Cradle Catholic questioning if I belong

[St_Francis]

The term dogma can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.

All the best
Gary

But we’re not talking about those dogmas, are we? We’re talking about proclaimed Catholic dogmas, otherwise the post you wrote would make no sense.

 

[St_Francis]

And I am a Roman Catholic asking some questions and asserting some medical truths. If understanding medical facts is cause for excommunication, then so be it.

All the best
Gary

Believing medical truths is not the issue. Rejection of spiritual truths is the issue.

 

[estesbob]

And I am a Roman Catholic asking some questions and asserting some medical truths. If understanding medical facts is cause for excommunication, then so be it.

All the best
Gary

And what medical truths are those?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

And what medical truths are those?

Good Afternoon Estesbob: The medical truth is that pulling out is not a form of contraception and you can indeed get pregnant in doing that.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Believing medical truths is not the issue. Rejection of spiritual truths is the issue.

Good Afternoon St Francis: The certainly dovetail together. It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that if you are not practicing contraception, that is a medical truth, and the spiritual question is contraception.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

But we’re not talking about those dogmas, are we? We’re talking about proclaimed Catholic dogmas, otherwise the post you wrote would make no sense.

Good Evening St Francis. Dogma is dogma. Because a particular dogma is one that we happen to subscribe to doesn’t make it something other than dogma, nor is it more special than someone else’s dogma. I think you are asking me to let our beliefs cloud our ability to apply practical thinking. I don’t do that sort of thing.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From St. Francis:

Altho I did not go to seminary, I have found out the answer to your question: St Matthew in his gospel, book 16, verses 17 and 18, writes: And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because **flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. **And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Rock]; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Good Afternoon St Francis: As Catholics, you and I subscribe to the idea that this scriptural passage names Peter as the head of the Church. Without regard to my own religious beliefs as a Catholic, I have to be forthcoming that I am a pragmatic thinker, and I have to admit that I am also intrigued by evidence to the contrary. This is one way we defend our credibility - by being forthcoming and even handed in our assessments. For me, the only way to sort out truth is to examine all writings of the time, to include scripture as well as letters and historical accounts. In this case, I would mention that the successor to Peter was Clement. In the Pseudo Clementines, Clement says clearly that while he was the Bishop of Rome and Peter had also been the Bishop of Rome before him, he says that James was “The Bishop of All Bishops” to whom he and all other bishops were subordinate. With regard to this we have what are called “multiple attestations” supporting this. Multiple attestations are what scholars use to determine which scriptural passages are most likely to be correct since there are many disparities between what one gospel says and what another says. More than one scriptural source increases the likelihood of truth. The supporting attestations to Clements letter regarding the supremacy of James can be found multiple times in both Acts and in Galatians, wherein meetings where James, Peter and Paul were present show James as being the decision maker and the last speaker in decision making processes. It was also James who summoned Paul to appear before the Jerusalem Assembly and take part in a Jewish purification ritual to show atonement for having made false teachings. It was also James who sent missionaries to follow Paul and correct his teachings when he made false statements about the beliefs of the early church. While Peter was present at these meetings, it was James’ decision. It is known that because of this and for other reasons that Paul was not very fond of James, and it was primarily the teachings of Paul that make up modern day Christianity and the New Testament. This was because he could read and write and Peter and James likely could not. The fact that the earliest copies of the scripture you quoted were in Greek suggests that the author was a follower of Paul’s teachings, because Greek was the language of the Gentiles who Paul preached to. Remember that Paul didn’t like James, and it is the only scriptural reference to it.

Now, while I will always prefer to accept my Church’s view on it, I have to be honest about the existence of a good deal of information to the contrary.

Additional attestations: Acts 13:21, Acts 15:19-20,Galatians 2:9,Galatians 2:11,Acts 12:17,Galatians 1:18-19, Galatians 1:18-19.

Notice that Christ explicitly states that Simon has received this information from Heaven. He then goes on to say that the Church will be protected from teaching untruth.

I just covered that. While it is what you and I accept it as truth, it is easily debated.

Pulling out is *most certainly *a form of contraception. However, the reason that contraception is wrong is that it blocks the generative nature of the act; thus, any marital act which is deliberately uncompleted is wrong.

