If Catholics can interpret this passage loosely

[Hawkiz]

• One must confess sins to a priest
• There exist mortal and venial sin
  There are no Biblical verses on point; rather, an analysis of the consequences different people faced for different sins according to various verses. The Bible does mention confessing sins to each other. But it doesn’t necessitate the dogmatic, guilt-mongering system that the CC devised in which one must confess mortal sins to remain in a state of grace, or else one faces hell. It doesn’t exclude the possibility that absolution can be obtained by confessing to God directly. It doesn’t exclude the possibility of Once Saved, Always Saved.

Let’s examine this one closer please. And before we delve into it, do we agree that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? I think we agree. What does this mean exactly? Does this mean that we should sit down, read it cover to cover and decide what parts we agree with God on? Do we each, as individuals, have the authority to interpret God’s word however we see fit? Do we each, as individuals, make ourselves ‘pope’ if we do this? OR, is there a specific authority that God Himself established that is to teach us how to interpret the Bible correctly? I won’t put words in your mouth, but I know that as a Catholic, I see (clearly, not loosely) that Christ established a Church - He didn’t establish a set of beliefs that we can pick and choose from -but a Church. And He further gave His authority to that Church. Without His given authority, the Church that He created might have not been able to prevail against Hell…do you follow me so far? This is why so many on here are addressing the issue of authority with you. Because for any entity to be the Church that Christ founded, it must have been given that authority by Him and Him alone.

So…that being said, let’s look and see if your claims of a lack of Biblical teaching surrounding both confession to a priest and mortal and venial sins is accurate or not.

John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.

John 20:22 - the Lord “breathes” on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord “breathes” divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.

John 20:23 - Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.

(Above taken directly from John Salza and ScriptureCatholic.com)
This is NOT a power gifted to anyone other than the apostles. They passed their powers on only to very select members that followed them by being baptized and joining the Church. We call these people priests today. This is the reason why priest partake of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Scripture shows us that the OFFICES of the apostles were retained, even if those who previously held them had fallen away (Judas being the first to have his office replaced - the men in the office will surely sin - they are human - but their office/position is clearly respected by the apostles as shown in Scripture). This demonstrates that Christ’s model for us to follow was to confess our sins to another, and specifically to another who has been given His power - since He is God, He does the actual forgiving. The Catholic Church is fully in-line with Scripture in Her belief and practice here - there is not any evidence to the contrary found in Scripture that I have seen. If you have some, please present it, as we are all only interested in the Truth. There is no evidence that this power somehow died out with the apostles - throughout the book of Acts we see the Church’s teaching on this being revealed as time after time, specific select people have this authority passed to them. I have more, but this should get us started on this topic.

As far as your claim that there are no mortal sins and no venial sins, please study the following Scripture passage:
1 John 5:16-17; “16 If you see your brother or sister[a] committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God** will give life to such a one—to those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin that is mortal; I do not say that you should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal.” RSV edition. Perhaps your translation uses the words “does not lead to death”? Mortal = death. God tells us here is His Scripture that there are sins that “lead to death” and there are sins that “do not lead to death.” We can agree that all sin is against God and is wrong. I am struggling to see your claim that there are not distinctions between types of sins?
Can you please clarify your position for me? If you could site book, chapter, and verse to support your claim of this lack of distinction, that would help me very much. Please include how you explain 1 John and why you do not believe that there are sins that lead to death and sins that do not lead to death.

Thank you

Peace and God Bless**

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If Catholics can interpret passages of the Bible loosely to conclude that:

• Purgatory exists
• One must confess sins to a priest
• There exist mortal and venial sin
• Praying to saints is okay and God is pleased with it
• Mary has a high position
• Abortion is a grave evil
• Contraception is a grave evil
• Homosexual sex is a sin
• Tradition must be followed
• The Eucharist is the Real Presence
• The Bible is not the only authority and the Church is the pillar of the Truth
• Peter is the Rock on which the Church stands, and Rome is primary and infallible in areas of faith and morals

Then why can’t Protestants interpret passages of the Bible loosely to conclude that:

