L
Libero
Guest
Finally, someone who has actually read and thought about the story!!
Look past homosexuality, and then maybe you shall see that that is only one of the great many issues brought up in the story.
- Status
Look past homosexuality, and then maybe you shall see that that is only one of the great many issues brought up in the story.
F
felra
Guest
In your book, is an “ideal Catholic” = “good and faithful Catholic”?
C
cathgal
Guest
We are imperfect creatures, that’s why God gave us the Church. Think you know more than God. Read, explore, study, whatever but it all comes down to ONE interpretation, otherwise, you’re just like any protestant. I’m a better Catholic as long as I stick with the magisterium. Nothing wrong with that altitude. It’s called obedience.
F
fix
Guest
As a Catholic, in most cases, you may interpret the bible as you wish as long as your interpretation does not contradict Church teaching. It appears yours does contradict.
The passages in question have always been interpreted as then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote. That you, and others, have some novel interpretation does not mean you are correct.
Whom shall I bind myself to ? You or the barque of Peter?
F
fix
Guest
This is an incredible position. You act as if the teaching authority of the Church is one opinion among many?
**85 **“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
C
cathgal
Guest
Whatever the father did and however wrong, it wasn’t him who got destroyed with Sodom. That oughta give you pause to wonder what Sodom did to warrant such punishment. You got any issue with that, take it up with God.The fact the father who knew these beings were angels and could have taken care of things themselves, would have given up his daughters for rape disgusts me utterly and I find nothing holy in him for these actions.
And if he DIDNT know they were angels at the time, thats even MORE disgusting cause he was ready to give up his daughters to rape and violence due to mere mortal guests. What the heck was his religion? Islam? It totally has a demeaning to women vibe running thru it. So either way I have major issues with the story of Sodom.
L
Libero
Guest
To an extent.
I have never claimed to know more than God, that is not what I am implying, and if making suggestions such as that is all you can acheive in posting, then I simply suggest that you do not. Further more, the manner in which you talk of Protestants insults me. I do not think that anyone should judge another Christian, or their effort to worship Jesus, just because you find it easy to accept the teachings of the church does not mean that you are in anyway a better Catholic or a superior being. - it is most certainly not obedience.
If you have an issue with my Catholicism, take up it with my Bishop, and plea for my excommunication, otherwise, do not feel as if you have any right or requirement to judge me.
P
Penny_Plain
Guest
fix said:
We know the Church is infallible because it says it’s infallible. We know that the Church is right when it says it’s infallible because the Church is infallible.
Makes sense to me.
F
fix
Guest
Penny Plain:
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
T
Troy7
Guest
For me its better to understand my faith and be obedient out of respect and love cause I understand it instead of blind obedience cause of fear of going to hell. If that works for people then fine, but dont knock those who need to go deeper than “well its good enough for me cause the church says so”
People dont comes to the faith out of that mentality. They come from an exploration of weighing things.
I believe MORE about my faith than NOT. But I dont believe EVERYTHING as related at face value. And it makes me no less a Catholic than someone who blindly follows.
Jesus knew better than to show up on Earth and just STATE, he was the Son of God. He had to perform some miracles along the way and SHOW people.
Thats why I also have a slight problem when after he ressurects, he kind of reprimands Thomas for doubting cause he didnt see Jesus with the others. Why would Jesus show people miracles in the beginning to get them to believe, but then go all…“Blessed are those who dont see and believe”? Sure, its “Faith” and I dont question if he said it or appeared, I question WHY he said it after he did all that stuff. Sure, Thomas had Jesus there and seen everything, and all the others were telling and he should have believed…but why would Jesus then sy that about the very strangers who he knew he had to convince by SHOWING THEM earlier?
Theres a difference in questioning where a story is coming from as opposed to disregarding its validity all together.
And dont even me started on the selling of birthrights…
Noe/Noah being so drunk he didnt know he was having sex with his daughters…ON MORE THAN ONE NIGHT MIND YOU!
I could go on but wont, People may get freaked cause Catholics are asking questions
People dont comes to the faith out of that mentality. They come from an exploration of weighing things.
I believe MORE about my faith than NOT. But I dont believe EVERYTHING as related at face value. And it makes me no less a Catholic than someone who blindly follows.
Jesus knew better than to show up on Earth and just STATE, he was the Son of God. He had to perform some miracles along the way and SHOW people.
