R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
“Very good points?” Did I miss something? It’s insane ranting about sky penises.
Is a person still a Catholic if they don't agree with everything that the Catholic Church teaches?
- Status
I was just giving a nod to whatever justifiable grievances existed in his post. Righteous indignation is good, unnecessary anatomical references are not good.HomeschoolDad:
“Very good points?” Did I miss something? It’s insane ranting about sky penises.
R
Rozellelily
Guest
If nothing else, I definitely agree with this!
M
Montrose
Guest
That is blatantly untrue. Excommunication does NOT mean you are no longer a member of the Catholic Church. It simply denies access to most of the Sacraments until you go to Confession (which you still have access to) and become reconciled. Excommunication is a penalty. It is not a punishment.
By the way it does not matter what YOU subscribe to. Anyone sacramentally baptised a Catholic remains a Catholic forever even if they turned their back on the Church and walked away.
Under your thought process anyone who commits a mortal sin is no longer a Catholic. Ridiculous.
By the way it does not matter what YOU subscribe to. Anyone sacramentally baptised a Catholic remains a Catholic forever even if they turned their back on the Church and walked away.
Under your thought process anyone who commits a mortal sin is no longer a Catholic. Ridiculous.
Last edited:
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
Let’s be honest. You quoted the entire post for entertainment purposes. And I appreciate that. IMO it’s not those types of posts that bring down the forum, it’s the ones that are written by sanctimonious oafs, devoid of humor, that are annoying. YMMV.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
I understand your point, I really do. . .it encapsulates just about every hysterical ranting rad-fem ‘pretending I was a Catholic but now I’m woke’ view. . .but at the same time I also wish I could scour my eyeballs clean after reading it.
Beyond horrible.
Beyond horrible.
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
Oh, given the choice between the complete loons and the pedantic 19 year old self-appointed marriage counselors, I’m taking the nutjobs every time.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
The existence of Hell as a place (and not just a state) was definitively taught by Our Lord Himself (Matt. 25: 31-46) and infallibly defined 3 times (Florence, Trent and I forget the other one).
I’d quote St. Padre Pio but don’t want to get banned before Dec. 31…
R
Rozellelily
Guest
Understanding the bible requires a lot of wisdom and not just a face value literally read.
Jesus spoke to people of his times, with their culture and level of understanding etc, and used certain language and imagery for his teachings.
Just like we know when Jesus said “And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee……” we know those words weren’t literal.
The Catholic Church has never stated that Catholics must believe in “a literal fire punishment place” for hell. And the Catholic Church has said with definity that Catholics must believe numerous other things, so I think that at least says something.
Regarding “place” vs “state”, I guess this depends on how you define “place”. But it is unlikely that the perception of time exist after death.
Saints are to be greatly respected, and hero’s of the faith- so to speak- but they are not infallible. Writings of saints have contradicted each other at times.
Regarding the councils-
the council of Florence (1400’s) for example also stated:
"[The holy Roman church] firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; "
Sounds pretty definitive, yes?
Today (2020), the Catholic Church states:
“that the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery”.
Iow, the CC teaching there is no salvation outside of the church was for centuries of church history interpreted very literally.
I hope you understand the example that I am making. God’s truth never change, but mans understanding of those truths can change. Much like when looking through a smoky glass vs looking through a clear glass
Jesus spoke to people of his times, with their culture and level of understanding etc, and used certain language and imagery for his teachings.
Just like we know when Jesus said “And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee……” we know those words weren’t literal.
The Catholic Church has never stated that Catholics must believe in “a literal fire punishment place” for hell. And the Catholic Church has said with definity that Catholics must believe numerous other things, so I think that at least says something.
Regarding “place” vs “state”, I guess this depends on how you define “place”. But it is unlikely that the perception of time exist after death.
Saints are to be greatly respected, and hero’s of the faith- so to speak- but they are not infallible. Writings of saints have contradicted each other at times.
Regarding the councils-
the council of Florence (1400’s) for example also stated:
"[The holy Roman church] firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; "
Sounds pretty definitive, yes?
Today (2020), the Catholic Church states:
“that the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery”.
Iow, the CC teaching there is no salvation outside of the church was for centuries of church history interpreted very literally.
I hope you understand the example that I am making. God’s truth never change, but mans understanding of those truths can change. Much like when looking through a smoky glass vs looking through a clear glass
Last edited:
M
Maximian
Guest
Then they don’t understand the point.
The truth isn’t democratic. It can only be an all-or-nothing proposition: halfway between true and false, is false.
And the meaning of Catholic is universal, not in the sense of what is commonly agreed but in the sense that it is the universe of truth; by definition there can only be one universe.
L
Lara
Guest
Rather than concern yourself with the question, “Am I still a Catholic?”, it would be better to research your questions some more.
Why would you deny poor people the fullness of truth on matters of sexuality?
You say you want to follow Jesus and not be part of “some club.” But you are a part of a club: dissenters.
