S
Syele
Guest
You can read what the Catholic Church actually teaches here: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm it has a nice search feature so you can find the topics you want more info about.
- Status
E
elvisman
Guest
Peace, my brotha.Why do you use so much bolding and coloring?? Makes it hard to keep up with the tags
Anyway I’m glad you agree and we can speak in a spirited fashion on the disagreements
Yes as a Catholic you see that authority residing in Rome. But here is the issue as I personally see it. Not saying I’m the solver of all problems
OK the RCC claims infallibility. We ask how? They say from scripture. Then you ask to show it to me so I understand it. They show it to you. You disagree. They say you don’t have the authority to interpret scripture. Then I say how can I ever understand? Bottom line is, if I don’t understand it and see it another way I can’t say anything because that would be heretical. I have to accept that it is the truth. The RCC is claiming only they can interpret scripture properly. And their understanding is that they are infallible based on their interpretation. So you ask how do you know you are right and others are wrong. They say we are protected by the Holy Spirit. But the Bible tells us the Holy Spirit guides us all. The RCC says on matters of Faith we are the experts. So then that means the Holy Spirit is guiding only them in that regard and no one else. They have information from the Holy Spirit that no one else has. This is what the gnostics claimed. Not saying they were right.
But then no one could ever challenge that the leaders in the church would lead us down a wrong path because they declare themselves infallible by scripture which we disagree with. It’s then a HUGE catch 22. The church itself will never have the gates of hell prevail against it. But the individuals within that make up the church certainly could. Not every person professing to be a Christian will go to Heaven. This includes the Pope and anyone in a leadership position. We would never be able to challenge them. We would have to leave to show protest. Then we would be told we’re losing salvation. You see what I mean. It’s like a very bad trap.
And I agree with you. That is ridiculous. Unfortunately people on both sides do that. Many threads are started by both sides that do nothing but bait an argument. I wish no one would ever respond. Just leave them empty. Now that would show true unity
Yes very counter-productive.
I agree somewhat. Unfortunately many RCCs will then say that the authority from which we speak is invalid. Then the conversation falls off the proverbial cliff again. Just remember, Jesus HIMSELF detested authority and specifically told the Apostles they would not exercise authority over each other. This is precisely what I see Rome doing. Excercising authority which Jesus forbids. So I question it and then I’m wrong because the church is infallible. You see we’re in a catch 22 again.
They always do. So perhaps we should just concede that our respective authorities are different. Then debate from there. I was in a debate with someone the other day. Answered all the objections in detail. Instead of admitting I could be right the response was, “wait who put you in charge, no one can refute you, you’re like a self proclaimed pope”. I certainly don’t think that as I have a high regard for the Pope. But instead of saying hey that could be a possibility, that person reverted back to the RCC and said, no absolutely not the RCC can’t be wrong. Well yes they can. They just may not admit it.
PEACE
I disagree that Jesus “detested” authority.
He detested contests between his apostles when they were trying to determine who was the greatest.
BUT - what did he tell them in Matt. 18:15-18?
***"*If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. **
***If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ *****If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. **
**Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."**That sounds like a of delegation of authority to me.
D
Deacon110
Guest
And you are so right about repeating sin. But I guess when you talk about the sanctity of marriage I feel that when a spouse commits adultery they have in effect given up on the one they supposedly loved. I exprienced this first hand and it’s devatating. Adultery is unlike any other sin. It cuts to the heart and violates the trust that you so freely gave to your loved one. If there is a way to work it out then GOD bless. But take it from me it’s not easy. My wife and I tried for a long time and we just could not overcome the trust issue. It becomes emotionally draining because you can’t stop questioning when the other is doing something. Trust me, If you’ve never experienced it first hand then you’re in no position to comment.
And I definitely would agree with the general overall attitude towards marriage. Divorce is too easy of an option when it shouldn’t be. But I re-iterate my comments from above regarding adultery. Unless you’ve experienced it you just don’t know what it does to you. Being on the outside looking in makes it very easy to express a "what you think " opinion.
PEACE
D
Deacon110
Guest
You are absolutely correct as I can personally attest to this. You have to have a legal divorce before proceeding with an annulment. The purpose of the annulment is to prove the marriage shouldn’t have taken place to begin with. So it can be stricken from the records of the Roman Catholic church in case you decide to re-marry. You can’t re-marry in the RCC if you have a previous marriage on record.
So not only does the RCC allow divorce, it is a pre-requisite for an annulment.
D
Deacon110
Guest
P
paidion
Guest
G
gigageek
Guest
Deacon110 I truly am sympathetic to your situation and I do hope that you don’t take my comments to be critical of your divorce.
You are correct that it is hard for me to understand as I have not been touched by marital adultery. But I would submit that I have at least minimal experiences with something similar from my early dating days.
I would like to further discuss the translation of the word proneia that you use. I have done some further reading and have found the following.
I have read where the literal translation of proneia is “prostitution” and adultery’s Greek word is “Moicheia” and is actually the word used later in the verse of Matthew 19:9.
