F
Filius99993
Guest
…couldn’t the same be said of you towards the Catechism? Or towards Christ? You don’t seem to be to keen towards some of His teachings…
- Status
F
Filius99993
Guest
NFP is more effective controlling populations than ABC, as Mother Teresa’s work in Calcutta shows. Making up your own rules doesn’t mean they are the “truth”…
I don’t agree completely with Augustine either. I don’t beleive people are inherently base and evil. But it doesn’t mean that his morals were incorrect.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Are you just making this stuff up? :whacky: Lets see some evidence that the Church ever changed its stance on abortion.
R
Roy5
Guest
estesbob
Code:
Four doctrines that honest and intelligent Catholics question are these:
(1) Transubstantiation, the dogma that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Jesus. Seems to be borrowed from the mystery religions.
(2) Mariology, especially purported miracles in such places as Fatima and Lourdes. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary were dogmas proclaimed late (1854 and 1950). If Mary should be so central, why in all of the epistles of St. Paul to the early Christians is she never mentioned once? We can honor her without the adulation that often seems to outshine our devotion to Christ.
(3) Praying to saints, some of whom were mythical, others borrowed from pagan sources and then baptized. Some saints like Padre Pio obviously were serious mental cases.
(4) Infallibility of the Pope in matters of doctrine and ethics. Various Popes have contradicted one another over the centuries.
I believe the Church would be well-served if it were made clear that differences of opinion on such doctrines are permitted. More and more modern, well-educated Catholics simply cannot accept them as much as they wish they could. This certainly helps account for the fact that 30 million Americans are ex-Catholics and the Church would have lost much more heavily were it not for the large influx of immigrants (legal and illegal) from Latin America.
S
skyryder
Guest
Bro I ain’t makin this up. Here’s facts:
Teaching on abortion in the Catholic Church
The Apostolic Constitutions (circa 380 CE) allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape.
St. Augustine (354-430 CE) jAdvocated the Aristotelian Pagan concept of “delayed ensoulment.” He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed.
Delayed ensoulment" was widely accepted in Pagan Greece and Rome. It taught that a fetus originally has a vegetable soul. Then if became an animal soul and later a human soul according to the shape of the fetus. Human"ensoulment," was believed to occur at 90 days after conception.
Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216):
He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.
Pope Sixtus V (1471-1484) issued a Papal bull “Effraenatam” in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. About this time the sin of masturbation was invented for males.Masturbation was never confessed prior to this. The church believed that the male sperm contained the entire human embryo and that the woman was merely a vessel for the seed to grow in…To masturbate was thus an instant abortion and worthy of damnation! Needless to say, science proved this wrong but the Vatican then invented the sin of Onanism which modern scholars universally reject.
Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the “quickening” test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).
Pope Pius IX (1792-1878) reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the “fetus animatus” and “fetus inanimatus” in 1869.
Jewish beliefs and practice do not neatly match either the “pro-life” nor the “pro-choice” points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:
The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains “full human status at birth only.”
The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: “the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day.” Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.
“Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus ‘lav nefesh hu–it is not a person.’ The Talmud contains the expression ‘ubar yerech imo–the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,’ i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman’s body.” This is grounded in Exodus 21:22.
Many Jewish authorities permit abortion in the case of a pregnancy resulting from a rape, if needed in order save her great mental anguish.
The Vatican has legalized abortion many times. Roe vs Wade allowing abortion in the first trimester was based on historic precident outlined above.
9
9Choirs
Guest
Having doubts and working to resolve doubts are two different things. I have MANY doubts about Catholicism yet I adhere to doctrine and try to increase my knowledge so that my doubts lessen. I must conform to the ways of the Church and not vice versa.
F
fix
Guest
The orthodox accept Christ speaks through His Church. Liberals follow their feelings.
Hans Kung proved the papacy is false? Who is your authority and why?
You mean rejects it.
This is too muddled to speak to briefly, but how exactly does science prove morality?
Yes, and the papacy is still here and the dissenters come and go.
Truth is a person. He speaks through His vicar on earth. If anyone contradicts Church teaching on matters of faith and morals then we know such persons are teaching error.