• Sola Scriptura is true
• Purgatory does not exist
• Prayers should be sent to God only
• Confessions should be sent to God only
• Mary does not have a high position
• Homosexuality is not a sin; rather, temple prostitution and pederasty were being referred to
• There is nothing banning contraception
• Drinking alcohol is a sin
• Smoking tobacco is a sin
• Certain forms of dancing are sins
• Having statutes in church is idolatry
• It is not necessary to adhere to all Holy Tradition, and the Gospel can and should be adapted to be relevant to people of all cultures and times, for evangelization purposes
• The Eucharist is symbolic
• Jesus is the Rock on which the Church stands, and therefore Rome is not primary

Can someone help? If you say the Magisterium helps us, then why should we continue to trust the Magisterium in the face of continuing Catholic Church scandal?

You start with an entirely false proposition, that "Catholic interpret (these) passages “LOOSELY”. Naturally your conclusions will be false.

 

[Razanir]

You start with an entirely false proposition, that "Catholic interpret (these) passages “LOOSELY”. Naturally your conclusions will be false.

Well if you want to get technical, the OP’s correct. You can prove anything with a false premise! For instance, if there exists a pink unicorn, then no unicorns are pink.

 

[pablope]

If Catholics can interpret passages of the Bible loosely to conclude that:

 

[pablope]

Purgatory exists:
Circumstantial evidence at best. It is possible that the “consuming fire” passage refers to people being accountable to the works they do in this life. But it doesn’t necessitate the existence of a purgatory process. Also, the “not in this life or the next” passage could also refer to an emphasis on how someone might not be forgiven at any time under certain circumstances. Therefore, a loose interpretation by the CC.

 

[laircy]

The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, therefore the Catholic Church gets to interpret what it means, and no, it is not “loosely.” The only “loose” interpretation I see here is the idea that homosexuality is somehow not mentioned or condemned—which requires real mental acrobatics, and the idea that the Rock wasn’t Peter? Do you know what the name “Peter” means?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

CaliLobo:

Can someone help? If you say the Magisterium helps us, then why should we continue to trust the Magisterium in the face of continuing Catholic Church scandal?

You have to first of all examine your first principle. IOW, whether you realize it or not, you are coming from the Protestant perspective (first principle) that says the Bible is the highest arbiter of Divine Revelation.

No other religion on earth, except Islam is based on a book. IOW, there is Islam and Protestantism. That’s it. All other world religions are based on a Religious Tradition that INCLUDES books or documents.

Christianity was an outgrowth from Judaism, both of which are Religions based on Religious Tradition, which includes the Sacred Scripture.

Protestantism (thanks to the printing press) endeavored to yank the book away from the Religious Tradition, and make it a “Do it yourself” manual for Christians. This was a stupendous failure, as the thousands of contradicting Protestant churches attest.

Get back to basics. Does God leave JUST A BOOK for everyone to fight over, or does God leave HIS OWN stewards to safeguard HIS Revelation? Ironically, the answer is right there in the Bible!

 

[SoulSolace]

If Catholics can interpret passages of the Bible loosely to conclude that:

• Purgatory exists
• One must confess sins to a priest
• There exist mortal and venial sin
• Praying to saints is okay and God is pleased with it
• Mary has a high position
• Abortion is a grave evil
• Contraception is a grave evil
• Homosexual sex is a sin
• Tradition must be followed
• The Eucharist is the Real Presence
• The Bible is not the only authority and the Church is the pillar of the Truth
• Peter is the Rock on which the Church stands, and Rome is primary and infallible in areas of faith and morals

Then why can’t Protestants interpret passages of the Bible loosely to conclude that:

• Sola Scriptura is true
• Purgatory does not exist
• Prayers should be sent to God only
• Confessions should be sent to God only
• Mary does not have a high position
• Homosexuality is not a sin; rather, temple prostitution and pederasty were being referred to
• There is nothing banning contraception
• Drinking alcohol is a sin
• Smoking tobacco is a sin
• Certain forms of dancing are sins
• Having statutes in church is idolatry
• It is not necessary to adhere to all Holy Tradition, and the Gospel can and should be adapted to be relevant to people of all cultures and times, for evangelization purposes
• The Eucharist is symbolic
• Jesus is the Rock on which the Church stands, and therefore Rome is not primary

Can someone help? If you say the Magisterium helps us, then why should we continue to trust the Magisterium in the face of continuing Catholic Church scandal?

