. I was also told that I was sinning by using birth control. Also, I was sinning when I was.....nevermind, that's graphic, let's just say it doesn't make babies.

Also, keep in mind that many rape victmis do not report the crime. What makes you think it's different for children molested by people they trust? I bet not even the entirety of all the reported cases are even half the total crimes committed.

That could be the case for all rape cases, so it doesn't really add to the argument in favor of either side, except for maybe dads who rape their daughters.

Actually, the book is correct because the Pope says its correct, and the Pope is correct because the book says he is, you left out the Pope, which is the more important part of this circle.

Nope. Cause that book was recognised as correct by the church centuries before they came up with the brilliant idea of declaring the pope infallible.

Well, the interesting thing is that Jesus never specified any apostles. When the Holy Ghost gave them all the order and ability to spread Jesus' teachings, it gave Mary and Mary Magdalene the exact same role as any of the male followers present.

Early church history is a real fun read for anybody convinced that all humans should be regarded as equal. ;)

The Holy Spirit never descended upon the women, only upon the Twelve. They may have been present, but they didn't get cool little fireballs floating above their heads.

Edit: And yes, all people should be regarded as equal, women are regarded as equal by the Church, they just can't become priests, not because they are less equal, but because Jesus chose it that way.

No. It's saying "Jesus said so."
I don't agree with it, but it's hard not to glean from that.

Again, Jesus said no such thing. Biblical historians are now suggesting that not only was Mary NOT a prostitute, but she was an apostle - and quite possibly Jesus' favorite one, at that. She was "the one that got it". She was his witness, his eyes, his evidence. She knew the message better than anyone else, and for that he felt closer to her than the other apostles.

That could be the case for all rape cases, so it doesn't really add to the argument in favor of either side, except for maybe dads who rape their daughters.

Uh, no. Untrue. If the percentage of priests who've molested and/or raped a child is really something like 20%, it makes a big difference to the argument.

Nope. Cause that book was recognised as correct by the church centuries before they came up with the brilliant idea of declaring the pope infallible.

Not to mention that it's still circular reasoning. You've just added a new link in the chain.

Nope. Cause that book was recognised as correct by the church centuries before they came up with the brilliant idea of declaring the pope infallible.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church was written after the Second Vatican Council, and the Pope has been considered to be infallible atleast since the Great Schism.

The Holy Spirit never descended upon the women, only upon the Twelve. They may have been present, but they didn't get cool little fireballs floating above their heads.

Edit: And yes, all people should be regarded as equal, women are regarded as equal by the Church, they just can't become priests, not because they are less equal, but because Jesus chose it that way.

You're repeating yourself. The church chooses to see it as that way because they'd prefer not to have high-ranking females. Therefore, they do not treat people equally, regardless of the reason for it.

Uh, no. Untrue. If the percentage of priests who've molested and/or raped a child is really something like 20%, it makes a big difference to the argument.

Only if the percentage of people overall who rape children doesn't go up to more than 20%. Which I very seriously doubt either of these to be correct.

Again, Jesus said no such thing. Biblical historians are now suggesting that not only was Mary NOT a prostitute, but she was an apostle - and quite possibly Jesus' favorite one, at that. She was "the one that got it". She was his witness, his eyes, his evidence. She knew the message better than anyone else, and for that he felt closer to her than the other apostles.

I'm not qualified on the subject, and can't really comment. It would make some sense for the son of god to treat both genders equally, given that applying a gender to a transcendent deity is a tad silly.
However, I'm a former Hindu, and my knowledge of the Catholic faith (and Christianity in general) is generally just expansion of the talking points of The Argument, rather than in depth knowledge.

...which reminds me. I need to pick up a copy of the Upanishads sometime next week.

Only if the percentage of people overall who rape children doesn't go up to more than 20%. Which I very seriously doubt either of these to be correct.

How would that make a difference at all? "Twice of normal people are going out and murdering people, so it's not so bad that twice of us are going out and murdering people" is not a reasonable argument.

You're repeating yourself. The church chooses to see it as that way because they'd prefer not to have high-ranking females. Therefore, they do not treat people equally, regardless of the reason for it.