M
Michael_Neal
Guest
Truth? So you are the judge of what is true? You are basically saying that you have the truth and the Church that Christ gave authority to does not have it.
How arrogant.
R
Roy5
Guest
SKYRYDER MAKES SENSE
Code:
When will hard-line Catholic dogmatists relax and examine their faith without fear? Skyryder makes a lot of sense. I recall from years ago the work of Abelard, Sic et Non, in which he showed way back then how the Papacy had changed its position on various matters of faith and morals.
The main sticking point seems to be authority. Traditionalists won't let go of the medieval notion that the faithful must submit their minds to the Infallible Church. Obedience. Conformity. Docility. Servility. Tractability. If we think for ourselves and come to different conclusions we are accused of arrogance, Egotism. Conceit. Hubris. Vanity. God gave us brains to use and we honor Him when we use them in the spirit of honest inquiry.
We live in a different age when most Catholics receive advance education. Millions simply can't be honest with themselves and continue to accept doctrines that are hangover supersitutions from an earlier age when people found it easy to believe in ghosts and witches and such, when they thought the world was flat and Christ literally sat next to God the Father on their celestial thrones up in heaven.
But alas, good news. Traditionalists really do have reason to relax. They think that 'the gates of hell' shall not prevail against the divine institution of the church regardless, so why get defensive? I could go along with that if some of the teachings were not so offensive to human intelligence. They remind me of the evangelical fundamentalists who think Noah lined up the animals two by two, that Jonah lived three days in the belly of a a big fish, that Joshua caused the sun to stand still, and many other pious myths that may make good moral fables but obviously are not historical facts. We need to discard well-intended but false precepts inherited from a different time.
Oh - don't forget Friday, June 13. Be careful, of course. But also remember that it's the death date of St. Anthony of Padua, who was canonized a year after his death by Gregory IX. When you lose something, pray to St. Anthony and - voila! there it is. But make sure you pray to the right St. Anthony.
Keep smiling - and God bless everybody, no exceptions!
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
How about watching him in an interview, does that count?
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Since you seem to think I’m wrong…You can apologize anytime
Crossan maintains the Gospels were never intended to be taken literally by their authors. He challenges those who would debate whether Jesus “really” walked on water to recognize that, whether history or parable, the larger issue is the meaning of the anecdote. He proposes the historical probability that, like all but one known victim of crucifixion, Jesus’ body never made it to a tomb, but was scavenged by animals.[3] Crossan believes in “resurrection” by faith but holds that bodily resuscitation was never contemplated by early Christians. He believes that the rapture is based on a misreading of I Thessalonians.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan
U
una_fides
Guest
Sources please? You listed quite a bit of information but you did not provide the source from which you gathered and represented such information. I don’t have time to go down the list and refute the various fabrications you produced, but I will start with the first one to demonstrate your erroneous views on this topic.
Anyone familiar with the Apostolic Constitutions from the fourth century know that they were condemned because they were likely either written or interpolated by heretics. Here is an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/01636a.htm
Furthermore, we do not even know if this text tampered with by heretics even says such things apart from your post. If you truly want to prove your side to anyone with a desire to know the truth, then you should produce internet sites of the reproductions of the texts and then quote from them in order to support your position. Reproducing historical fabrications and stretches contained within liberal works does not prove anything except tunnel vision. You are interpreting into history what you want it to have been. You wish the early Church was not hierarchal, had women priests, and taught the figurative interpretation of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The problem is that you are living in a liberal dream world because the historical texts clearly prove otherwise. Even if you were able to find an isolated quotation here or there that would seem to support your claims, the consensus of the fathers is overwhelming concerning the fundamental issues of the absolute authority of bishops to govern the Church, the male-only priesthood, and the real sacrifice of Mass and the Real Presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist.
You say that liberals want to know the truth, when in reality they only want to know their own personal interpretation of what they believe to be the truth. Our current society and present secular culture has become obsessed with sex, greed, and hatred of religion and things that are holy. It is from this mentality that liberals get their views that God accepts practices that even from the earliest days of the Church and prior God has always condemned as sins.
