O
O.S.Luke
Guest
The Nicene Creed is not a prayer. It is a credo. And I feel just fine saying it.
What’s your point?
- Status
What’s your point?
J
josie_L
Guest
I think that my point is that the credo was written by Catholics for Catholics. Although I am glad that most Christians adhere to it.The Nicene Creed is not a prayer. It is a credo. And I feel just fine saying it.
What’s your point?
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
By that logic, the Orthodox shouldn’t say Creed either, should they?
Of course, Catholics and Orthodox would argue which Church is the REAL catholic and apostolic church!
I think I will consider myself in good company.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
But the Creed doesn’t say “**we believe in the Orthodox church”…**It clearly states the Catholic church, written by Catholics (The Apostle’s).By that logic, the Orthodox shouldn’t say Creed either, should they?
Of course, Catholics and Orthodox would argue which Church is the REAL catholic and apostolic church!
I think I will consider myself in good company.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Gabriel of 12;
I believe you miss the understanding here what the Catholic Church is? The Catholic Church is the body of Jesus Christ. If you are contrasting the peoples in the Catholic church to Peoples in the Protestant faiths, then you are dealing with a subject outside of what the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is. If you are comparing holiness of individuals one only needs to look to the Catholic witnesses in the Catholic Martyrs, Saints who lived and died for the Christian faith happily and willingly, these are the fruits of Christianity and who gave witness for Jesus Christ and obeyed God’s commandments.
Also remember Jesus did not build a Church for Holy People but for sinners, the holiness comes from Christ of which the Catholic Martyrs and Saints gave witness too with their llives.
As far as Catholics living holy lives, begins with her ministers who have taken a vow of chastity, poverty and obedience. In other words these successors to the apostles in our Catholic Bishops followed by the Priesthood and Deacons have given up their lives for the Gospel of Jesus. Personally holiness begins here when one can give up all things in the world including Marriage and self for the sake of the (Kingdom of God) Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The same holds true to the baptised Christian who has died to self and resurrected from the baptismal waters in Jesus Christ, for as ST. Paul teaches; “To die is gain, to live is Christ”. For the baptised Christian is no longer of the world, but lives in the body of Jesus Christ in his Catholic church where Jesus is ever present. These are no longer of the world but are children of the living God. For it is Jesus Christ who makes his Catholic church holy, not the members of the Catholic church.
The Protestants have removed themselves from this biblical teaching from the apostles and the Church Jesus built upon Peter. Holding to the Word of God “only” as their source of holiness and divine truth. The difference I hope to display here is that Protestantism derives her holiness from the “Word of God” only. The Catholic church derives her holiness from both the “Word of God” and the “Body of Jesus Christ”. In either case no one can achieve holiness with out Jesus.
Peace be with you
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
I am talking about the original Apostle’s Creed, written by the Apostle’s themselves.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I’d like to respond to your commentary if I could. I guess from a Catholic perspective your position is an important one to maintain. Moreover, it is a position that lends authority and sustainability to the CC (and I would argue Christianity in general).
Of course the problem with all of this, from my own perspective, is I doubt any of the events depicted in the Old or New Testaments ever actually occurred; in fact I can say with relative certainty they did not. It’s of course no wonder that god refuses to appear to modern man, restricting his appearances to ancient men who were generally primitive and already predisposed to bizarre superstition. If a guy named Jesus made an appearance today & claimed to be god & his cult of followers claimed he had supernatural powers of course we would probably have the ATF assault his compound.
Hence, this religion (and religion generally speaking) relies purely on sustaining an ancient mythology that by all reasonable and empirical standards is false. So it’s through this prism that I evaluate the usefulness of the CC (and Christianity) to our society at large.
To spite what I’m sure you (and most others here) might find to be a cynical and rigid world view (though I wouldn’t characterize my views as such) I still find some value in religion. In fact I attended an Episcopal service this Easter Sunday and found it quite enjoyable (they had great Celtic music). I noticed the church offered all sorts of services, like childcare, education, substance abuse assistance, food and clothing for the poor, and I think even homeless services. The facilities were also top notch (unlike what I imagine a government welfare facility must look like). So certainly this church is very relevant and useful to their community.
So I guess if I were to pay homage to our national religion (which really is Christianity, to spite the pretenses of being multicultural) I would be Episcopalian. They don’t discriminate against anyone, they don’t hold bizarre views with regard to medical science (such as stem cell research), in sum they really do embody the idea of love and forgiveness (which IMO are the only valuable features of the Christian religion). I hope the liberal protestant denominations (now that they’ve managed to forge communions with one another) begin to again dominate American Christianity.
J
josie_L
Guest
Hi O.S. Luke, I copied a response I had made earlier on another thread, this is it:By that logic, the Orthodox shouldn’t say Creed either, should they?
Of course, Catholics and Orthodox would argue which Church is the REAL catholic and apostolic church!
I think I will consider myself in good company.
The Catholic writers of the Creed (which at the time included the Orthodox who were under papal authority) were writing the creed for the benefit of other Catholics (who were under papal authority) never knowing that the one Church would one day experience upheaval, by men who rejected her authority (magisterium/papal infallibility) and Traditions.
