J
Janet1983
Guest
I know what they believe too… That does not make me a Mormon either however…
- Status
D
Don_Hepler
Guest
You always write me a discourse, When you do this give me a interpretation of each scripture, so I know your thinking.
D
Don_Hepler
Guest
I was asking a question, prier to this and someone claimed I was Mormon, I also know what they believe, some of their concepts I could believe in. thanks, we don’t need to go further.
P
Prieldedi
Guest
Private interpretation of Scripture is not sinister, it’s unbiblical.
2 Peter 1:20, “Know this well: no prophecy of Scripture can be handed over to private interpretation.”
Imagine every American with the right to private interpretation of the Laws of the USA. No judges, no Supreme Court, just individuals interpreting the laws as it best fits them. What would the result be? Chaos!
Look at the results of private interpretation among no Catholic Christians:
Most of the Protestant denominations believe that the Holy Spirit ‘teaches’ them the truth. We know there is only one truth. With individual interpretation of Scripture, what you have is a proliferation (now in the thousands) of Protestants denominations, each of them claiming the Holy Spirit is teaching them the truth, but in fact it’s teaching all of them opposing viewpoints. Although all the following denominations teach from the same Bible, look at the differences in teaching:
The Lutherans say the Holy Spirit teaches them the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, the Baptists say the Holy Spirit teaches them it’s only a symbol.
The Methodists say the Holy Spirit teaches them it is alright to have female ministers, the Baptists say the Holy Spirit teaches them it is unbiblical.
The Seventh Day Adventists say the Holy Spirit teaches them that Saturday is the day of worship, the Presbyterians say the Holy Spirit teaches them the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday.
The Lutherans say the Holy Spirit teaches them that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, the Baptists say the Holy Spirit teaches them she had other children.
The Baptists say the Holy Spirit teaches them ‘once saved always saved’, the Church of Christ say the Holy Spirit teaches them that Sola Fides is unscriptural.
The Episcopalians say the Holy Spirit teaches them to baptize infants, the Pentecostals say the Holy Spirit teaches them infant baptism is invalid.
The Mormons say the Holy Spirit teaches them that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, the Methodists say the Holy Spirit teaches them the Trinity is three persons in one God.
The ones in blue are correct, the others “have it wrong”.
God bless you
J
Janet1983
Guest
(Sorry this goes off-topic, but it needs to be clarified real quick.
I will not comment on this topic any more in this thread, but I am open to questions and remarks via pm.)
Aehm… maybe that wasn’t clear enough… I should have seen that and clarified…
Mormons believe that their god (Elohim) was a regular human like you and me and because he lived a good life according to Mormon doctrine he was made a god after he died along with his wife. Elohim and his wife are having celestial intercourse and she is eternally pregnant giving birth to spirit babies who are later sent to earth to be born…
He created the earth (well Elohim sent Michael and Jehovah to do so) and sent one of the 2 down to become Adam (and he forgot all of his past)… I forgot whether it was Jehovah or Michael…
A
Angelo_Michael
Guest
“…the Methodists say the Holy Spirit teaches them the Trinity is three persons in one God.”
God is not a person.
John 4:24,
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
P.S.: I have more to write as an address to you[r arguments], but I must organize the relevant scriptures and manifest an understandable analysis first. It might take some time, but I’ll try to make it my next post at this thread.
P
Prieldedi
Guest
The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.
Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.” In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God’s nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.
[From The Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm]
God bless you
A
Angelo_Michael
Guest
Part 1 of 2:
Introduction:
General address containing inferences about a) the validity of doctrines maintained, “from the beginning,” and b) the integrity of the modern Church and therefor the validity of any teaching thereof. This address is intended to be relevant for this thread in that it contains insight and/or information that might lead to a different valuation of anything and/or anyone accepted or rejected by the Church.