“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” - Matt 19:9
So if I insert the Greek…
“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (except for porneia) and marries another commits moicheia.” - Matt 19:9
Why would he use a different word when there is one that more clearly means adultery.
Further reading has also revealed another possible translation and that is “premarital sexual intercourse.” And in this context it is related to those couples in a betrothal. Allowing the expectant husband to seek a divorce since his wife to be is not a virgin. In fact I would submit this is a very familiar picture with regard to Mary and Joseph as it relates to Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus.
Again while we can endlessly debate the intended meaning and teaching of Jesus in the are of divorce he remains consistently clear in all the subsequent passages that, “[t]herefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” - Matt 19:6
Please know that I am not trying to judge your situation or to make you feel bad. I am earnestly trying to defend the teaching of Jesus. I feel strongly that we should not taint what Jesus taught by our human frailties as that is where we start to allow cracks in the foundation of His church. And as I have already stated once a crack starts soon a flood appears.
I would like to close with this last thought. While Jesus makes little room for divorce. Being separated from your spouse in a civil divorce is not a sin. It is the re-marriage that is the sin. And while it is natural for us humans to seek marriage Jesus says in Matthew 19:11-12, "[11] He answered, ‘Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom it is granted. [12] Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.’ "
Following Jesus is not easy, but nothing worthwhile is easy.
Peace be with you.
B
BamaRider
Guest
I think there is a element of truth here. I don’t believe it is purposeful, but in these discussions it comes out.
E
elvisman
Guest
F
FCEGM
Guest
No, actually, He doesn’t. The Greek literally reads:
“…Whoever divorces his wife, unless the marriage is unlawful, causes her to commit adultery …”
Jesus uses this same expression in Matt. 19:9. What Jesus is referring to here (which is deeply apparent, given that there is no such “exception” presented in GENTILE-directed passages such as Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, and 1 Corinth 7:10-11), is the Mosaic prohibition against certain marriages (e.g. Leviticus 18:6-18), which included marriage to non-Jews apart from the Mosaic Covenant. In 1st Century Judaism, as well as in Christianity, this applied to both keeping concubines who were not official wives (i.e., a prolonged relationship based on fornication - see John 4:16-18 -and so a man’s “woman,” but not his actual; wife) or to marriages with pagans that were not recognized by the Jewish or Christian community. This is specifically forbidden in Acts 15:20 and 15:28-29, where it is referred to by the very same term that Jesus uses in Matthew 5 & Matthew 19, and it is also addressed directly by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 7:12-16, where Paul specifically says that a convert to Christ who has a pagan husband or wife should not seek to separate from them (since their union may bring the pagan spouse to Christ), but if the pagan spouse should separate from the Christian spouse, then the Christian spouse is not bound to them. This is exactly what Jesus is addressing in Matt 5:32 --that is, the principal whereby marriages confected outside the Covenant are not to be considered absolutely binding.
Jesus is NOT saying (as people so commonly distort this passage today) that it’s okay for a Christian to divorce his or her Christian spouse if this spouse cheats on them - that adultery nullifies a marriage. This is not what the Lord is saying at all. Yours is a modernist and anachronistic embellishment of the Scriptural text and its true context, promoted by hard-hearted Protestants in the 16th Century.
Wrong; this is not what the Lord is saying. Go read the book of Hosea. Hosea’s wife, Gomer, is a harlot who cheats on him repeatedl, but he is not made into an adulterer because of this. Nor was a woman, under the Law, made into an adulteress if her husband kept concubines or cheater or her in other ways. You do not understand ancient Jewish culture or the Mosaic Law, nor do you understand the 1st Century Christian context which Matt. 5:32 is addressing.
This is true, but that’s not what Jesus is saying. For goodness sake, He teaches exactly the opposite (see Matt. 19:7-9)! Jesus says that Moses’ Law permitting a bill of divorce is a violation of the true spirit and intention of God’s creation of marriage: that it was given to the Jews because of their hardness of heart, i.e., their inability to live according to a true, interior righteousness, which is what made the Law necessary. Christians, however, are freed from the Law and are not to live in such a way, but to go beyond the mere prescriptions of the Law and live in total charity.
B
BamaRider
Guest
The Deacon sez-
What happens in that scenario when the he wants forgiveness from the wife, but she says “no mas” and wants out? Then it becomes a case of HIM not wanting the divorce but HER, would HE be allowed to marry again?
No, the Church is correct. If you can’t be with someone because of infidelity, so be it, go your seperate ways, but that doesn’t mean that union is automatically disolved with a quick trip to some lawyers office, and then you’re free to remarry.
So what you’re tellin me, if I’m a guy in a marriage that wants out, the quickest ticket is go find a lover? “I can’t get a divorce for “irreconible differences,” but I can get one for unfaithfullness.”
What happens in that scenario when the he wants forgiveness from the wife, but she says “no mas” and wants out? Then it becomes a case of HIM not wanting the divorce but HER, would HE be allowed to marry again?