Why would you deny poor people the fullness of truth on matters of sexuality?
You say you want to follow Jesus and not be part of “some club.” But you are a part of a club: dissenters.
R
Rozellelily
Guest
Regarding Fleeing_in_Terror post:
I feel sorry for her experience but I just now finished reading the Catholic League’s Essay “Women’s Moral Descent” by Bill Donahue and I couldn’t find anything about what she was referring to about rape etc.
All I saw was some negative stuff about Amy Schumer and cultural decline, and how role models like her are not leading to happiness among women, which I sort of agree with him.
Maybe the title can be thought of as a bit controversial, but there was nothing particularly controversial about the article itself, imo.
I’m quite sure that I read the correct article- it was on The Catholic League website etc.
I feel sorry for her experience but I just now finished reading the Catholic League’s Essay “Women’s Moral Descent” by Bill Donahue and I couldn’t find anything about what she was referring to about rape etc.
All I saw was some negative stuff about Amy Schumer and cultural decline, and how role models like her are not leading to happiness among women, which I sort of agree with him.
Maybe the title can be thought of as a bit controversial, but there was nothing particularly controversial about the article itself, imo.
I’m quite sure that I read the correct article- it was on The Catholic League website etc.
R
Rozellelily
Guest
At no point was I suggesting this. I was actually saying that the Catholic Church probably does more in this regard in poor countries than any other “organization”, and this would include teaching people about catholic view on matters of sexuality. But clearly it is up to the receptivity of the people and their mentality. For example, if after this “education”, some men in parts of Africa still have mindset of sleeping around and using prostitutes, and pass on HIV to their wives, do “we” just allow this?
That is all I was saying.
Wow. If I am part of a dissenter club for not being able to agree with some of the things of the Catholic Church, then you must say that many many other Catholics are part of this “club” too. Surveys have shown that many Catholics do not agree with the church on certain matters; such as divorce, contraception, or sex before marriage.
“19 percent of Catholics in the European countries and 30 percent in the Latin American countries surveyed agree with church teaching that divorcees who remarry outside the church should not receive Communion,…”
19 % Europe agree. Meaning 81 % disagree.
If you are going to call the majority of Catholics a “dissenter club”, with this attitude you are going to push many Catholics away and end up with a very small Church…
“The German bishops suggested the Church should move away from what it called its “prohibition ethics” of rules against certain acts or views and stress “advisory ethics” meant to help Catholics live better lives.”
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
I don’t mean any insult by this, but I think both the Church, and the people involved would be better off if that did happen.
Empower women - and I don’t mean by abortion/contraception, but by education and job opportunities. A woman who does not need a man to support her may be more likely to leave a husband who sleeps around.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
You don’t want the church in your bedroom but are all too willing to hand out condoms to thousands of people you have never met. Now who is in people’s bedrooms?
People have free will to do as they like. The church is like a parent who offers us good advise. We can choose to ignore that advice to our own peril or not.
God loves you and wants what is best for you. He gave you the church for that reason.
People have free will to do as they like. The church is like a parent who offers us good advise. We can choose to ignore that advice to our own peril or not.
God loves you and wants what is best for you. He gave you the church for that reason.
Last edited:
R
Rozellelily
Guest
I must admit I feel a bit rejected on a personal level but I know you didn’t mean it that way 
But really, what when this will really be the majority of Catholics though? And does Pope Francis and Bishops want so many parishioners to be gone?
Please read what the German Bishops said in the article.
If I be honest, the way that Catholic religion is expressed seems very different in the USA than it is in Europe and Australia. There seems to be many self-appointed experts in the US (on Youtube and on catholic tv and so on) and a lot of heated debate, some rigid mentalities etc, when in Europe and Australia the only experts are Priest and nun.
I don’t think at all that the Catholic Church should change to allow women priests or abortions. This is more a secular mindset. But I do agree with the German bishops that the Church should move away from a “atmosphere” (sorry for the poor wording choice) of legalistic rules, and towards a more “human approach” to “sheparding”. Aussies and Europeans simply no longer to respond to "just blindly obey, do this, don’t do that ".
But really, what when this will really be the majority of Catholics though? And does Pope Francis and Bishops want so many parishioners to be gone?
Please read what the German Bishops said in the article.
If I be honest, the way that Catholic religion is expressed seems very different in the USA than it is in Europe and Australia. There seems to be many self-appointed experts in the US (on Youtube and on catholic tv and so on) and a lot of heated debate, some rigid mentalities etc, when in Europe and Australia the only experts are Priest and nun.
I don’t think at all that the Catholic Church should change to allow women priests or abortions. This is more a secular mindset. But I do agree with the German bishops that the Church should move away from a “atmosphere” (sorry for the poor wording choice) of legalistic rules, and towards a more “human approach” to “sheparding”. Aussies and Europeans simply no longer to respond to "just blindly obey, do this, don’t do that ".