Argument:
2 Kings 17 depicts Samaria’s sin and rebellion along with Judah’s sin and rebellion and resulting captivity. Moreso Israel’s sin than Judah’s. Verses 28-32 and especially 32 indicate how the priesthood, the service of God, was defiled by common men, especially by Samaria — those tribes who chose to separate from Judah and the Levites (the priests of the most high God). Yet even Judah and the priests would sin and prophets would be sent to them and they would not listen or repent and would also persecute them. Nonetheless Judah maintained the integrity of the Levitical priesthood and the lineage of David even while battling Samaria at many times. In my opinion, this is why Christ endorses Judaism and not Samaria and presumably why He is born to a Jewish and not Samaritan mother, and entrusted to a Jewish, and not Samaritan man. Nontheless, due to the rejection of Christ by the Levitical priest, the authority is then transferred to the apostles, and they in turn become the new priests and kings. Yet, unlike the Samaritan rebellion against both the Kings and priests of Judah, this new transfer of authority is authorized by God thru Christ. This new covenant is also a conditional covenant that if not maintained properly may be dissolved as well (John 15).
Another example of a transfer of authority exists in the institution of King David by the priest Samuel. Samuel was presented and adopted into the priesthood from his youth to fulfill the promise his mother, Hannah, had made to God while barren and praying for a child (1 Samuel 1). And, in contrast to the other priests, the sons of Eli, Samuel found favor with God for his service and also due to their wickedness. (1Samuel 2, also Deut. 9:4-6). Moreover, a prophecy is made concerning the end of the current priesthood,
1 Samuel 2:27-36,
“And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house?
And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel? Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father’s house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house. And thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation, in all the wealth which God shall give Israel: and there shall not be an old man in thine house for ever. And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine heart: and all the increase of thine house shall die in the flower of their age. And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them. And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left in thine house shall come and crouch to him for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests’ offices, that I may eat a piece of bread.”
Introduction:
General address containing inferences about a) the validity of doctrines maintained, “from the beginning,” and b) the integrity of the modern Church and therefor the validity of any teaching thereof. This address is intended to be relevant for this thread in that it contains insight and/or information that might lead to a different valuation of anything and/or anyone accepted or rejected by the Church.
Argument:
2 Kings 17 depicts Samaria’s sin and rebellion along with Judah’s sin and rebellion and resulting captivity. Moreso Israel’s sin than Judah’s. Verses 28-32 and especially 32 indicate how the priesthood, the service of God, was defiled by common men, especially by Samaria — those tribes who chose to separate from Judah and the Levites (the priests of the most high God). Yet even Judah and the priests would sin and prophets would be sent to them and they would not listen or repent and would also persecute them. Nonetheless Judah maintained the integrity of the Levitical priesthood and the lineage of David even while battling Samaria at many times. In my opinion, this is why Christ endorses Judaism and not Samaria and presumably why He is born to a Jewish and not Samaritan mother, and entrusted to a Jewish, and not Samaritan man. Nontheless, due to the rejection of Christ by the Levitical priest, the authority is then transferred to the apostles, and they in turn become the new priests and kings. Yet, unlike the Samaritan rebellion against both the Kings and priests of Judah, this new transfer of authority is authorized by God thru Christ. This new covenant is also a conditional covenant that if not maintained properly may be dissolved as well (John 15).
Another example of a transfer of authority exists in the institution of King David by the priest Samuel. Samuel was presented and adopted into the priesthood from his youth to fulfill the promise his mother, Hannah, had made to God while barren and praying for a child (1 Samuel 1). And, in contrast to the other priests, the sons of Eli, Samuel found favor with God for his service and also due to their wickedness. (1Samuel 2, also Deut. 9:4-6). Moreover, a prophecy is made concerning the end of the current priesthood,
1 Samuel 2:27-36,
“And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house?
And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel? Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father’s house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house. And thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation, in all the wealth which God shall give Israel: and there shall not be an old man in thine house for ever. And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine heart: and all the increase of thine house shall die in the flower of their age. And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them. And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left in thine house shall come and crouch to him for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests’ offices, that I may eat a piece of bread.”
