Did the church error in it's teaching?

[Sir_Knight]

Anyone wanna help me address these charges …

How the church taught “False teachings”.

Lightning:

The churches had always held that Satan, the “Prince of the Power of the Air”, controlled all lightning and thunder. But in 1752, Franklin’s experiment during a thunder storm proved that lightning was an electrical phenomenon. He was lucky. The experiment was replicated by an experimenter in France, who was electrocuted.

Lightning rods were a logical development; they protected buildings wherever they were installed. Unfortunately, to install a “heretical rod” was to admit that centuries of theological teachings were false. Churches were reluctant to use them. Seventeen years after Franklin’s experiment, lightning struck the unprotected Church of San Nazaro, near Venice. This ignited 200,000 pounds of powder which had been stored there for safe keeping. The explosion wiped out one sixth of the city of Brescia and killed 3,000 people. Lightning rods soon appeared on spires across Italy.

Anesthetics during childbirth:

In 1846 James Simpson, a Scottish physician promoted the use of chloroform to relieve pain during childbirth. This was opposed by the Church, citing Genesis 3:16 “…I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children”. The avoidance of pain was seen as thwarting God’s will. Fortunately, Simpson found a competing passage (Genesis 2:21) which describes the first surgical operation; it seems to support the use of anesthetic: “…God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam…he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh…” In time, the Church’s opposition dissipated; pain killers have since lost their religious significance.

Childhood innoculations:

Early in the 17th Century, physicians in France and Great Britain promoted inoculations to prevent small pox. Theologians were quick to respond. Rev. Edward Massy in England preached a sermon blaming the distemper experienced by Job in the Bible upon an inoculation by Satan. Other clergy preached that the technique was being promoted by evil sorcerers and atheists. Smallpox was regarded as “a judgment of God on the sins of the people…to avert it is but to provoke him more”. Inoculation was “an encroachment on the prerogatives of Jehovah, whose right it is to wound and smite.”

Jenner’s development of vaccination was similarly opposed on religious grounds. By preventing the spread of disease, they were “bidding defiance to Heaven itself - even to the will of God.” In 1885, a serious epidemic of smallpox broke out in Montreal Canada. Few Protestants died because they had been mostly vaccinated. However the Roman Catholic clergy were generally opposed to the practice; their parishioners died needlessly, and in great numbers.

The Church for years as well as their popes have been teaching falsehoods.

… Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[mercygate]

Huh? Did your source cite the official Church documents that allegedly promulgated these “false” teachings?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Good point. Will ask.

 

[Tom]

Sir Knight:

Anyone wanna help me address these charges … … Thanks in advance for your help.

Sir Knight:

Anyone wanna help me address these charges … … Thanks in advance for your help.

Sir Knight this isn’t aimed at you, please understand it’s to your questioner.
When you are cutting and pasting it is dishonest to try to they are your own thoughts. This is from: religioustolerance.org/past_mor.htm a group opposed to religion in general.

1. The Church only presents as infallible those teachings it specifically states are infallible. Individuals within the Church have “taught” their own opinions on many many things through the past nearly 2,000 years, some right some wrong.
2. What are your source documents to the claim that “The churches had always held that Satan, the “Prince of the Power of the Air”, controlled all lightning and thunder”
3. Was it an infallible teaching? Do you understand what an infallible teaching is? Do you understand that NOT every word that the Church or individuals in the Church utter is infallible?
4. Do you understand that the ONLY reason someone would try to discredit the Church, that our Lord and savior established, had taught in error is to try to justify to themselves being separated from the Church they know in their heart to be true? If they didn’t know this in their heart they wouldn’t care if the Church had taught in error.

 

[Tom]

This is not about “The Catholic Church”. It’s aimed at religion in general. The following is from their web page:

We believe that:
Religions are very different.
Religions teach very different perceptions of God.
Some religions and their followers have committed terrible atrocities.
All religions cannot be absolutely true.
This site describes both the positive and negative aspects of religions.
This site describes dozens of faith groups, from Asatru to Christianity to Wicca to Zoroastrianism. We cover new religious movements, including dangerous cults. We describe ethical belief systems, like Agnosticism, Atheism and Humanism.
We describe all sides of each controversial topic, from abortion, to physician assisted suicide, including capital punishment, evolution & creation science, and homosexuality.
We define “religious tolerance” differently from some people:
To be tolerant does not require that we accept other beliefs as true.
By religious tolerance, we mean that everyone - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and others – should be able to follow their own religious beliefs and practices freely.
Religious diversity is increasing throughout North America. We need to develop a religiously tolerant culture, or the U.S. and Canada are headed for disaster.