Because Judas didn’t break the Church. When he betrayed Jesus, being a part of the early Church, the other apostles didn’t say; "okay, let’s change all of the doctrine we’ve been taught by Jesus in the face of this scandal. "
Scandal has always existed within the Church. It started with Judas.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well if you want to get technical, the OP’s correct. You can prove anything with a false premise! For instance, if there exists a pink unicorn, then no unicorns are pink.

The proper conclusion to “if there exists a pink unicorn” is “then SOME unicorns are pink.” Your point isn’t made by using a non sequitur.

More properly, it isn’t true that you can prove anything with a false premise because the false premise is false, after all. Part of using logic is to begin with determinably true premises, which are often, though not always, conclusions from even more basic premises/axioms that are self-evidently or undeniably true.

 

[Razanir]

The proper conclusion to “if there exists a pink unicorn” is “then SOME unicorns are pink.” Your point isn’t made by using a non sequitur.

More properly, it isn’t true that you can prove anything with a false premise because the false premise is false, after all. Part of using logic is to begin with determinably true premises, which are often, though not always, conclusions from even more basic premises/axioms that are self-evidently or undeniably true.

No unicorns exists. Therefore, there are no unicorns to be pink, and the statement “there exists a pink unicorn” is false.

Under material implication (as opposed to implication in relevance logic) “False” can imply anything. The explanation being that there are no counterexamples to prove it otherwise. There’s no situation in which Earth’s moon is actually made of cheese, so we have no counterexamples to show that wouldn’t imply 2+2=5.

Hence, under material implication, the existence of a pink unicorn can counterintuitively imply the non-existence of pink unicorns.

(I’m in computer science. We don’t care about paradoxes like this)

 

[CaliLobo]

A lot of you have given reasons why we should trust the Magisterium. But I cannot trust a Magisterium that:

• Oppresses women by mandating that pregnancies be carried out. I don’t see a loving Jesus mandating that women carry out their pregnancies, and have to suffer. Jesus, who ministered to prostitutes, would never mandate such a thing.
• Oppresses gays by advocating denial of civil rights and adoption rights. The Bible does not explicitly say that gay sex is a sin. Rather, it speaks against temple prostitution and pederasty. I don’t see a loving Jesus mandating that gays cannot get civil rights to marriage. Such denial is promulgation of hatred and goes against Jesus.
• Oppresses divorced people by denying them the chance to remarry within the Church (and don’t say annulment can be obtained; there are people on CAF that are divorced and can’t remarry). I don’t see a loving Jesus saying that divorced people cannot remarry. The Bible allows divorce in cases of marital unfaithfulness. In a modern era in which lifespan is increasing and there are no more financial incentives to stay married, I don’t see Jesus forcing divorced people to suffer in today’s world, especially when the divorce is not their fault.
• Promulgates a guilt-mongering, fear-mongering system of mortal and venial sin, with the idea that if you do not confess mortal sins, you are guaranteed hell. This goes against John 3:16, which states that those who believe are given eternal life. I don’t see a loving Jesus sending people to hell in this way. Jesus never used guilt to win converts in the New Testament. People chose to believe because of the work of Jesus that they witnessed. Are people witnessing Jesus’ work in the Catholic Church, or rather, a symbol of hate, oppression, and irrelevance? One only needs to see the higher conversion growth rates of Protestantism to find out.
• Promotes saint and Marian devotion at the expense of devotion to God. By doing this, the Catholic Church is hindering access to God directly. Jesus had access to God directly, and therefore a personal relationship to God. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church promote the same? Protestant churches do.
• Takes an active hand in the colonization of Spanish America. Took an active hand in wars and politics of Europe. Continuing to meddle in politics today. This is empire building, which Jesus never did. Jesus never said we should meddle in politics.