We covered that too. It’s not. Tell any doctor that you plan to use that as a method of contraception and they will surely advise you against it.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Good Evening (name removed by moderator): Your reasoning on the matter of contraception is medically incorrect. Your ideas on sexuality are excruciatingly legalistic. It is very reminiscent of the old Sanhedrin, and I rather enjoy it, so thank you for that.

With regard as to whether or not I remain a Catholic, well this is simply not your domain. It’s mine. As for my parish priests, I talk to them all the time. We’re good friends actually and they are well aware of my proclivity for questions. Let me tell you this: the real truth can stand up to any sort of questioning and discussion. The real truth can take whatever you throw at it. Because it’s the real deal. If you have to tip toe up to it and avert your gaze with reverence, and not ask questions, that’s usually a sign that you’re dealing with garbage rather than the truth. I am simply posing questions on certain matters (doctrine) while offering an argument on some others (contraception). If you have the truth, then you need to detail it out with facts and avoid personal assessments me as a person or me as a Catholic and make some cogent points if you have any. But the old iron fisted “pray, pay and obey” approach is not accepted when having a dialog with me. It doesn’t rattle me. Telling people to shut up and obey is why so many churches in some European countries lie as vacant museums these days. Let’s keep our faith alive by being direct and having good arguments.

I honestly do look forward to hearing some well thought replies based on fact from you and would enjoy a good discussion if we can stick to facts and not be judgmental about one another.

All the best,
Gary

 

[St_Francis]

Good Afternoon Estesbob: The medical truth is that pulling out is not a form of contraception and you can indeed get pregnant in doing that.

All the best,
Gary

Good Afternoon St Francis: The certainly dovetail together. It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that if you are not practicing contraception, that is a medical truth, and the spiritual question is contraception.

All the best,
Gary

Pulling out is indeed a form of contraception, albeit imperfect.

Moreover, the main problem with artificial birth control is that it renders the marital act incomplete. Obviously withdrawal does the same.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Pulling out is indeed a form of contraception, albeit imperfect.

Good Evening St Francis. You are correct. It’s very imperfect and hardly ever successful. The OP doesn’t even have the intent of birth control, and my personal opinion is that the subject of the thread is trivial. I have explained why I think that, and of course I know there will be those who disagree, and I do appreciate your discussion with me on the matter.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From (name removed by moderator);

People have made a lot of claims and convincing arguments over the centuries doesn’t mean there right.

Good Evening (name removed by moderator) and thank you for the reply. If you don’t consider convincing arguments, then what do you base your beliefs on? Someone must have told you what it is you believe and for some reason you must have found it convincing, right? I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying.

But one has question if you believe in One Holy and Catholic Church and Authority under the Pope and Authority of the Magisterium and that’s what is taught by the Church where do your argument’s hold weight

I am a member of the Church because that’s how I was raised. The music (when you can actually hear the old stuff anymore) and the rituals, and the incense and such give me a feeling of connection with something. As for the Magisterium and teachings, I am always happy to accept what is properly explained and offers satisfactory arguments.

If the Church is lead by the Holy Spirit and what she teaches is true then anything opposite of what she teaches and declares is in error.

Anything that is lead by the Holy Spirit should welcome and be able to stand up to any and all honest and sincere questions and be borne out by fact. I freely test it anytime I feel it needs to be done. The answers I get from the Church aren’t always very good, so I still have questions.

Look I don’t have any snappy come backs and I don’t have any thing to cite other than what the Church has always taught and stated.

Thank you for your honesty - I respect that,

Medically speaking pulling out does nothing for birth control duh.

I agree.

Pulling out is wrong in itself it’s in the Bible as I posted.

When you say the Bible I take it that you mean the story of Onan. I have to point out that the Old Testament is full of reprehensible moral advice. I had pointed out some examples from Mosaic law already about stoning disobedient children to death and a number of other problematic moralities from the Torah.

If you did both for both reasons you would be guilt of two sins.

I confess to you that I have committed far more than two, and am still not satisfied. That’s an honest confession.

Don’t like my answer I really don’t care if what the Church teaches is dry and legalistic then why be a member?

Because it resonates with me in a very illogical and emotional way.

