"Litmus Test" for the true Church...

[mjdonnelly]

Indepentent historical documents, that would be very hard to come by since the Roman Empire converted to Catholic at about the time of the Nicean Council around 325ad.

 

[Gator]

davidv:

No other items on the list need to be addressed.

So you’ve decided that none of the other items need to be addressed…Hmmm

Personally I’m still interested in hearling about them, so your dismissal is denied.

 

[darcee]

You really need to post something MORE then a list of YEARS with these claims… what is your source information? From which documents are you drawing these claims?
Any troll can cut and paste a list from an anti-Catholic site.
-D

 

[Ellen]

Gator,

My question is, what does the founding of the Jesuits or the Ava Maria (a song) have to do w/ changing doctrine? The reason no one’s answering that list point by point is that some of the assertions (like the ones I just mentioned) are completely ridiculous and have nothing to do w/ doctrine, or morals, or disciplines.

The difference b/t discipline and doctrine have already been explained to you, but you don’t want to accept those definitions, so there’s nothing more to be argued on that point (just like those protestants who insist that denominations and dioceses are the same thing, there’s no point arguing, it’s just ridiculous). Never has anything been called a doctrine then later called only a discipline.

As to the early Church Fathers, why reject them out of hand? At least read the ones prior to Constantine (when most protestants insist the Catholic Church came into existence and “paganized” Christianity), surely men writing that early can’t be suspect. You’d rather trust pagan or psuedo Christian writers (ala Da Vinci Code)? I don’t get it.

Finally, I don’t own Karl’s book (I want to, but moneys really tight right now and my husband would kill me), if I did, I’d mail it to you, for free. Would anyone else here be willing to give up their copy (or buy Gato his own copy)? He’d then have no excuse not to read and find his “objections” answered.

Ellen

 

[Tanais]

Ellen:

Gator,

My question is, what does the founding of the Jesuits or the Ava Maria (a song) have to do w/ changing doctrine? The reason no one’s answering that list point by point is that some of the assertions (like the ones I just mentioned) are completely ridiculous and have nothing to do w/ doctrine, or morals, or disciplines.

The difference b/t discipline and doctrine have already been explained to you, but you don’t want to accept those definitions, so there’s nothing more to be argued on that point (just like those protestants who insist that denominations and dioceses are the same thing, there’s no point arguing, it’s just ridiculous). Never has anything been called a doctrine then later called only a discipline.

As to the early Church Fathers, why reject them out of hand? At least read the ones prior to Constantine (when most protestants insist the Catholic Church came into existence and “paganized” Christianity), surely men writing that early can’t be suspect. You’d rather trust pagan or psuedo Christian writers (ala Da Vinci Code)? I don’t get it.

Finally, I don’t own Karl’s book (I want to, but moneys really tight right now and my husband would kill me), if I did, I’d mail it to you, for free. Would anyone else here be willing to give up their copy (or buy Gato his own copy)? He’d then have no excuse not to read and find his “objections” answered.

Ellen

I hope this is not to out of line but, AMEN!!!
I have to agree, Gator you are starting to sound awfully Dan Brownish. He has the same mentality that history is written by the “winners” Furthermore, the CHurch has preserved texts that are not always friendly to her that are widely available, i.e. some gnostic texts. It just seems you excuse doesn’t hold up much.
Good job Ellen! Amen SIster!

 

[Gator]

Tanais:

I hope this is not to out of line but, AMEN!!!
I have to agree, Gator you are starting to sound awfully Dan Brownish. He has the same mentality that history is written by the “winners” Furthermore, the CHurch has preserved texts that are not always friendly to her that are widely available, i.e. some gnostic texts. It just seems you excuse doesn’t hold up much.
Good job Ellen! Amen SIster!

I’ll admit, maybe some of the item on the list are not worth defending, but there are clearly issues on there that are viable discussion points…it’s just a matter of someone wanting to address it.

Let’s be honest, the winners do sometimes write history…many a corrupt government has made history books that were clearly not accurate, it happens all the time, and continues to happen…and even to a certain extent in this country (Do you really believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy all alone?)

Ellen,

Thank you for the offer, the issue for me really isn’t about the money, but rather about the basis of the book…am I just going to be subjected to catholic defenses of catholic teachings…that to me does not really address the issues or questions I have.

 

[darcee]

Please folks… these aren’t even Gator’s “objections” He just did a cut and paste from some Anti-Catholic site and probably wouldn’t recognise the truth if it bit him.

Just do a google search on any of those claims and you will come up with this list on about 50 anti-Catholic sites.

-D

 

[Tanais]

Gator:

Thank you for the offer, the issue for me really isn’t about the money, but rather about the basis of the book…am I just going to be subjected to catholic defenses of catholic teachings…that to me does not really address the issues or questions I have.

Who else would you rather have defending catholic teachings, an atheist? Anyways, I have had enough for one night. I am quite tired, may you all have a nice rest with God watching over us all, goodnight.

 

[Gator]

darcee:

Please folks… these aren’t even Gator’s “objections” He just did a cut and paste from some Anti-Catholic site and probably wouldn’t recognise the truth if it bit him.

Just do a google search on any of those claims and you will come up with this list on about 50 anti-Catholic sites.