No, for these reasons and others, I, along with billions of others, cannot trust the Magisterium. I, along with billions of others, do not see Jesus in the Magisterium. It is clear the Magisterium has lost its way, and that the only churches that are picking up the slack, if any, are Protestant churches.

Jesus foresaw today’s world and I believe Jesus would adapt his teachings to be relevant to the modern world, in the same way that Paul adapted the Gospel to make it relevant to different nations he traveled to.

 

[petra22]

No unicorns exists. Therefore, there are no unicorns to be pink, and the statement “there exists a pink unicorn” is false.

Under material implication (as opposed to implication in relevance logic) “False” can imply anything. The explanation being that there are no counterexamples to prove it otherwise. There’s no situation in which Earth’s moon is actually made of cheese, so we have no counterexamples to show that wouldn’t imply 2+2=5.

Hence, under material implication, the existence of a pink unicorn can counterintuitively imply the non-existence of pink unicorns.

(I’m in computer science. We don’t care about paradoxes like this)

But it scratches my dull brain cells… thanks!

 

[Jon_S_1]

A lot of you have given reasons why we should trust the Magisterium. But I cannot trust a Magisterium that:

• Oppresses women by mandating that pregnancies be carried out. I don’t see a loving Jesus mandating that women carry out their pregnancies, and have to suffer. Jesus, who ministered to prostitutes, would never mandate such a thing.

A church who values all life including boys and girls in the womb is oppressing no one. In fact we are advocating for the powerless and voiceless.

• Oppresses gays by advocating denial of civil rights and adoption rights. The Bible does not explicitly say that gay sex is a sin. Rather, it speaks against temple prostitution and pederasty. I don’t see a loving Jesus mandating that gays cannot get civil rights to marriage. Such denial is promulgation of hatred and goes against Jesus.

This is just incorrect.

Leviticus 18:22
“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.” (NLT)

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NLT)

• Oppresses divorced people by denying them the chance to remarry within the Church (and don’t say annulment can be obtained; there are people on CAF that are divorced and can’t remarry). I don’t see a loving Jesus saying that divorced people cannot remarry. The Bible allows divorce in cases of marital unfaithfulness. In a modern era in which lifespan is increasing and there are no more financial incentives to stay married, I don’t see Jesus forcing divorced people to suffer in today’s world, especially when the divorce is not their fault.

It appears your “loving Jesus” allows anything to be permissible? Like a “loving” parent allows their child to do whatever they want. I am one of the people you describe. I am very grateful for the churches teaching in this area. I am not in anyway suffering.

• Promulgates a guilt-mongering, fear-mongering system of mortal and venial sin, with the idea that if you do not confess mortal sins, you are guaranteed hell. This goes against John 3:16, which states that those who believe are given eternal life. I don’t see a loving Jesus sending people to hell in this way. Jesus never used guilt to win converts in the New Testament. People chose to believe because of the work of Jesus that they witnessed. Are people witnessing Jesus’ work in the Catholic Church, or rather, a symbol of hate, oppression, and irrelevance? One only needs to see the higher conversion growth rates of Protestantism to find out.

What? again no. Jesus did convict people of their sin. And "guilted " them into radical service.

Matt 25: 31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” 37 Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” 40 And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,[g] you did it to me.” 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” 44 Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” 45 Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’

There are dozens of other verses. I suggest you pop this balloon of emptiness you call Jesus and find out who he really was.

• Promotes saint and Marian devotion at the expense of devotion to God. By doing this, the Catholic Church is hindering access to God directly. Jesus had access to God directly, and therefore a personal relationship to God. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church promote the same? Protestant churches do.

This is completely false. I have had far more “access to God” directly in Catholicism than my Protestant religion. I pray to God everyday and whenever I ask the saints to pray for me it gives me more access to God.

 

[Jon_S_1]

• Takes an active hand in the colonization of Spanish America. Took an active hand in wars and politics of Europe. Continuing to meddle in politics today. This is empire building, which Jesus never did. Jesus never said we should meddle in politics.

Jesus came to build a kingdom of salvation on earth in every land.