It is not possible for them to become priests, it is not the Church's choice, they believe that Holy Orders would not be valid for a woman, so they'd rather risk annoying some women then having a false priest who effects thousands of other people.

How would that make a difference at all? "Twice of normal people are going out and murdering people, so it's not so bad that twice of us are going out and murdering people" is not a reasonable argument.

My argument isn't that all priests are good, several times in this thread I have mentioned that priests can be wrong, incorrect, or personally immoral. My argument is that priests are blamed more than others for doing the exact same thing. That as a group priests aren't worse than anyone else, and are in fact better in a moral sense than most groups of people.

The Holy Spirit never descended upon the women, only upon the Twelve. They may have been present, but they didn't get cool little fireballs floating above their heads.

Edit: And yes, all people should be regarded as equal, women are regarded as equal by the Church, they just can't become priests, not because they are less equal, but because Jesus chose it that way.

Really?
The bible begs to differ, it seems :

The Great Pentecost: In Acts 2:
This one happened to the Apostles, devoted to prayer, together with some women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, and to a total of 120 believers, brothers of Jesus, that at that time were not called Christians, but brothers or disciples (Act.1:13-15).
The 120 brothers were filled with the Holy Spirit, with tongues of fire resting upon them, they spoke in different tongues, and with so much joy that they looked drunk (Act.2:1-15). Source (http://www.religion-cults.com/spirit/pentecost.htm)

Really?
The bible begs to differ, it seems :

The Great Pentecost: In Acts 2:
This one happened to the Apostles, devoted to prayer, together with some women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, and to a total of 120 believers, brothers of Jesus, that at that time were not called Christians, but brothers or disciples (Act.1:13-15).
The 120 brothers were filled with the Holy Spirit, with tongues of fire resting upon them, they spoke in different tongues, and with so much joy that they looked drunk (Act.2:1-15). Source (http://www.religion-cults.com/spirit/pentecost.htm)

Very interesting, I withdraw the former argument.

Very interesting, I withdraw the former argument.

*hands you a cookie* Knowing when to retract an argument is something many people on this forum need to learn.

Very interesting, I withdraw the former argument.

*bows
Thank you. :)

Of course it is, but he asked for the reason we don't let women become priests. That is the reason why women aren't allowed to become priests, but you could always simplify it to "because they're women" that's like when your parents used to tell you "No, because I said so." Generally if they were good parents they had other reasons, but sometimes the simplest one works.


I never ever tell my kids "because I said so" that basically means you can't think of a good reason. If I can't think of a good reason, I don't tell them not to do something. I never accepted it when my parents told me "because I said so" either...either have a good reason, or don't tell me no. A good reason can be as simple as "we don't agree with some of the things that mom lets her child do" or "if you play in the road, you'll get hit by a car".

As for not letting women become ordained, as with many of the ideas of inequity, the bible was written by MEN, at a time when women were at BEST second class citizens, and more aptly described as property. No man in his right mind would have elevated a woman (a supposed prostitute at that) to the standing of Apostle. It is one of the many examples of how the interpretation of the Bible hasn't kept up with the times.

What I think is ironic in your "The Pope is infallible" and "The Pope said it is so" is that The Pope could say "women can be ordained" and it would be ok, as the Pope is infallible. That would be moral and theological, correct?

It's just another reason why I like being Congregationalist...we believe that Bible interpretation is always in flux...changing with the times, taking into consideration more than just "The Bible says so" or "The Pope says so" (of course, we don't have a Pope)

I would have a much easier time believing the Pope is infallible if he wasn't so clearly WRONG all of the time.

I would have a much easier time believing the Pope is infallible if he wasn't so clearly WRONG all of the time.The pope is not infallible per se. And where is he clearly wrong exactly?

The pope is not infallible per se. And where is he clearly wrong exactly?

Birth control, gay marriage...

I can continue.

The pope is not infallible per se. And where is he clearly wrong exactly?

Quite clearly, in trying to pretend he's not the emperor from star wars...

Birth control, gay marriage...

I can continue.

Not that I actually disagree, but those issues are subjective in the extreme, and, in this regard, I would imagine th Pope is representative of most Catholics.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church was written after the Second Vatican Council, and the Pope has been considered to be infallible at least since the Great Schism.No. Since July 18, 1870.