I couldn’t agree with you more and this deserves a hundred likes. Women will be the catalyst I think. Education plays an important role in delaying age of sex for young women specifically in sub-Saharan countries. Except when women already have children naturally some can be less reluctant to leave husband.
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
I’m sure they don’t, but my view is that a smaller group of fully in Catholics would strengthen the Church. I may not understand all the teachings, but I obey and won’t advocate against them.
I think that’s what they’ve been trying and it isn’t working. The difficult topics are ignored or the priest gets complaints if they bring them up.
L
Lara
Guest
Let’s say I started a book club and learned that 81 per cent weren’t even reading the book each month. I’d be loathe to call those members book club members. I’d be better off keeping a small coterie of actual book readers.
You can’t change the behaviour of African men. They have to live with the consequences of free will, just as we do.
You said you didn’t want to be a part of a some Catholic club, or words to that effect. It’s better than being part of the dissenters, in my opinion.
Most Catholics don’t read enough to understand the church’s teachings on sexuality, much less follow them, and they don’t want to, in my opinion.
You can’t change the behaviour of African men. They have to live with the consequences of free will, just as we do.
You said you didn’t want to be a part of a some Catholic club, or words to that effect. It’s better than being part of the dissenters, in my opinion.
Most Catholics don’t read enough to understand the church’s teachings on sexuality, much less follow them, and they don’t want to, in my opinion.
Last edited:
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Heaven, Hell and Purgatory are both places AND states. Our Lord said to His Apostles in the Gospel: "… I go to prepare a place for you. Purgatory: 1 Cor. 3: 15 and Matthew (… you shall not get out until you have paid the last farthing.) Hell I already mentioned.
Re Florence and salvation: That’s in the objective order. If a person dies in the state of sanctifying grace, he/she will be saved but not because of their membership in another religion.
So if a non-Catholic is touched by the grace of God and has perfect contrition for his/her sins, they will be saved even though they get buried with the rites of their own religion.
Conversely, if a Catholic dies in the state of mortal sin, he/she will not be saved even though they were churchgoing parishioners all their life and the entire parish has Masses/Liturgies/Qorbona said for them.
IOW, a person in the state of sanctifying grace is part of the Catholic Church in re, even though they are not de jure members of the Church.
Subjectively speaking, God alone knows who is saved and who is not. We’ll all find out on Judgement Day.
Re Florence and salvation: That’s in the objective order. If a person dies in the state of sanctifying grace, he/she will be saved but not because of their membership in another religion.
So if a non-Catholic is touched by the grace of God and has perfect contrition for his/her sins, they will be saved even though they get buried with the rites of their own religion.
Conversely, if a Catholic dies in the state of mortal sin, he/she will not be saved even though they were churchgoing parishioners all their life and the entire parish has Masses/Liturgies/Qorbona said for them.
IOW, a person in the state of sanctifying grace is part of the Catholic Church in re, even though they are not de jure members of the Church.
Subjectively speaking, God alone knows who is saved and who is not. We’ll all find out on Judgement Day.
R
Rozellelily
Guest
According to what do you base this on please?
If your belief basis of a “literal place” is based on Jesus relaying to the crowd in those passages Gehenna like a “literal place”, again we have to remember Jesus taught and spoke using parables and imagery.
Just five passages down from there,
Jesus states “tear out your right eye if it causes you to sin…”
and six passages down, “cut off right hand if it causes you to sin…”.
I hope you understand what I am saying?
The bible cannot be interpreted in a fundamentalist literal way.
According to the Rabbi David de Sola Pool “…classical Judaism more generally conceives of them not as places buy as abstract states of existence”
We have to remember that Jesus was Jewish. He was not a Christian. Christianity was built on Christ. He came not to abolish the law or prophets, but to complete them. He would not be as a Jew, stating something to Jewish people about some version of hell that differs from their own religious understanding.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote, and this is how the Catholic Church sees things today, but can you “prove” that that is how they saw it in the council of Florence 1500’s?
I am open-minded to if you can show this, but otherwise it looks very clear that they did not.
Some quotes from Florence Council:
“This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved“
**“Furthermore, renewing the sacred canons, we command both diocesan bishops and secular powers to prohibit in every way Jews and other infidels from having Christians, male or female, in their households and service, or as nurses of their children; and Christians from joining with them in festivities, marriages, banquets or baths, or in much conversation, and from taking them as doctors or agents of marriages or officially appointed mediators of other contracts”
“In order to prevent too much intercourse, they should be made to dwell in areas, in the cities and towns, which are apart from the dwellings of Christians and as far distant as possible from churches.”
“If converts fail to correct themselves after a canonical warning, and as Judaizers are found to have returned to their vomit”
I think I even a casual observer can see that the viewpoint regarding Jewish has changed dramatically sinced Middle Ages til now. So I’m not sure of the wisdom of using quotes from the same middle age councils as support for a literal “fire hell place”.
Besides, not everything in an Ecumenical Council’s documents are infallible teaching- much of it is either pastoral or disciplinary.
Last edited:
- Status