That being said the Orthodox have every right to apostolic succession (but they are not one, as in united under the same infrastructure and doctrine). The Church began by Christ must contain all earmarks, that is, it must be “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.”
Also, I believe all Christians should profess the Creed, I’m just keeping it real by stating that there is one Church which was started by Christ and gifted us with the Nicene Creed.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Gabriel of 12
So you admit then, that the Catholic church plays a major role in Morality in the world. The Catholic Church will always defend life and the innocent even at the expense of persecution and death.
Peace be with you
J
josie_L
Guest
What do you know of stem cell search, apart from embryonic? Are you aware of the many treatments for various diseases (almost 80) connected to adult stem cell research?Do you know that there has been no successes with embryonic stem cell research to date, and that those who resorted to using such a method (for treatment) developed tumors?
God bless.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
why does any of that matter anyway? Moreover, you cannot quantify the damage your church (and others) have done to this potentially valuable research. Albeit Bush’s ban on ESCR only effected government money, however, it in effect froze all ESCR (what private enterprise would invest in such risky research when they can’t even count on a stable political environment if anything does materialize from it).
In essence after the ban scientists did continue studying the few stem cell lines they already created … but virtually no new lines were created (this includes private industry) and the research dollars dried up. Why? Because the RCC (as usual) stood against freedom of expression. Nothing new … ask poor Galileo who spent his last years on earth under house arrest (ala the Roman Inquisition) because he simply noted the earth revolves around the sun.
I’ll look forward to the classic revisionist spin job telling me why the RCC really didn’t pick on poor Galileo
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
With regard to tumors from ESCR … I’m not aware that there were “any” human trials using ESCR. You’re referring to the use of undifferentiated ESC’s in mice (which has caused benign tumors).
Undifferentiated ESC’s are simply cells that have not been turned into anything yet (like a liver or kidney cell). They initially exist in a blank state & can be turned into almost any sort of cell. However, they cannot use a stem cell until it has been turned into something (at risk of causing tumors, even though we’re not yet sure whether this will replicate in humans).
Undifferentiated ESC’s are simply cells that have not been turned into anything yet (like a liver or kidney cell). They initially exist in a blank state & can be turned into almost any sort of cell. However, they cannot use a stem cell until it has been turned into something (at risk of causing tumors, even though we’re not yet sure whether this will replicate in humans).
J
josie_L
Guest
As much as I look forward to your “swiss cheese” interpretation of Historical events.why does any of that matter anyway? Moreover, you cannot quantify the damage your church (and others) have done to this potentially valuable research. Albeit Bush’s ban on ESCR only effected government money, however, it in effect froze all ESCR (what private enterprise would invest in such risky research when they can’t even count on a stable political environment if anything does materialize from it).
Embryonic stem cell research has gotten more (if not all) PR than Adult stem cell research, and as such more private funding, yet it is ASCR that has something near to 80 treatments, whereas ESCR has none.
In essence after the ban scientists did continue studying the few stem cell lines they already created … but virtually no new lines were created (this includes private industry) and the research dollars dried up. Why? Because the RCC (as usual) stood against freedom of expression. Nothing new … ask poor Galileo who spent his last years on earth under house arrest (ala the Roman Inquisition) because he simply noted the earth revolves around the sun.
Oh, the big bad RCC trying to inject ethical standards within the scientific community, how archaic!
I’ll look forward to the classic revisionist spin job telling me why the RCC really didn’t pick on poor Galileo
P.S. It was Copernicus (a deacon of the 15th century) who first noted that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and he did not get arrested, I wonder why? But hey, I don’t want to impose my “classic revisionist” spin on it.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
good story & this goes to what I explained previously. These were undifferentiated stem cells injected in the boy in Russia (under unregulated and substandard conditions). This would have never been permitted in the United States (or any other western country for that matter). We already knew this problem could occur (albeit in domestic experiments on mice the tumors were benign) & research on ESC’s in the US never focused on using undifferentiated cells. In reality this story is not relevant to ESC research as its conducted in the US (but I’m sure it provides great fodder for the CC and its allies)?
J
josie_L
Guest
Humble, why bother with ESCR when you have the ethical, highly effective, and tumor free method of ASCR ? There is no need to use embryos.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I personally don’t see any future in ESC technology. After all where would we get the embryos from? Would we farm embryos from poor third world women (that hardly seems ethical or prudent … even from a non-religious perspective). However, a fetus that is scheduled to be discarded, which is unfertilized, is NOT life. Therefore, I believe the research should move forward.
If we can see any light at the end of the tunnel, then we’ll move ahead with the research (if not funding will dry up, since not even the government will want to spend money on a fruitless enterprise). If something does come of it … then we’ll have to figure out how to produce embryos artificially (i.e. through cloning).
In the end religion is only a speed bump for science. Like with the Galileo affair, science eventually prevailed over superstition and mythology, science will continue to win the day in our modern world. This is why I generally think religion ought to stay clear of science (or else it will continue to embarrass itself as it has throughout the centuries).