 

[Della]

We believe that:
Religions are very different. In beliefs, yes. But, oddly enough, not all that different in practices.
Religions teach very different perceptions of God. Yes, they do. So?
Some religions and their followers have committed terrible atrocities. True, but so have atheists–in fact, atheists have committed more atrocities than all the religious of the world put together.
All religions cannot be absolutely true. True again, but that doesn’t follow that one religion couldn’t true.
This site describes both the positive and negative aspects of religions. Accurately or with bias?
This site describes dozens of faith groups, from Asatru to Christianity to Wicca to Zoroastrianism. We cover new religious movements, including dangerous cults. We describe ethical belief systems, like Agnosticism, Atheism and Humanism. Once again, accurately or with bias?
We describe all sides of each controversial topic, from abortion, to physician assisted suicide, including capital punishment, evolution & creation science, and homosexuality. Once again, accurately or with bias?
We define “religious tolerance” differently from some people:
To be tolerant does not require that we accept other beliefs as true. And religious people don’t believe this too? That’s the implication. How condescending and distorted!
By religious tolerance, we mean that everyone - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and others – should be able to follow their own religious beliefs and practices freely. Yes, so who says otherwise?
Religious diversity is increasing throughout North America. We need to develop a religiously tolerant culture, or the U.S. and Canada are headed for disaster. No. We had it until the PC police stepped in and declared all religions equal except their own from which they had apostatized–Christianity.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Tom, thanks.

Tom:

Sir Knight this isn’t aimed at you, please understand it’s to your questioner.
When you are cutting and pasting it is dishonest to try to they are your own thoughts. This is from: religioustolerance.org/past_mor.htm a group opposed to religion in general.

1. The Church only presents as infallible those teachings it specifically states are infallible. Individuals within the Church have “taught” their own opinions on many many things through the past nearly 2,000 years, some right some wrong.
2. What are your source documents to the claim that “The churches had always held that Satan, the “Prince of the Power of the Air”, controlled all lightning and thunder”
3. Was it an infallible teaching? Do you understand what an infallible teaching is? Do you understand that NOT every word that the Church or individuals in the Church utter is infallible?
4. Do you understand that the ONLY reason someone would try to discredit the Church, that our Lord and savior established, had taught in error is to try to justify to themselves being separated from the Church they know in their heart to be true? If they didn’t know this in their heart they wouldn’t care if the Church had taught in error.

Can I quote you?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Hey Tom – got this as a reply …

“I see that you obtained these charges from a group opposed to religion in general.”

What the F**k are you smoking. Do you not know what the purpose of Religioustolerance.org is. Here is from their home page.

Religious tolerance means:
to extend religious freedom to people of all religions, even though you sincerely disagree with their beliefs and/or practices.

Religious freedom means that you can:
Believe, worship and witness as you wish;
Change your beliefs or religion; and
Join with others to express your beliefs. 1

Our site mandate:
“To promote religious tolerance and freedom.
To describe religious faiths in all their diversity.
To describe controversial topics from all points of view.”

Our two mottos:

1. "Study of the world’s religions will lead to an understanding of religious diversity.
   Understanding of religion will lead to inter-religious dialogue.
   Dialogue will lead to peace among religions…
   Peace among religions will lead to peace among the nations."2

1. “Whenever someone deviates from reality, others usually get hurt.”

If they are so opposed to religion in general, they are doing a piss poor job at it.

… Wanna help me field a reply? Anyone?

 

[1ke]

A couple of things come to mind here.

#1: When they say “the Church” which church do they mean? The Catholic Church-- the Magesterium in union with the Pope? Or, “Christianity” in general? The “religious tolerance” website interchangeably uses “the churches” and “the Church” without every specifically stating WHICH church they are talking about.

#2: Produce the Catholic Church documents that taught lightening was a product of the devil, children were not allowed innoculation, nor women allowed anesthetics. The “religious tolerance” website give absolutely ZERO sources for their information. Why should we believe it? Just because it’s on the internet? Your friend will have to do better than that.

#3: Who is Rev. Edward Massy? Is he a CATHOLIC priest?

No references are given and no documentation substantiates this garbage.

Why are you wasting time with someone who spews profanity at you anyway? Anyone who believes the junk written on that website already has their mind made up about Catholicism. That website is pure trash.

 

[FCEGM]

Sir Knight:

Hey Tom – got this as a reply … … Wanna help me field a reply? Anyone?

Well, one point would be that the obvious ignorance exhibited at the site re what the Church actually teaches and why is hardly conducive to true “religious tolerance and understanding” now, is it?Hmmmm?

I do second 1ke’s thought: why bother with such a crude character?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Thank you for your replies. It appears that the moderator at the other site closed the thread so there will be no more false statements made about the Catholic faith. Once again, thanks to all for your assistance in helping me defend the Catholic church.

 

[Michael_Francis]

And with that said, the moderator on this end will now close this thread since it has accomplished its purpose.