A
Angelo_Michael
Guest
Part 2 of 2:
Argument (cont.):
And though Samuel was faithful toward God (1 Samuel 3:19), his sons also were not upright before God (1 Samuel 8:1-8), and God allows a king to be set over Israel. The kingship was initially granted to Judah from Jacob (Genesis 49:10), but the first king is Saul, a Benjaminite (1 Samuel 9:16,11:15). This king, (Saul), however, is unfaithful toward God (1 Samuel 15), and the kingdom is eventually transferred to David (1 Samuel 16:[13]). So we have the authority of the priests of Aaron transferred to [an]other(s), and the original covenant amended, even as the prior prophecy declares.
When Christ taught He often directed His teachings to the rabbis and the Jews, not to the Samaritans, for He also said, “[they] know not what [they] worship.” We have witness of their corruptions in the Old Testament and yet, nonetheless, thru the parable of the good Samaritan and thru the healing of the 10 lepers (wherein only the one Samaritan returned and thanked Christ) we also have witness of a reckoning for the Samaritan. Moreover, thru the conspiracy of the priests, save perhaps Nicodemus, we have an example of the eventual corruption of that priesthood as well. And even the covenants made unto David, (i.e., to feed the people,) were eventually entrusted to others as well. [Or is Peter of the lineage of David?]
Conclusion(s):
The importance of this is to testify that, at least sometimes, covenants are malleable even as Jeremiah 18 and John 15 depict.
Also, as far as the “private interpretation” of the Bible being unbiblical, consider that Christ said that God and the work God gave Him are also His witnesses; and remember that not all things are manifested in truth at our present time thru the Church, but many things are kept secret, especially those works that may testify in someone’s (my) behalf. And this keeping of things from people is not done single-handedly by any religious order but, in conjuction with, at the behest of, or with mutual interests of political, legal, and/or militant entities.
John 8:12-19,
“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.”
and John 5:30-38,
“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.”
Disclaimer:
In my mentioning of things being kept secret in our modern time I am not concluding that any party is actively doing so for malicious reasons but rather testifying that there is not an active [public] declaration of those works, (and/or acts), by any persons, organizations, entities, etc., known to me [at this time].
Argument (cont.):
And though Samuel was faithful toward God (1 Samuel 3:19), his sons also were not upright before God (1 Samuel 8:1-8), and God allows a king to be set over Israel. The kingship was initially granted to Judah from Jacob (Genesis 49:10), but the first king is Saul, a Benjaminite (1 Samuel 9:16,11:15). This king, (Saul), however, is unfaithful toward God (1 Samuel 15), and the kingdom is eventually transferred to David (1 Samuel 16:[13]). So we have the authority of the priests of Aaron transferred to [an]other(s), and the original covenant amended, even as the prior prophecy declares.
When Christ taught He often directed His teachings to the rabbis and the Jews, not to the Samaritans, for He also said, “[they] know not what [they] worship.” We have witness of their corruptions in the Old Testament and yet, nonetheless, thru the parable of the good Samaritan and thru the healing of the 10 lepers (wherein only the one Samaritan returned and thanked Christ) we also have witness of a reckoning for the Samaritan. Moreover, thru the conspiracy of the priests, save perhaps Nicodemus, we have an example of the eventual corruption of that priesthood as well. And even the covenants made unto David, (i.e., to feed the people,) were eventually entrusted to others as well. [Or is Peter of the lineage of David?]
Conclusion(s):
The importance of this is to testify that, at least sometimes, covenants are malleable even as Jeremiah 18 and John 15 depict.
Also, as far as the “private interpretation” of the Bible being unbiblical, consider that Christ said that God and the work God gave Him are also His witnesses; and remember that not all things are manifested in truth at our present time thru the Church, but many things are kept secret, especially those works that may testify in someone’s (my) behalf. And this keeping of things from people is not done single-handedly by any religious order but, in conjuction with, at the behest of, or with mutual interests of political, legal, and/or militant entities.
John 8:12-19,
“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.”
and John 5:30-38,
“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.”