Luke 12

49 ‘I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and what stress I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! 52 From now on, five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; 53 they will be divided:

Matt 28

18 And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’[d]

 

[estesbob]

If Catholics can interpret passages of the Bible loosely to conclude that:
Can someone help? If you say the Magisterium helps us, then why should we continue to trust the Magisterium in the face of continuing Catholic Church scandal?

The error is your thinking is looking at this from a Sola Scriptura standpoint. For instance the “real presence” is supported not only by Scripture but also by 2,000 years of teachings and traditions. as an example this was written in the 4th century:
*
On the night he was betrayed our Lord Jesus Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: “Take, eat: this is my body.” He took the cup, gave thanks and said: “Take, drink: this is my blood.” Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question it and say that it is not his blood?

Therefore, it is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us under the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.

Once, when speaking to the Jews, Christ said: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no life in you. This horrified them and they left him. Not understanding his words in a spiritual way, they thought the Saviour wished them to practise cannibalism.

Under the old covenant there was showbread, but it came to an end with the old dispensation to which it belonged. Under the new covenant there is bread from heaven and the cup of salvation. These sanctify both soul and body, the bread being adapted to the sanctification of the body, the Word, to the sanctification of the soul.

Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith.

You have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and the blood of Christ. You know also how David referred to this long ago when he sang: Bread gives strength to man’s heart and makes his face shine with the oil of gladness. Strengthen your heart, then, by receiving this bread as spiritual bread, and bring joy to the face of your soul.

May purity of conscience remove the veil from the face of your soul so that by contemplating the glory of the Lord, as in a mirror, you may be transformed from glory to glory in Christ Jesus our Lord. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen*.

So we see the real presence was believed and taught at least 1,800 years ago. The entire protestant list you give came about 1,500 years AFTER Christ founded his Church. Are we to believe that Christ allowed his church to be in error for 1,500 years?

 

[SAVINGRACE]

A lot of you have given reasons why we should trust the Magisterium. But I cannot trust a Magisterium that:

• Oppresses women by mandating that pregnancies be carried out. I don’t see a loving Jesus mandating that women carry out their pregnancies, and have to suffer. Jesus, who ministered to prostitutes, would never mandate such a thing.
• Oppresses gays by advocating denial of civil rights and adoption rights. The Bible does not explicitly say that gay sex is a sin. Rather, it speaks against temple prostitution and pederasty. I don’t see a loving Jesus mandating that gays cannot get civil rights to marriage. Such denial is promulgation of hatred and goes against Jesus.
• Oppresses divorced people by denying them the chance to remarry within the Church (and don’t say annulment can be obtained; there are people on CAF that are divorced and can’t remarry). I don’t see a loving Jesus saying that divorced people cannot remarry. The Bible allows divorce in cases of marital unfaithfulness. In a modern era in which lifespan is increasing and there are no more financial incentives to stay married, I don’t see Jesus forcing divorced people to suffer in today’s world, especially when the divorce is not their fault.
• Promulgates a guilt-mongering, fear-mongering system of mortal and venial sin, with the idea that if you do not confess mortal sins, you are guaranteed hell. This goes against John 3:16, which states that those who believe are given eternal life. I don’t see a loving Jesus sending people to hell in this way. Jesus never used guilt to win converts in the New Testament. People chose to believe because of the work of Jesus that they witnessed. Are people witnessing Jesus’ work in the Catholic Church, or rather, a symbol of hate, oppression, and irrelevance? One only needs to see the higher conversion growth rates of Protestantism to find out.
• Promotes saint and Marian devotion at the expense of devotion to God. By doing this, the Catholic Church is hindering access to God directly. Jesus had access to God directly, and therefore a personal relationship to God. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church promote the same? Protestant churches do.
• Takes an active hand in the colonization of Spanish America. Took an active hand in wars and politics of Europe. Continuing to meddle in politics today. This is empire building, which Jesus never did. Jesus never said we should meddle in politics.

No, for these reasons and others, I, along with billions of others, cannot trust the Magisterium. I, along with billions of others, do not see Jesus in the Magisterium. It is clear the Magisterium has lost its way, and that the only churches that are picking up the slack, if any, are Protestant churches.