You say that you admire Protestant theologians and that you prefer them to Catholic ones. Did you ever think that could be because your views are not Catholic but are in fact Protestant? Why are you warring against the Catholic Church and her teachings? Why don’t you instead form your own church or join your own church which does not have a pope, an authoritative hierarchy, and a male clergy? Why not form your own church that practices and freely accepts contraception, homosexuality, masturbation, and all the other practices that the Catholic Church condemns? Face it, the views you are promoting are not Catholic. Please do not lead other people to think that the Catholic Church actually teaches or has taught the condemned doctrines that you are promoting on this forum.
In the beginning of the book of Romans, St. Paul warns people that if they give into sin that their minds will become corrupted and that God will give them over to their own evil desires and thoughts to where their consciences will be seared, and they will think that evil is good and that good is evil. Scripture teaches us to flee from fornication, which is a sin that sends souls to hell and that homosexuality is an abomination against God; yet liberals–who reject the Church, reject her Tradition, reject her Scriptures, and consequently reject her founder Jesus Christ–audaciously assert that they know more than God and know more than what God has revealed to his Church. Funny that the liberal religion just began but the Catholic Church has persisted for 2000 years. Perhaps you should realize that you either accept the Church’s Tradition or you are not Catholic and should stop trying to fight against the Church that Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against.
U
una_fides
Guest
Of all the things mentioned in that wikapedia article from which you are quoting this one about the rapture is the only Catholic teaching to which this guy holds. To clarify, the Catholic Church does not teach or acknowledge a secret “rapture” of the Church prior to or during the great Tribulation. A great book I recommend on the subject is “The Rapture Trap” by Paul Thigpen.
God bless.
S
skyryder
Guest
Una fides: Go outside and take a breath of fresh air. Look up at the stars at night and see just how really big the Universe is.
I have spoken my truth and you yours. Chill Out. When I die I don’t expect God to damn me for doubting tradition, nor do I expect Him to crown you in glory for accepting it.
We each need to experience God directly…Dogma, Catechism, Rules, the Pope, Hierarchy, Liturgy, are irrelevant. Find God.in the depths of your heart and share the wonder ,love, freedom, and beauty you experience with others. This is faith!
If one follows Christ they are Catholic, irregardless of their denomination. Corporate branding & style means nothing…
So why all this labeling of others as heretics?
Why do conservatives fear stepping outside the prison of tradition?
Why do conservatives insist that everyone be forced inside their prison cell with its barred windows and padlocked door?
Why is tradition and not the person of God the center of conservative right wing religion?
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Um, I do that already. And I still believe what the Church teaches! Is the use of the term “hard-line Catholic dogmatists” intended to be inflammatory, or is it meant as a compliment?
Why is it that when anyone disagrees with this or that Church teaching (whether they be atheist, modernist, liberal Catholic, Protestant, etc.), they simply call it “medieval” as if that somehow proves the validity of their argument?
Do you have some historical evidence that we are unaware of that proves that the notion of obedience to the Church originated in the medieval period and did not exist beforehand or afterward? If so, I would very much like to see it.
And if we come to believe that what the Church teaches is actually true, we get accused of being medieval, superstitious, docile, servile, dogmatists, simple-minded, unwilling to use our brains, etc. Perhaps we should put a ceasefire on the name-calling.
I try not to point my finger at particular people and call them arrogant, but as one who believes that the Church has been given the authority by God Himself to teach without error in matters of faith and morals, it puzzles me how any Catholic could decide that they know better than the Church. I know that, if it was me saying such things, I would have to be qite arrogant.
The teaching office of the Church is guaranteed to be led by the Holy Spirit not to teach error. I cannot say the same thing about my own thought processes.
The Church has been grappling with these issues for 2000 years, I have not.
For me, the choice is easy. Maybe for you, it’s not an act of arrogance to disagree with the teaching of the Church.
Either way, I’ll stick to the teachings of the Church, thank you very much! Now there’s something we can all agree on!
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
It’s because for us, tradition and well-defined dogmas and rules are important. We think in terms of absolutes and wishy-washy stuff is harmful to us and confuses us. For us tradition isn’t a prison, its a wealth of history, teachings and writings to sift through and learn from.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
I am but a sinner, but I will answer this.
First, the statement of yours I bolded is full of error. There is one and only one truth in every situation. If I take my dad’s car and crash it and I tell him any other thing than that, it is a lie. Likewise, if Jesus said that adultery is a sin, if I told you anything other than that, it is a lie. There is one truth, every other thing is a lie.