Disclaimer:
In my mentioning of things being kept secret in our modern time I am not concluding that any party is actively doing so for malicious reasons but rather testifying that there is not an active [public] declaration of those works, (and/or acts), by any persons, organizations, entities, etc., known to me [at this time].
1
1beleevr
Guest
Actually, God did walk the Earth, in the body of Christ!!
A
Angelo_Michael
Guest
from above quote:
“I’m sure you know how other religions treat women as opposed to how women are treated in our Church. Yet we are the “bad guys.” This sound like what is said about some Americans who say “blame America first”, which in in our case is “blame Catholics first.””
and from reply #363,
“Imagine every American with the right to private interpretation of the Laws of the USA. No judges, no Supreme Court, just individuals interpreting the laws as it best fits them. What would the result be? Chaos!”
It appears you often create an association between America and Christianity that, from what I understand, does not actually exist. For example, America is not associated with Christianity, and neither is Christianity [necessarily] averse to the authority of the will of, what could be considered – at least for analogical purposes – an individual.
references:
flickr.com/photos/caveman_92223/3733328265/
1
1beleevr
Guest
So, what exactly does everyone believe these verses mean: John 15:26,John 14:16-17,John 14:26? Can we deduce that Jesus is promising that the Father will send an Advocate to us, who will lead us into Spirit and Truth? Does it mean that if we aren’t catholic, or other religions, who believe similarly, we are shut out from the Advocate; or that what He says or directs us to, is wrong? And do you really, honestly believe that, on that Judgement Day, God is going to ask us,"Why did you believe/not believe that Mary was. was not a perpetual virgin?
A
Angelo_Michael
Guest
Moreover, Eduardo et al., consider that it is perhaps easier to change yourself than to change another. If one can analyse their own country or religion and decipher where problems may have arisen, or verify any inaccuracies or imperfections that could be considered by others as weaknesses or failures; then it would maybe be easier to let go of the feud or contempt they have for another. For, as it were, hating and judging others only predisposes us to judgment and malice ourselves. When one considers themselves it is a worthy investigation because something can and should be done about the situation. When someone considers another (whether person, country, or religion) they would have to impose the change they desired or convince the others that it is beneficial so that they would change it themselves. And this, in turn, might create a scenario wherein the one imposing, requesting, or advising the change in another then becomes subject to an obligation to submit to similar advice, impositions, etc., from [those same] others.
1
1beleevr
Guest
Imagine a world, wher judges, politicians, and others “in authority”, being able to interpret things from their own personal viewpoint? This doesn’t happen, right? Can judges make decisions based on personal opinion, rather than enforce the laws of the land? Now, imagine MEN, supposedly empowered with the authority to interpret and supposedly infallibly, dispense the Word of God, with seemingly no restraint?
Can we really trust that whathas been passed down through so-called "apostolic succession, is ordained from/by God Himself?Hmmmmmmmmmm!
Can we really trust that whathas been passed down through so-called "apostolic succession, is ordained from/by God Himself?Hmmmmmmmmmm!
S
SonofMonica
Guest
I would not want to risk my soul at finding out. Especially since Christ said this to the ministers He appointed as he was sending them out:So, what exactly does everyone believe these verses mean: John 15:26,John 14:16-17,John 14:26? Can we deduce that Jesus is promising that the Father will send an Advocate to us, who will lead us into Spirit and Truth? Does it mean that if we aren’t catholic, or other religions, who believe similarly, we are shut out from the Advocate; or that what He says or directs us to, is wrong? And do you really, honestly believe that, on that Judgement Day, God is going to ask us,"Why did you believe/not believe that Mary was. was not a perpetual virgin?