All the best,
Gary

 

[St_Francis]

From St. Francis:

Good Afternoon St Francis: As Catholics, you and I subscribe to the idea that this scriptural passage names Peter as the head of the Church. Without regard to my own religious beliefs as a Catholic, I have to be forthcoming that I am a pragmatic thinker, and I have to admit that I am also intrigued by evidence to the contrary. This is one way we defend our credibility - by being forthcoming and even handed in our assessments. For me, the only way to sort out truth is to examine all writings of the time, to include scripture as well as letters and historical accounts. In this case, I would mention that the successor to Peter was Clement. In the Pseudo Clementines, Clement says clearly that while he was the Bishop of Rome and Peter had also been the Bishop of Rome before him, he says that James was “The Bishop of All Bishops” to whom he and all other bishops were subordinate. With regard to this we have what are called “multiple attestations” supporting this. Multiple attestations are what scholars use to determine which scriptural passages are most likely to be correct since there are many disparities between what one gospel says and what another says. More than one scriptural source increases the likelihood of truth. The supporting attestations to Clements letter regarding the supremacy of James can be found multiple times in both Acts and in Galatians, wherein meetings where James, Peter and Paul were present show James as being the decision maker and the last speaker in decision making processes. It was also James who summoned Paul to appear before the Jerusalem Assembly and take part in a Jewish purification ritual to show atonement for having made false teachings. It was also James who sent missionaries to follow Paul and correct his teachings when he made false statements about the beliefs of the early church. While Peter was present at these meetings, it was James’ decision. It is known that because of this and for other reasons that Paul was not very fond of James, and it was primarily the teachings of Paul that make up modern day Christianity and the New Testament. This was because he could read and write and Peter and James likely could not. The fact that the earliest copies of the scripture you quoted were in Greek suggests that the author was a follower of Paul’s teachings, because Greek was the language of the Gentiles who Paul preached to. Remember that Paul didn’t like James, and it is the only scriptural reference to it.

Now, while I will always prefer to accept my Church’s view on it, I have to be honest about the existence of a good deal of information to the contrary.

Additional attestations: Acts 13:21, Acts 15:19-20,Galatians 2:9,Galatians 2:11,Acts 12:17,Galatians 1:18-19, Galatians 1:18-19.

I think it is great that you have the time to consider both the pro and the con sides of Catholic teaching; I unfortunately do not have that luxury, but I believe that the issues you raise here were answered in the book *Jesus, Peter, and the Keys. *

I just covered that. While it is what you and I accept it as truth, it is easily debated.

We covered that too. It’s not. Tell any doctor that you plan to use that as a method of contraception and they will surely advise you against it.

All the best,
Gary

I think my response to this issue above covers it here too.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I think it is great that you have the time to consider both the pro and the con sides of Catholic teaching; I unfortunately do not have that luxury, but I believe that the issues you raise here were answered in the book Jesus, Peter, and the Keys.

Thanks St Francis: I read it when it came out some years back. It actually doesn’t address the issues I brought up. It does present the Catholic stance on the matter, which I do respect, but it fails to address many commonly known historical details. I have racked my brains trying to find any source in the Church that can address them.

All the best,
Gary

 

[fred_conty]

Gary Sheldrake, the following are the additional attestations you quoted.

Acts 13:21

Then they asked for a king. God gave them Saul, son of Kish, a man from the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.

How does James fit in this quote? Or is this a misquote of a quote?

Acts 15:19-20

Moreover , a large nuber of those who had practiced magic …

Same question.

Gal 2:9

…and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James, Cephas, and John, who were reputed to be pillars, …

Peter, James and John were pillars of the apostles when Christ was alive. Those three were at the transfiguration, were the only ones allowed inside of the home of Peter’ mother-in-law when she was cured, selected by Jesus in the garden to pray a distance away from the other apostles. So now in this passage they are merely recognized for what they were…especially picked by Jesus.

Gal 2:11

And when Cephas{Rock} came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clealy was wrong.

Paul was only saying that Peter had misjudged the situation and that he had corrected him. St. Catherine did that to the Pope, and so did others.

The Pope can make wrong decisions, but that dosen’t mean he is not Pope, only that he is human and sometimes makes mistakes like everyone else. And it is a tribute to Peter that he listened to Paul, which is a sign of humility.