Thats why I also have a slight problem when after he ressurects, he kind of reprimands Thomas for doubting cause he didnt see Jesus with the others. Why would Jesus show people miracles in the beginning to get them to believe, but then go all…“Blessed are those who dont see and believe”? Sure, its “Faith” and I dont question if he said it or appeared, I question WHY he said it after he did all that stuff. Sure, Thomas had Jesus there and seen everything, and all the others were telling and he should have believed…but why would Jesus then sy that about the very strangers who he knew he had to convince by SHOWING THEM earlier?
Theres a difference in questioning where a story is coming from as opposed to disregarding its validity all together.
And dont even me started on the selling of birthrights…
Noe/Noah being so drunk he didnt know he was having sex with his daughters…ON MORE THAN ONE NIGHT MIND YOU!
I could go on but wont, People may get freaked cause Catholics are asking questions
L
Libero
Guest
It is, do you not know of the Protestant churches, and surely you are not naive enough to believe that all priests all over the world preach the same message and always reiterate church teaching 100%. I most certainly do not imagine you to be a naive person.
I do not claim to be correct, I am merely voicing my dismay that some would consider homosexuals the same as Sodomites.
However as far as me being Catholic goes, I do not fully agree with the Church, but could not imagine myself anywhere else, I like the RCC for numerous reasons outside its theological stance. I also back the church 100% in a number of it’s teachings, I cannot help but feel that I have been stereotyped here as just another heretic who won’t ever agree with the church on anything - despite the fact that I have hardly voiced my support of the church on a number of issues. I do not think it a good thing that people may have already decided what type I am “the mind of a protestant” without making any effort to try and find out my position on a number of other church teachings.
M
mlchance
Guest
Ignoring the fact that Lot wasn’t such “a devout holy man,” isn’t that the same criticism the Pharisees leveled against Jesus?
Let’s just cut the semantics: Any sort of sexual activity outside the confines of a marriage between one man and one woman is a sin. To say otherwise is to say, at best, something that is wrong.
– Mark L. Chance.
F
fix
Guest
Asking questions is good. Coming to erroneous conclusions is not.For me its better to understand my faith and be obedient out of respect and love cause I understand it instead of blind obedience cause of fear of going to hell. If that works for people then fine, but dont knock those who need to go deeper than “well its good enough for me cause the church says so”
People dont comes to the faith out of that mentality. They come from an exploration of weighing things.
I believe MORE about my faith than NOT. But I dont believe EVERYTHING as related at face value. And it makes me no less a Catholic than someone who blindly follows.
Jesus knew better than to show up on Earth and just STATE, he was the Son of God. He had to perform some miracles along the way and SHOW people.
Thats why I also have a slight problem when after he ressurects, he kind of reprimands Thomas for doubting cause he didnt see Jesus with the others. Why would Jesus show people miracles in the beginning to get them to believe, but then go all…“Blessed are those who dont see and believe”? Sure, its “Faith” and I dont question if he said it or appeared, I question WHY he said it after he did all that stuff. Sure, Thomas had Jesus there and seen everything, and all the others were telling and he should have believed…but why would Jesus then sy that about the very strangers who he knew he had to convince by SHOWING THEM earlier?
Theres a difference in questioning where a story is coming from as opposed to disregarding its validity all together.
And dont even me started on the selling of birthrights…
Noe/Noah being so drunk he didnt know he was having sex with his daughters…ON MORE THAN ONE NIGHT MIND YOU!
I could go on but wont, People may get freaked cause Catholics are asking questions
C
cathgal
Guest
Now you’re on the offensive. I made the conclusion based on what you said. I didn’t make anything up. If I did, I would be judging. The Church is speaking for God. If you go against the Church, you go against God. And if you go against God, that means you know better than God. You don’t claim to know more than God but your posts said otherwise. You may not be aware of it but that’s what you’re doing. And that’s what protestants do. I’m not saying they’re guilty of it.
And it is easy to accept the teachings of Church. You just have to humble yourself. That’ll make you a better Catholic, not a superior being.
F
felra
Guest
Would you feel better with: All sodomites are homosexuals, but not all homosexuals are sodomites. But, all sodomites and homosexuals (active) are guilty of the serious sin of homosexual acts. I do not see the difference as you propose. Sin is sin is sin.
L
Libero
Guest
I am not claiming to know more than God, he is ominscient, I am not. In going against church teaching, one is not chosing to go against God, but rather may have been misled, or is wanting to discover God. A human can never know better than God, thus no human can claim to - its simple logic and the nature of mankind.
In going on the offensive - I have every right to, I come home from another day of condemnation about being religious at all - especially to the extent of joing CAF, the find some angry Catholics want to condemn people who don’t think just like them when it comes to church teaching. Hmmmmm. As I have said, if you do have such a huge problem about people choosing not to merely accept the faith to the point of confronting them about it, then I suggest you contact my bishop (His Grace Bishop Noble) I am not going to spend my time arguing about “being more Catholic” with you.