-D

That would make them any less worth speaking to? Suppose that those are the only exposure I’ve had to the church, your outright dismissal of the items never changes my view or opinions of your church…

 

[Gator]

Tanais:

Who else would you rather have defending catholic teachings, an atheist? Anyways, I have had enough for one night. I am quite tired, may you all have a nice rest with God watching over us all, goodnight.

To me it would be like having a Chevrolet salesman tell me that a Chevrolet is the best car money could buy…

Have a great nights sleep.

 

[darcee]

Gator:

That would make them any less worth speaking to? Suppose that those are the only exposure I’ve had to the church, your outright dismissal of the items never changes my view or opinions of your church…

It certainly does make them less worth speaking too.

First of all by dropping this long list of claims with only dates attached and then stating that you will not view Catholic responses as controverting them you are creating and artificially tight question.

Secondly by making ANY statement (much less a whole list of them) and then saying “prove this isn’t true” you are creating a situation where anyone who disagrees with you must argue the negative. Which is notoriously difficult. (Prove green frogs don’t turn purple at midnight and fly about town on airborne lily pads)

Third by just dropping in a list which you grabbed off a website and then berating us who rightly claim it non-sense as being too lazy to defend our faith you are really showing your true colors. IF you had any sort of source documentation or were actually questioning any one or two of these items then it would be worth while to address them.

As it is you have not shown that you are actually interested in learning as you would not consider any source that is pro-Catholic (which presumably is anyone who would disagree with you) because they would be biased, yet you accept the bias of the above list without a blink. You are the one dismissing the information of Catholics without even learning what it is.

You want other people to fight a battle that you create on an unleveled field and then presume to declare victory when no one is absurd enough to tilt at your windmills.

-D

 

[hlgomez]

GATOR,

YOU’RE BASICALLY DIVERTING THE ISSUE FROM WHAT I ORIGINALLY POSTED.
I WANT TO KNOW HOW YOUR CHURCH VIEW SUCH ISSUES.
DON’T CHANGE THE TOPIC.

PIO

 

[usherMike]

Sorry hlgomes, Gator just likes to draw people into an argument. I’m Catholic we are against Gay Marriage and that can not change, God created marriage between one man (Adam) to one woman(Eve) for the reason of pro-creating (some thing gay people can do) and commiting to raise their children, I believe Protestants believe the same thing. Divorce is not the ending of a marriage you need an anulment, Protestants dont believe that, thats one of the reasons they left. Abortion is wrong, it’s killing, they believe that too. Contraception is wrong its a sin , we both believed that too up till the 1930s when they changed there docterin. Is that what you were trying for?

 

[hlgomez]

UsherMike,

Basically you answered the questions in a way we Catholics believe. Btw, just to clarify the issue on annulment–annulment is granted only to marriages that were not valid. An example of this is when a man marries a woman but was validly married before. This case can be annuled since if the man marries again, his previous marriage is still in effect, and certainly he cannot marry again while his wife is still alive. Once that man marries another, the marriage is not valid at all. A valid marriage cannot and never be annuled. Divorce of course is not acceptable either for the previous marriage.

Pio

 

[Anglo-catholic]

hlgomez:

Your post is really a line drawn in the sand and a statement “Cross it and I wll pop you in the nose!”

What is to be gained by this post?

Personnally - my issue is with divorce. Jesus’s comments address divorce - not annulments as He says it forces the woman into adultery - So remarriage is assumed.

I can kill my spouse and be forgiven - but I can’t divorce him/ her? Why is this a sin that can’t be forgiven. To kill is to negate God"s act of creation (an ultimate blasphemy). By the way I am still married after 32 years and don’t expect to divorce (or kill) my spouse in the future.

 

[usherMike]

hlgomez, I agree on the annulment thing, I was just trying to keep it short. Anglo-catholic, chill, divorce is forgivable and an annulment can be recieved for a number of reasons, but it has to be gotten.

 

[hlgomez]

Jesus’s comments address divorce - not annulments as He says it forces the woman into adultery - So remarriage is assumed.

People who interprets Scripture on their own too often fall into error. The teachings of the Catholic Church about remarrying is possible under certain conditions. When a person is divorced he cannot marry until the spouse dies. In Scriptures (1 Cor 7:39) it says, “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, provided that it be in the Lord.”
The marital union of man and woman reflect Christ’s union with the Church at the heavenly marriage supper. Just as Christ and the Church have become one flesh through the Eucharist and the union brings forth spiritual life for God’s children, a man and a woman become one flesh and their union brings forth physical life for the Church. This union is indissoluble. Christ doesn’t “divorce” His Church.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

I can kill my spouse and be forgiven - but I can’t divorce him/ her? Why is this a sin that can’t be forgiven.

You must be careful in your understanding–both are mortal sins, the former bearing a heavier weight.

God says in Malachi 2:15-16; …You must then safeguard life that is your own, and not break faith with the wife of your youth. For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel…

These are strong words from our Lord.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

Again, no one has the right to divorce. Jesus said:

Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." Unless the marriage is unlawful from the beginning and can therefore be considered invalid marriage–meaning–no marriage takes place.

Pio

 

[kpnuts2k]

but what if you are divorced before you become a christain?

can you be remaried
and what if you are a widow can you marry again
or if you husband leaves you can you marry again cos you havnt done anything wrong?!