I
Ignatius
Guest
Why is it that you are do not challenge those making these false allegations to prove them? Why aren’t you equally skeptical about their claims? Why are you so willing to swallow all of this anti-catholic venom?
- Status
B
BlaineTog
Guest
I’ll try to be brief in my replies.
(con’t below)
First, no one alive today was part of those atrocities. Second, you’re choose to be part of the body of Christ, not in a club. Third, because it’s dogmas and doctrines are true, even if we’ve failed in our practice of them. Points 2 and 3 also apply to question #2.
You aren’t necessarily supposed to let your opponent kill you, however, much less others. The verse doesn’t mean to necessarily let others do whatever horrible things they want, but is more about self-forgetfulness and forgiveness.
That would depend on whether those teachers are “key” or not. In any case, if you disagree with the Church about something, you should strive to understand the teaching as well as possible and then see if you still disagree.
Cats are animals. Dogs are animals. But dogs and cats aren’t the same.
After returning to the church and repenting, yes.
AFAIK, it’s a current question between the bishops. However, first, the guilt doesn’t have to be “lifelong;” they need to confess and feel contrition, but then they’ll be saved. Second, currently, no. If you understand why using condoms is a sin, the HIV doesn’t change anything. It might make them less culpable, but it doesn’t change that the sin is a sin.
(con’t below)
B
BlaineTog
Guest
(con’t from above)
Birth control is not the same as murder. But your question is psychological and needs a therapist to answer it.
Many priests are required to take a vow of poverty as well. It’s all to do with what order they’re affiliated with. Parish priests typically (maybe always, I’m not sure) have a different function in the church than nuns or priests in orders which requires a different set of vows.
Do you mean “impotent” as in “cannot have sex”? The sacrament of marriage is the sex act itself, not the "I do"s or the exchanging of rings, so if you can’t have sex, you are simply physically incapeable of undergoing the sacrament of marriage.
No.
Why would it do that?
It isn’t contrary to the bible. Those verses use a word that could mean anything from cousin to uncle to nephew in context.
Of course. The church is not infallible on everything. However, if you knew a guy who always gave you perfect reccomendations for movies and then you found out that he had made a mistake wen trying to fix the plumbing in his house a couple years ago, would you doubt his movie taste?
C
Cs6153
Guest
- The Catholic Church is a Religion not an Organization Name one Religion that has a perfect track record?
- The Church itself was not at fault some of the people in high positions may have acted improperly. Again no man is perfect. Again other denomations have had this problem as well, but it is not as publicised as the abuse that has happened in the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church is huge
- Jesus meant do not get even He never said do not use self defense
- If you do not beleive in key doctrines of the Catholic Church then why are you Catholic in the first place? Same for any religion
- Yes and this applies to everyone Catholic or not. In other words these are not rules the Church made up God made them
- yes if she is unrepentant and yes if she is repentant
- abstinance is the best option
- Don’t forget one man in the old testament was struck dead by God for using the withdrawl method (a form of birth control) so his wife would not get pregnant. It was a mortal sin before the Church began
- Vow of Poverty is by choice not by force
- Never heard of that ever happening. But in the Bible Jesus did give the example of a Eunich as one that is not able to get married because he is unable to perform
- The Bible is accurate Adam and Eve did exist, JOnah and the Wale existed and also Noah and the Ark existed. A Catholic may believe the Earth to be as old as they may think it is. THere is no Catholic Doctrine on the matter. Remember a 1000 years as one day to the Lord
- Jesus said you are my friends if you keep my commands. Jesus forgives but only if you are sorry and repent of your sins
- First born child does not have to mean that other children came after. FIrst born child may also be an only child. Brothers and Sisters of Jesus the greek actually translates to cousins
- It was not infallable doctrine. The Catholic hierarchy learned from their mistake thats why they do not make as doctrine that the Earth as 6000 years old nor do they make as doctrine that evolution is how the Earth came to be as it is today
P
peary
Guest
This is like the 4th time these 14 questions have surfaced in various forums ver batim LOL Somebody better check the brand of cereal they eat in the morning because a bowl of stupid isn’t helping you any!!
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Because the Church didn’t kill millions, because the Church is made up of sinners *and *saints, and because the Church was founded by Jesus Chrust, true God and true man who wills you to enter His Church for the salvation of your soul and for the Glory of God.
Because those within the Church - even those in authority, don’t always listen to the Church’s own teachings, because the Church is made up of sinners and saints, because scandal has been in the Church since Judas, because we were warned scandals would take place, and because the Church was founded by Jesus Chrust, true God and true man who wills you to enter His Church for the salvation of your soul and for the Glory of God.
Because it is also just and required of us to defend the innocent - to neglect to do so could be a sin of ommission.