Hey … the Darwin fish is cool isn’t it
P
prodigalson12
Guest
Very, very well thought out OP, the individual that wrote it is highly intelligent (immediate red flag, and am scared, lol). Good point, why are we tearing each other apart even though when it all boils down to it, we have one common and very critical belief!!!
A house divided is destined to fall!!
J
josie_L
Guest
I personally don’t see any future in ESC technology. After all where would we get the embryos from? Would we farm embryos from poor third world women (that hardly seems ethical or prudent … even from a non-religious perspective). However, a fetus that is scheduled to be discarded, which is unfertilized, is NOT life. Therefore, I believe the research should move forward.
Fetuses (or as I like to say “developing humans”) should not be discarded and/or experimented on. Please understand that all life is precious.
If we can see any light at the end of the tunnel, then we’ll move ahead with the research (if not funding will dry up, since not even the government will want to spend money on a fruitless enterprise). If something does come of it … then we’ll have to figure out how to produce embryos artificially (i.e. through cloning).
The day that governments act wisely is the day that fish walk.
In the end religion is only a speed bump for science. Like with the Galileo affair, science eventually prevailed over superstition and mythology, science will continue to win the day in our modern world. This is why I generally think religion ought to stay clear of science (or else it will continue to embarrass itself as it has throughout the centuries).
Here is an excerpt from catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp :
Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.
Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the “sensible demonstrations” needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.
Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.
In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this “new science” was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . .” (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, “One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.” Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.
Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.
Tortured for His Beliefs?
In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.
As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, “We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities.” Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.
Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.
Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s “imprisonment” when he reported to the Tuscan king: “The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another” (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and “*n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible” (letter, June 18).
Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.
The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter. *
Hey … the Darwin fish is cool isn’t it
I like Elvis’s better.
P.S. You still haven’t told me how old you are? It’s ok if you don’t want to.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
gee wiz … you’re revisionist apology for the CC’s silly behavior during the Galileo affair is over the top. First, I never said they tortured the man, they merely imprisoned him. Second, who cares whether or not Galileo was able to prove his theory or not (we all know he didn’t, in fact it was Kepler who finally proved that the earth rotates around the sun). I’m not saying the CC’s treatment of Galileo was tantamount to tossing Jews in the gas chamber … obviously it wasn’t anything close.
The fact remains that the man was imprisoned for a theory (something that no matter how you try and frame it was not a high point in Catholic history). However, there’s a much more profound issue here that everyone seems to overlook (that doesn’t really have anything to do with suppressing science). During that time the CC took a very literal view of scripture. They interpreted the bible as saying the earth was both the center of the universe and did not move. Well, they were wrong (or as those with common sense would say … they are FALLIBLE).
Religion will always oppose science, even though in some cases (such as here in the west) it’s very subtle. In Galileo’s day it was more overt. The church didn’t like what the man had to say so they tossed him in jail to shut him up. These days we would call that tyranny or at least something akin to totalitarianism. Sadly, the church hasn’t changed much from those days. You said above that fetuses should never be discarded (because you and your church believe them to be life). Well, they’re not life, they’re just an embryo. In fact the reason they exist in a fertilization clinic in the first place is because a couple would like to produce a life.
Now what would you propose these clinics do with the embryo’s? They obviously can’t keep them on ice forever. Would you have them reinsert them in the pregnant mother to be? I mean gee wiz … have you given any real thought to this whole thing? You guys frame it like your protecting the poor little frozen embryo from the big bad clinic technician who has to throw the thing away, when in fact that clinic is in the business of producing life (a wonderful service for couples desperate to have a child but who are unfortunately unable to produce one naturally).
The fact remains that the man was imprisoned for a theory (something that no matter how you try and frame it was not a high point in Catholic history). However, there’s a much more profound issue here that everyone seems to overlook (that doesn’t really have anything to do with suppressing science). During that time the CC took a very literal view of scripture. They interpreted the bible as saying the earth was both the center of the universe and did not move. Well, they were wrong (or as those with common sense would say … they are FALLIBLE).
Religion will always oppose science, even though in some cases (such as here in the west) it’s very subtle. In Galileo’s day it was more overt. The church didn’t like what the man had to say so they tossed him in jail to shut him up. These days we would call that tyranny or at least something akin to totalitarianism. Sadly, the church hasn’t changed much from those days. You said above that fetuses should never be discarded (because you and your church believe them to be life). Well, they’re not life, they’re just an embryo. In fact the reason they exist in a fertilization clinic in the first place is because a couple would like to produce a life.
Now what would you propose these clinics do with the embryo’s? They obviously can’t keep them on ice forever. Would you have them reinsert them in the pregnant mother to be? I mean gee wiz … have you given any real thought to this whole thing? You guys frame it like your protecting the poor little frozen embryo from the big bad clinic technician who has to throw the thing away, when in fact that clinic is in the business of producing life (a wonderful service for couples desperate to have a child but who are unfortunately unable to produce one naturally).
- Status