G
goofyjim
Guest
The passage is not really putting it in the context of rape. Wanting to have a homosexual relationship, even a monogamous one, is wanting to get to “know them.” I never could see another interpretation of this scripture passage adn its consistency with the rest of scripture, such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
C
cathgal
Guest
It’s OK to have blind obedience. It’s not as if we believe in some creature. It’s God we’re giving our blind obedience to and that means the Church. You make it sound so beneath you to have such blind obedience. I bet there are many saints who are not as intelligent as you and have only blind obedience to lead them to heaven.For me its better to understand my faith and be obedient out of respect and love cause I understand it instead of blind obedience cause of fear of going to hell. If that works for people then fine, but dont knock those who need to go deeper than “well its good enough for me cause the church says so”
People dont comes to the faith out of that mentality. They come from an exploration of weighing things.
I believe MORE about my faith than NOT. But I dont believe EVERYTHING as related at face value. And it makes me no less a Catholic than someone who blindly follows.
Jesus knew better than to show up on Earth and just STATE, he was the Son of God. He had to perform some miracles along the way and SHOW people.
Thats why I also have a slight problem when after he ressurects, he kind of reprimands Thomas for doubting cause he didnt see Jesus with the others. Why would Jesus show people miracles in the beginning to get them to believe, but then go all…“Blessed are those who dont see and believe”? Sure, its “Faith” and I dont question if he said it or appeared, I question WHY he said it after he did all that stuff. Sure, Thomas had Jesus there and seen everything, and all the others were telling and he should have believed…but why would Jesus then sy that about the very strangers who he knew he had to convince by SHOWING THEM earlier?
Theres a difference in questioning where a story is coming from as opposed to disregarding its validity all together.
And dont even me started on the selling of birthrights…
Noe/Noah being so drunk he didnt know he was having sex with his daughters…ON MORE THAN ONE NIGHT MIND YOU!
I could go on but wont, People may get freaked cause Catholics are asking questions
“People dont comes to the faith out of that mentality. They come from an exploration of weighing things.”
Says who? You think people from past centuries have the opportunity to be educated as you are today?
There’s a saying like belief THEN understand. Not the other way 'round cuz that understand may never come, and hence, faith. We don’t know all the mysteries of God and faith is a gift.
What good is faith if one must see then belief. But even that doesn’t always work. Look at the Pharisees and the Saducees. The argument is useless.
I only consider questions that are relevant to salvation important.
You like to ask question…ask the orthodox Catholic experts.
O
OhioBob
Guest
Frankly, I could not care less whether you agree with everything that the Church teaches. I didn’t always either. That is a journey home that each of us has to make for ourselves. I believe that you should accept all Church doctrine as a matter of faith, but ultimately that is your decision and you obviously don’t. Yet.
What I find amazing is that you seem to think that the Church teaches that such a position is acceptable. Quite to the contrary, the Church teaches that people who dissent from Church doctrine place themselves apart from the Church by their own action. No action by the Church is required (and nobody will be calling Bishop Noble to complain so he doesn’t need to stay by the phone).
All that people have done on this and other threads is to point out to you that acceptance of Church doctrine is not something that people can pick and choose if they call themselves Catholic (without crossing their fingers). That is and has always been the Church’s position since it was founded by Christ. We didn’t make it up. If you have a complaint take it up with Him.
It has nothing to do with anyone being “more Catholic” than anybody else. You either accept the teaching authority of the Church or you don’t. If you do, than you’re Catholic. Pat yourself on the back.
If you don’t, then you’re something else. Not because I said so, but because the Church said so. Don’t shoot the messenger.
P
Penny_Plain
Guest
The Unification Church and the Church of Scientology demand blind obedience. You seem to make salvation into a matter of, well, luck depending on whom you give the blind obedience to.
You have to think about whom you’re going to obey, don’t you? That involves some analysis of authority and things like that. As soon as you do that, it’s not “blind” anymore.
I don’t think even the Church demands blind obedience. If that were so, wouldn’t the Catechism be just a list of rules? No. It has explanations and reasoning in it. It says: “This is what we believe. This is why.”
If Jesus had demanded blind obedience, what would have happened to Thomas? He saw Jesus raise people from the dead and still didn’t get the concept that Jesus himself would come again.
I may be wrong. The Church may demand blind obedience. But the mere fact that she demands it doesn’t mean she’s entitlted to it.
- Status