It’s possible, but it’s a grave sin that if left unrepentant, they will have to answer for at the Judgement…
In terms that these sins are also grave matter and, like murder, if committed with full knowledge and full consent of the will, result in the spiritual death of the soul - i.e. the loss of Sanctifying Grace, the Divine Life in us…yes. Even within mortal sin, however, there are different levels, so the eternal penalty for unrepentant murder would probably be more severe than the eternal penalty of unrepentant masturbation, artificial birth control, or fornication.
Yes. A woman who has an abortion with full knowledge (of the gravity and penalty of the sin) and will (she was fully culpable for and willed the abortion), she would be excommunicated by the very action. Upon repentance and the Sacrament of Confession, she would be restored to the Church. If she was ignorant or cooerced in any way, it could possibly lesson the culpability and perhaps not have resulted in an automatic excommunication - this would be up to her confessor to determine, who by the power of Jesus Christ, can in Sacramental Confession, forgive her for her culpability (whatever level it may be) and thus reconcile her to the Church.
No.
(continued…)
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Don’t know…but it’s not mentally healthy or spiritually healthy to deny Truth. The only way to be truly mentally healthy is to obey God. To disobey God is insanity.
Different disciplines for different vocations (and religous order priests do take the vow of poverty) - and each one is voluntary. No one is forced into the religous life.
Possibly.
I do - the Church gives lattitude on such things, given certain perameters.
Absolutely not.
You are wrong in your interpretation. Such misreadings are among the easiest to refute.
On matters not relating to faith and morals - sure. On officially defined matters of faith and morals - nope. On Galileo - they might actually be wrong for apolgizing (such are not covered under the protection of infallibility) - or perhaps you misunderstood the apology. See catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
J
joseph_virgen
Guest
as a child i loved my dad. as i grew up i discerned some imperfections in him that were contrary to my learning, and in time we grew apart.
later, once i became a man, i learned why my father was the way he was, and i loved him even more.
later, once i became a man, i learned why my father was the way he was, and i loved him even more.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
I thought it was more like, when I became a man, I learned how right my father was
.
F
franjos
Guest
Hello Pluggedin,
I cannot answer all your questions because I am not in the position to answer those, but I’ll try to respond to some of your questions:
1-3) Ans. Allow me to return to you your questions. Why would you believe Moses and His Law, when He himself was engaged in war (Number 31:3). And why would you support Peter whereas Jesus called Him “Satan” (Matthew 16:23) and even denied Jesus 3 times. And what about Paul, why would you read the Letters of Paul, whereas He himself was responsible for the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:57). The answer is simple, we support them because God had first put His faith in them. This is the meaning of “declaring Jesus as Our Lord”. This is the meaning of submitting our will to the will of the Lord God. And the meaning of “Not judging others”. Try to reflect on these things and you yourself will understand why we support the Holy Catholic Church despite the weaknesses of its Bishops and Priests.
I cannot answer all your questions because I am not in the position to answer those, but I’ll try to respond to some of your questions:
1-3) Ans. Allow me to return to you your questions. Why would you believe Moses and His Law, when He himself was engaged in war (Number 31:3). And why would you support Peter whereas Jesus called Him “Satan” (Matthew 16:23) and even denied Jesus 3 times. And what about Paul, why would you read the Letters of Paul, whereas He himself was responsible for the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:57). The answer is simple, we support them because God had first put His faith in them. This is the meaning of “declaring Jesus as Our Lord”. This is the meaning of submitting our will to the will of the Lord God. And the meaning of “Not judging others”. Try to reflect on these things and you yourself will understand why we support the Holy Catholic Church despite the weaknesses of its Bishops and Priests.
- It does not contradict the Lord’s teaching. And it is a very ancient teaching coming from the Apostles. Saint Paul even said: “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (1 Corinthian 11:27)
- Because on the issue of transliteration. The author Matthew and Mark used a greek word ‘adelphi’ which could mean “cousin”, “brother” or “relatives” in English. Now that there are three choices to truth, which one is which? Ask yourself, is it proper for God of All, King of kings, Creator of All to share a chosen vessel (or womb) with mortals/sinners. Or is it proper for King of Kings, God of All, Creator of All, to allow Joseph to have children with His chosen woman? I think not.
F
fellowChristian
Guest
**1 Timothy 3:15 **
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God,** which is the church** of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
One Body,One Bride,One Church,One Heart,
One Truth,One Faith,One Baptism,One God,One Mind,
One Voice,One Spirit,One Flesh,One Mediator.
There is only One!
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God,** which is the church** of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
One Body,One Bride,One Church,One Heart,
One Truth,One Faith,One Baptism,One God,One Mind,
One Voice,One Spirit,One Flesh,One Mediator.
There is only One!
J
jamison
Guest
Theese questions all sound familiar to me. most are common attacks on the Roman Catholic Church and protestant in nature.