And there is the fact that we have had some bad popes, but that doesn’t mean that they were not popes. Again pointing out that they are made of human material.

Gal 1:18-19

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem, to confer with Cephas{Rock} and remained with him for fifteen days. But I did not see any of the other Apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.

To me, confering with Peter, the Rock, for 15 days indicates all the more his importance. If he had considered James as more important, he would have confering with him for fifteen days. Paul knew who Peter was…Rock.

In conclusion, not to be offensive, but I don’t see these as a pronouncement of James, but rather of Peter.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Gary Sheldrake, the following are the additional attestations you quoted.

Acts 13:21

How does James fit in this quote? Or is this a misquote of a quote?

Acts 15:19-20

Same question.

Gal 2:9

Peter, James and John were pillars of the apostles when Christ was alive. Those three were at the transfiguration, were the only ones allowed inside of the home of Peter’ mother-in-law when she was cured, selected by Jesus in the garden to pray a distance away from the other apostles. So now in this passage they are merely recognized for what they were…especially picked by Jesus.

Gal 2:11

Paul was only saying that Peter had misjudged the situation and that he had corrected him. St. Catherine did that to the Pope, and so did others.

The Pope can make wrong decisions, but that dosen’t mean he is not Pope, only that he is human and sometimes makes mistakes like everyone else. And it is a tribute to Peter that he listened to Paul, which is a sign of humility.

And there is the fact that we have had some bad popes, but that doesn’t mean that they were not popes. Again pointing out that they are made of human material.

Gal 1:18-19

To me, confering with Peter, the Rock, for 15 days indicates all the more his importance. If he had considered James as more important, he would have confering with him for fifteen days. Paul knew who Peter was…Rock.

In conclusion, not to be offensive, but I don’t see these as a pronouncement of James, but rather of Peter.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

Good Evening Fred: No offense taken and thank you very much for the reply. Many of these attestations are in the form of understanding social standards of the time and how they emerge in interactions cited in Epistles and such. For instance in Acts 15:19-20 (below) it shows that in an assembly where Peter and James were present, James speaks last (which was customary for leaders, especially in the culture the Apostles lived in), and at the end passes his judgment on the matter at hand. I have given the whole context below:

"The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16
“‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,

17
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’**—

18
things known from long ago.[c]

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

Peter offers the idea. James passes judgment on it, or as we would say in a modern day conference room, he approved it. To this day, subordinates seldom approve proposals by superiors.

Again, I could go through all of these, but there are many more references in the first 300 years of the Church. The remarks by Clement are the most direct. It isn’t written in alliterations that can be taken to be ambiguous or have another meaning when Clement reported that he was subordinate to James the “Bishop of All Bishops” as Peter also had been. My point is that the whole matter is very debatable. Personally, I don’t have an opinion either way. If I was cornered on it by a Protestant, I would say “that’s debatable.” If pressed on the matter by a fellow Catholic citing that Catholic point of view, my reply would be the same. I’m not on either side of the debate. For me it’s just another one of those curiosities that keep popping up with regard to matters we had always taken to be settled."

All the best,
Gary**

 

[St_Francis]

… In this case, I would mention that the successor to Peter was Clement. In the Pseudo Clementines, Clement says clearly that while he was the Bishop of Rome and Peter had also been the Bishop of Rome before him, he says that James was “The Bishop of All Bishops” to whom he and all other bishops were subordinate.

OK, I looked up these writings attributed to Pope Clement, and then found that this whole argument of your your hasn’t a leg to stand on.

The reason they are called the PseudoClementine writings may be due to what Eusubius said of them:

1. And certain men have lately brought forward other wordy and lengthy writings under his name, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion. **But no mention has been made of these by the ancients; **for **they do not even preserve the pure stamp of apostolic orthodoxy. **The acknowledged writing of Clement is well known.

With regard to this we have what are called “multiple attestations” supporting this. Multiple attestations are what scholars use to determine which scriptural passages are most likely to be correct since there are many disparities between what one gospel says and what another says. More than one scriptural source increases the likelihood of truth. …

Can something attest to the truth of something which did not exist at the time and has no credible background?

Your interpretations of the verses as expressed in your post responding to Fred Conty’s were refuted in the book I mentioned above.