Second, you said that God won’t condemn anyone for *doubting *Sacred Tradition, but has implied in the Bible that he will condemn people for rejecting it. That certainly seems to be the case with the questions you are asking. But, don’t worry, you are not alone. I have rejected Sacred Tradition, but I’m trying to turn back before it’s too late.
This sounds extremely New Age…and you should know that the Faith of God is the same from Age to Age. We experience God directly through Dogma, the Catechism, Rules, the Pope, Hierarchy, Liturgy, etc. These are the things that God has commanded us to use so that we might see him. If anyone thinks that they can obtain Heaven without these things upon his full knowledge of their essence, they are in serious error. There is no beauty apart from the Catholic Church and without her we are nothing.
Believing that my friend will not lie to me is also faith, but is it the supernatural faith needed to attain Heaven?
You err again. The Church Fathers teach that being a part of the Catholic Church is essential to being Catholic and following Christ. That does not mean that everyone outside of it will not be saved, but it is extremely important. What you are saying is not the teaching of the Church. Bring your knees to the ground and obey, for God alone has the authority to change what the Church does.
Why do conservatives fear stepping outside the prison of tradition?
If Sacred Tradition is the prison of Noah’s Ark, I am glad to be “trapped,” for everything not within the safety of the ark will be destroyed at the end of time. Those who are imprisoned by tradition are truly free, but those who are freed from it are trapped by their own way of life.
We want everyone to be in the ark so that no one is destroyed by the flood. The flood is coming. Anyone who is not within its bounds will be obliterated and trapped within the fires of eternal destruction.
Why is tradition and not the person of God the center of conservative right wing religion?
There is a reason why this “tradition” you speak of is called Sacred Tradition. It is established by God, he speaks through it and no one can follow him except through it.
We must be careful of what we believe in. If you believe that everyone has their own truth you are in serious error. A thought like that is simply irrational, philosophically and morally.
S
skyryder
Guest
Sorry but we agree to disagree. No rational Diety could possibly make such a convoluted system of logic/illogic as the traditionalists have constructed in the Catholic Church. This is the work of Men not God. I will follow the God who touches my heart, and honor Him as appropriate. You can do as you please.
I again feel there should be freedom of worship and non interference from the ultra right. See you in eternity!
I again feel there should be freedom of worship and non interference from the ultra right. See you in eternity!
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Waiting Skyryder, waiting!Since you seem to think I’m wrong…You can apologize anytime
Crossan maintains the Gospels were never intended to be taken literally by their authors. He challenges those who would debate whether Jesus “really” walked on water to recognize that, whether history or parable, the larger issue is the meaning of the anecdote. He proposes the historical probability that, like all but one known victim of crucifixion, Jesus’ body never made it to a tomb, but was scavenged by animals.[3] Crossan believes in “resurrection” by faith but holds that bodily resuscitation was never contemplated by early Christians. He believes that the rapture is based on a misreading of I Thessalonians.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan
Have you an aversion to admiting your error?
S
skyryder
Guest
I think we have very different ideas of who God is. There are many levels the Bible can be read on. Religous writings are alwasys symbolic. I’ll admit I am in error when you prove you are right. So far I haven’t seen any proof. .
Lets see if there is something Liberals and Conservatives can agree on.
Suggest going to www.yaaway.com and watch a film clip called WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? It is very important for young people to be involved in planning liturgy. It is really sad that the traditionalists are outlawing the use of computer and video technology at Mass.The Vatican needs to change or it will be road kill on the super information highway. This video is the type of really wonderful material that needs to be presented every Sunday…not rote Latin Prayer or Gregorian Chant. While your at www.yaaway.com check out another clip called GOD IS A DJ. It would be cool to toss out some of the really boring readings from Ordinary Time, watch stuff like this, skip the sermon and do a public discussion. Perhaps another clip from Youtube called IF GOD HAD A MYSPACE could be used to discuss prayer. This is a lot more entertaining than fighting. There is no reason Mass can’t be a good time.
Ok iamrefreshed;3800132 What do you think of these ideas? Waiting,waiting…
- Status