Jesus foresaw today’s world and I believe Jesus would adapt his teachings to be relevant to the modern world, in the same way that Paul adapted the Gospel to make it relevant to different nations he traveled to.

Perhaps Catholicism isn’t for you. You should not be surprised that a billion Catholics support the Magisterium, this is a Catholic forum.

 

[estesbob]

A lot of you have given reasons why we should trust the Magisterium. But I cannot trust a Magisterium that:

• Oppresses women by mandating that pregnancies be carried out. I don’t see a loving Jesus mandating that women carry out their pregnancies, and have to suffer. Jesus, who ministered to prostitutes, would never mandate such a thing.
• Oppresses gays by advocating denial of civil rights and adoption rights. The Bible does not explicitly say that gay sex is a sin. Rather, it speaks against temple prostitution and pederasty. I don’t see a loving Jesus mandating that gays cannot get civil rights to marriage. Such denial is promulgation of hatred and goes against Jesus.
• Oppresses divorced people by denying them the chance to remarry within the Church (and don’t say annulment can be obtained; there are people on CAF that are divorced and can’t remarry). I don’t see a loving Jesus saying that divorced people cannot remarry. The Bible allows divorce in cases of marital unfaithfulness. In a modern era in which lifespan is increasing and there are no more financial incentives to stay married, I don’t see Jesus forcing divorced people to suffer in today’s world, especially when the divorce is not their fault.
• Promulgates a guilt-mongering, fear-mongering system of mortal and venial sin, with the idea that if you do not confess mortal sins, you are guaranteed hell. This goes against John 3:16, which states that those who believe are given eternal life. I don’t see a loving Jesus sending people to hell in this way. Jesus never used guilt to win converts in the New Testament. People chose to believe because of the work of Jesus that they witnessed. Are people witnessing Jesus’ work in the Catholic Church, or rather, a symbol of hate, oppression, and irrelevance? One only needs to see the higher conversion growth rates of Protestantism to find out.
• Promotes saint and Marian devotion at the expense of devotion to God. By doing this, the Catholic Church is hindering access to God directly. Jesus had access to God directly, and therefore a personal relationship to God. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church promote the same? Protestant churches do.
• Takes an active hand in the colonization of Spanish America. Took an active hand in wars and politics of Europe. Continuing to meddle in politics today. This is empire building, which Jesus never did. Jesus never said we should meddle in politics.

No, for these reasons and others, I, along with billions of others, cannot trust the Magisterium. I, along with billions of others, do not see Jesus in the Magisterium. It is clear the Magisterium has lost its way, and that the only churches that are picking up the slack, if any, are Protestant churches.

Jesus foresaw today’s world and I believe Jesus would adapt his teachings to be relevant to the modern world, in the same way that Paul adapted the Gospel to make it relevant to different nations he traveled to.

So it is you opinion that the gates of hell have prevailed against the church and you base this opinion mostly on the Church not acceding to the culture of death prevalent in our society today? I mean really-standing against the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year is 'oppression"?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Even in the second century!

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110

 

[Peter_Plato]

CaliBooBoo:

A lot of you have given reasons why we should trust the Magisterium. But I cannot trust a Magisterium that:

• Oppresses men and women by mandating that the care of children be carried out. I don’t see a loving Jesus mandating that men and women have to carry out responsibilities to their children, and have to suffer for it. Jesus, who ministered to prostitutes, would never mandate such a thing.
• Oppresses pedophiles by advocating denial of civil rights and adoption rights. The Bible does not explicitly say that pedophilia is a sin. Rather, it speaks against temple prostitution and pederasty. I don’t see a loving Jesus mandating that pedophiles cannot get civil rights to love children. Such denial is promulgation of hatred and goes against Jesus.
• Oppresses married people by denying them the chance to marry as many times as they want within the Church (and don’t say annulment can be obtained; there are people on CAF that are married and can’t marry again). I don’t see a loving Jesus saying that married people cannot marry as many times as they want. The Bible promotes marriage as a good state, so being married to as many other partners as possible would be an even higher good. In a modern era in which lifespan is increasing and there are more financial incentives to be married to more than one partner, I don’t see Jesus forcing single-partner married people to suffer with only one partner in today’s world, especially when the marriage is not their fault.
• Promulgates a guilt-mongering, fear-mongering system of grace and redemption, with the idea that if you do not repent from sin, you are guaranteed hell. This goes against James 2:19, which states that even the devils believe and are therefore saved after they tremble a little, of course. (Obviously, God is too kind to make them tremble too much.) I don’t see a loving Jesus sending devils to hell for any reason. Jesus never used guilt or fear to win converts in the New Testament. People chose to believe because of the work of Jesus that they witnessed and even the ones who didn’t believe and crucified him didn’t do anything especially evil or hateful. Are people witnessing Jesus’ work in the Catholic Church, or rather, a symbol of hate, oppression, and irrelevance? It is much more tolerant to see everyone as nice and loving no matter what they are up to because I’m okay and you are okay, everything is good and nothing is evil. We have to see it as acceptable to call evil good and good evil, despite what Isaiah said (Is 5:20). One only needs to ask what the majority of people want to know what God wants. It is clear that what Isaiah said against the people of Israel has been shown to be wrong by the rising tide of Protestantism which demonstrates that human beings can tell God what to do and think.
• Promotes honoring and obedience to father and mother at the expense of devotion to God. By doing this, the Catholic Church is hindering access to God directly. Jesus had access to God directly, and therefore a personal relationship to God. God obviously thinks relationships to all others, including Mary, the saints, parents and other human beings gets in the way of our relationship to God alone. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church promote the same? Protestant churches do.
• Takes an active hand in the colonization of Spanish America. There was obviously nothing wrong with the Aztec practice of human sacrifice since no human person should get in the way of our relationship to God and, therefore, can legitimately be sacrificed (see point above.) Taking an active hand in wars and politics of Europe is just wrong. Jesus said we should be salt of the Earth but that does not mean we have to influence anyone. Preaching the Gospel to the nations has nothing to do with changing the way anyone thinks or making them better in any way. People should be left alone to live mediocre lives and what Jesus has to say makes no difference to the way people live, in any case. Continuing to meddle in politics today is simply misguided. People have a right to kill their own offspring, have as much pleasure or wealth as they want and live entirely for the day. What the Church is doing is building the Kingdom of Heaven, which is empire building, which Jesus never did. Jesus never said we should meddle in politics. Jesus was crucified because he didn’t say anything against anyone, he just lived a quiet life of being nice to everyone. That wouldn’t happen today because we are too nice and good.

No, for these reasons and others, I, along with billions of others, cannot trust the Magisterium. I, along with billions of others, do not see Jesus in the Magisterium. It is clear the Magisterium has lost its way, and that the only churches that are picking up the slack, if any, are Protestant churches and Richard Dawkins because, essentially, his idea of superniceness is what the Gospel is all about. If everyone were to mind their own business and just be nice everyone would be saved because that is what is going to happen. Even if the human race exterminates itself from the Earth God will just save everyone because he is God, after all.

In the meantime, go about your business eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage (regardless of sexual orientation) because obviously nothing that humans do matters to God and he will simply save everyone anyway.

Continued…

 

[Peter_Plato]

…from previous
CaliBooBoo:

Jesus foresaw today’s world and how human beings are so much nicer and better than they were in his day. I believe Jesus would adapt his teachings to be relevant to the modern world where the idea of sin and evil is outdated and no longer applies since modern people (unlike those icky people of the past) are SOOOOO good and kind that today we only kill our unborn because we want to be nice and engage in little disagreements that cost the lives of hundreds of millions (but that’s okay because we are nice and good.) In the same way, Paul adapted the Gospel to make it relevant to different nations he traveled to. He had to speak harshly to the Corinthians because they were, well, Corinthians and didn’t know better. Today, we are smart, know everything and don’t need anyone to tell us differently. That is because modernism has allowed human beings to make the rules about how the universe is to be ordered. God’s job is simply to save everyone at the end of time. A super nice arrangement all around.