It’s amazing that there is so much ignorance regarding the original crusades. Think God for the Pope and many brave courageous warriors, who left behind family, friends, and home, willing to perish, to defend against the oppression of the muslims, lest we all be speaking arabic.
It’s amazing that there is so much ignorance regarding the original crusades. Think God for the Pope and many brave courageous warriors, who left behind family, friends, and home, willing to perish, to defend against the oppression of the muslims, lest we all be speaking arabic.
B
beeliner
Guest
They sound familiar to me too, and I suspect that the original poster is probably not a Catholic, or if s/he is, has not had the benefit of a Catholic education, which would have addressed all of those issues.
I would not go so far as to call the questions attacks on the Church, however, because they would all be valid questions for someone completely ignorant of Church doctrine and Church history. For example, the number killed in the entire Spanish Inquisition, from SECULAR sources, was around 2000, far fewer than in the single terrorist attack on the WTC. Those who claim millions were killed should be challenged to support that claim.
Most of the responses so far have been excellent; I take issue only with the third one preceding this, which states:
I have asked myself also, and I think the poster’s opinion, with all due respect, insults womanhood and motherhood. The basic concept of the Incarnation is that God chose to share our humanity so that we might ultimately share His divinity. Why would the sharing of a womb of a saintly woman be such an affront as the poster suggests?
As for whether Mary and Joseph later had other children, neither of them is ever identified as the parent of any named child, all of those identified as Jesus’ ‘brethren’ can be other wise accounted for, and it is unlikely that Jesus would have entrusted His beloved mother to John’s care had she had other children.
Still, the matter has always been, to me, one of the most trivial in Christianity because she either had other children or she did not, it is a matter of fact rather than of faith. The weight of the evidence comes down somewhat, though not overwhelmingly, on Jesus being her only child, but if He were not, that would make her no less special as a woman and as a mother.
G
GJx86
Guest
If the man were merely sterile, that would be one thing. The Church allows marriages between people who are capable of completing the unitive part of the marital act, but who, through no fault of their own, are unable to procreate because of it. (The point is that the couple must be open to fertility; see CCC 1652-1654.)
But Scripture teaches that marriage is supposed to have at least the unitive component (Eph 5:31, cf. Gen 2:24). Conjugal love is the highest expression of the unity the spouses seek through marriage (CCC 1644). Canon law thus holds that a sacramental marriage can exist only if this form of expression (which is directly mentioned alongside marriage in Ephesians 5) is available, and it wasn’t in the case of the paraplegic.
To put it more briefly: Marriage, the sacrament, is consummated – completed – by the unitive marital act. If you can’t complete the sacrament, then you can’t enter into the sacrament at all.
B
beeliner
Guest
What would be the Church’s attitude toward a civil marriage in such cases?
G
GJx86
Guest
I’m not 100% sure, but a few minutes of looking through the relevant sections of canon law didn’t yield any specific provision against seeking civil marriage in such circumstances. It makes sense to me that there would be no restriction, since “civil marriage” is just a human declaration that two people are in a certain relationship that affords them particular substantive rights and responsibilities under human law.
The relevant canon for “antecedent and perpetual” impotence, by the way, is #1084.
B
beeliner
Guest
If that be true, could not a case be made that, by the same token, they shouldn’t object to gay (civil) marriage either, in jurisdictions where it is legal?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Where is the evidence that the Church killed millions of people during the Crusades and the Inquisition? Protestant history books?
You need to learn what modern historians are saying, because there is no evidence that the Church did what you allege.
Here is some reading for you:
A New Look At the Spanish Inquisition
by Edward O’Brien
ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/SPANINQ.TXT
The Real History of the Crusades
By Thomas F. Madden
oldarchive.godspy.com/issues/Real-History-of-Crusades-by-Thomas-Madden.cfm.html
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
John 8:7
“If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Not good enough for you? Try this:
If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?
Many, if not most, Protestants would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.
Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a “devil” (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.
Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)
“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.
If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.
In the Parable of the Weeds found in Matthew 13, Jesus tells His disciples to anticipate corruption within the Church. He said:
Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. "The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ (Matthew 13:24-30)
Notice it is not the world at large that is being described but rather the “kingdom of heaven” or Church that is portrayed as the field containing both wheat and weeds. Jesus does not indicate that weeds (sinners) should be uprooted from the field (Church) until the separation done at the time of the final harvest.
The Church is not a paradise for saints who are already perfected but a hospital for the spiritually sick who are being healed.
Jesus clearly taught that sins of individual Church leaders do not invalidate the authority of the positions those leaders hold. These sins, whether real or imagined, do not undermine the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church and do not provide an excuse for those who refuse to acknowledge and obey her. The authority given by God to the Church and the office of the Papacy is the same today as it was in the days of Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No.
Do you understand the Just War Doctrine?
Read this:
catholic.com/library/just_war_doctrine_1.asp
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
- Status