“The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” Luke 10:16
1
1beleevr
Guest
sonofmanica: Do you believe that we as Christians, regardless of our religious affiliation, are charged with going, and spreading the Good News? If the lost reject our message(by exercising free will), are they rejecting Christ, in essence? Isaiah told God,“Here am I Lord, send me!” We as believers, I believe, are charged with taking the message of salvation to all nations(Matthew 28:19-20), and we are representatives of Christ, His hands and feet. This task is not left solely to priests, popes, etc,. Yes, we need leaders, and elders, who help us to understand things, and lead this humongous flock, but we also need to be bold, and not timid, in evangelizing the world:thumbsup:
S
SonofMonica
Guest
I believe that there is only one religion and one Church started by Christ, and I believe that all Christians, regardless of their stature, are obligated to share the Good News–all of it, as transmitted by Christ to His Catholic Church. I reject the sharing of anyone else’s version, or a partial, watered-down version, or any version that leaves out the fullness of revelation about Christ and his Church, as we are called to reject all persons preaching a different gospel. 2 Cor. 11:4, Gal. 1:8-9.
And to be clear, the Catholic Church officially teaches that lay persons, not just clergy, are charged with spreading the Good News. From the Horses’ Mouth:
“Since, like all the faithful, lay Christians are entrusted by God with the apostolate by virtue of their Baptism and Confirmation, they have the right and duty, individually or grouped in associations, to work so that the divine message of salavation may be known and accepted by all men throughout the earth. This duty is the more pressing when it is only through them that men can hear the Gospel and know Christ. Their activity in eclessial communities is so necessary that, for the most part, the apostolate of the pastors cannot be fully effective without it.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 900, citing Lumen Gentium 33.
“Lay people also fulfill their prophetic mission by evangelization, ‘that is, the proclamation of Christ by word and the testimony of life.’ For lay people, ‘this evangelization . . . acquires a specific property and peculiar efficacy because it is accomplished in the ordinary circumstances of the world.’” Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 905, citing Lumen Gentium 35 §§ 1, 2.
Well, again, I’m not sure you and I have the same message, if you reject the Catholic Church that Christ built, and the Church’s role in salvation. But yes, folks have free will and may reject Christ. They do so when they reject the faith once delivered to the saints. Jude 3.
I am in agreement with this statement. I would only add for clarity that we are not free to preach a partial, simplified, watered-down, or different gospel than the one preserved by Christ’s Church through its bishops, councils and popes, simply because it may be easier to follow or understand.
A
avflf
Guest
God bless you
Pretty confusing aint it? No wonder you call it a mystery.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
It is indeed a mystery. But I like to think of it as profound, more than confusing. God’s entire revelation to man has been about relationship. Relationship to God, relationship to one another as marriage, as family, as church. These relationships are so sacred that they are known as covenant relationships. And the profound part is, God himself exists as a relationship, with all the attributes of love, obedience, self-sacrifice, and mutual giving that he expects of us in our relationships with Him and others.
P
Prieldedi
Guest
Don’t jump to the wrong conclusion that fast.
I’m pointing out to what appears to me a trend in society, be it American, British, Spanish, or any other society, in which people is blaming itself of supposedly “sins” or “errors” of past generations. Since I know more of America than England or Spain, I used that phrase, “blame America first.” If it satisfy you, I can rephrase it to be “blame (fill the blank with country of your choice) first.”
To me that seems to be what you are doing, putting the blame on Catholicism of centuries past, for what you consider “wrongs” done by our Church then.
The USA was born in 1776. Some 150 years earlier, the first pilgrims that came to the shores of what now is USA, left England looking for new lands in which to practice their religion, which happens to be… Christianity. Today many Americans consider that the USA has no connection with Christianity. Fine. But you cannot hide nor deny the fact that the USA was founded “by Christians.”
Jesus didn’t left a Church in which the individual has a “green light” to twist God’s words to his own convenience. He left a Church with a head, Peter, to teach and guide the individuals, along and in communion with the Bishops of the Church, to “teach them to fulfill all that I have commanded you. I am with you always until the end of this world.”" - Matthew 28,20
The Church is not averse to the authority the individual has to believe or not what it teaches. But the Church will not, just to satisfy an individual desire, accept that God’s Word can be twisted in as many ways as there are individuals. That’s why I used the analogy to the USA (or fill the blank with country of your choice) Laws. The result will be chaos.
God bless you
- Status