No, the Church is correct. If you can’t be with someone because of infidelity, so be it, go your seperate ways, but that doesn’t mean that union is automatically disolved with a quick trip to some lawyers office, and then you’re free to remarry.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Oh I am aware how infallibility got started. It was defined around 1870 in the First Vatican Council. The Church have always exercise infallibility since its beginning concerning moral and faith.
The Catholic Church does not go by majority rule vote. It isn’t run by Democratic means. It’s doctrine is not dictated by votes.
I have seen the presentation to disprove Perpetual Virginity of Mary and I find the evidence lacking. For one in the Finding of Jesus Christ in the Temple, clearly show that Mary and Joseph only had one son. Jesus at this age is twelve. If indeed, Jesus and Joseph had other children, we would see little brothers and sisters of Jesus. We don’t.
Second, the belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not limited to the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox believe in this. Consider the fact that both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are the original Church of Jesus Christ. They always held Mary remain a virgin. She was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of her only son, Jesus Christ.
If you use the term first born son. That wouldn’t even imply that she had other children. In fact, God commanded Moses that every first-born shall be consecrated to God.
In Hebrew or Aramaic there is no word for cousin. So instead, the Gospel writers use the term brother and sisters. Abraham called Lot his brother even thought Lot is his nephew.
Because Jesus said to his disciple: “Hear who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you rejects me. He who rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Jesus granted his Church authority. He gave this authority to Peter first whom he give keys of the kingdom and then this was given to the Apostles. This authority was then handed down to their successions, the bishops.
She is a perpetual virgin.
1
1234
Guest
it’s not the doctrines. it’s the way RC’s tries to preempt our Constitution by trying to pass laws and force their ideas down our throats.
–destroying the separation of Church and State, guarateed by the creators of the Constitution, who remembered very clearly the abuses of the RCC in Europe, also the Protestants, when they ran things.
-Try to make abortion illegal, and, if they had their way, contraception–tho’ the majority of RC’s use contraception.
-tries to train lawyers to challenge established law and the Bill of Rights by creating a law school for that purpose–Ave Maria law School by Tom Monaghan, now in Florida.
H
HannahLisa
Guest
- The idea that we must go to the Church for her opinion on every little thing. I think that at some point, you need to use the God-given common sense you were blessed with.
- The entire view of the Sacraments. This includes the idea that the Sacraments are the way to get grace, that only validly ordained with apostolic succession approved by the Catholic Church priests can turn the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, that your sins can only be forgiven through confession to such a priest. The idea of grace as something that can be “sold” (e.g. you go to so many First Fridays in a row and you get time out of purgatory). Grace is a gift from God and I do not think we can claim to regulate it in such fashion.
- The idea that you must be Catholic to be saved.
J
JIMMY68
Guest
HannahLisa-
Sounds like you’re a nominal Catholic, are you ‘catholic’?
We all have a choice, you can choose what you want to believe. We will all be held accountable, every last one of us for our choices. Death is the great equalizer.
I want to stand before God and say “I taught what you revealed”, not “I taught what I was taught”. 1500 years of Roman Catholicism existed, think about how long that is, before the reformation and the protesting.
Catholicism is not too good to be true, and definitely not too hard to live.
Your decision…
and that goes too for this entire thread of protesters…debate, debate, debate. Good luck debating protesters, when wresting with a pig in the mud, you eventually figure out the pig likes it.
Not 100 hundred people hate the Catholic Church for what they truly understand, but millions hate the Catholic Church for what they THINK they understand, that’s a key distinction.
Peace.
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
- Papal Authority
- Priesthood reserved for men only
- Withholding communion in order to punish “wayward” politicians. Withholding baptism for the children of Catholics who don’t meet the approval of the DRE. Withholding communion from divorced and remarried people.
- Bishops covering for abusive priests.
- Bishops and priests actively campaigning in order to restrict the rights of a certain segment of the United States population.
H
HannahLisa
Guest
No, I’m not Catholic. I grew up Episcopalian, went to a Methodist church for two years, and am now going to a Foursquare church. If I was Catholic, I would not have posted in this thread with things I didn’t like about the Church, since this thread is addressed to non-Catholics.
When a person teaches what they were taught by the Catholic church, they are teaching what they were taught. Whether these truths were originally revealed is up for debate.
You did not address any of my points. Instead, you addressed what you thought (erroneously) was my viewpoint. Please show me how my understanding of the things I mentioned is erroneous. I have heard a Catholic say that if you go to so many First Fridays in a row, you get a plenary indulgence. Perhaps that is not correct; if so, it is a problem because some people think it is. If it is correct, I have a problem with it because it is like grace is being bought and sold, which I do not think is possible.
J
JIMMY68
Guest
In and there is the problem - ‘SHOW ME’ you say, ‘I HEARD’ you say. My question for you is how can you be an authority on Catholic Dogma if all you do is listen to others and what they say. Why not get it from the source and DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK, what are you afraid of in doing that, rather than listening to what I or anyone else has to say, our responses will always be unacceptable. Do your own research and form you own opinion, you might be surprised.
Be forwarned though as to what you might encounter - truth.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
It’s not her opinion. It’s part of Divine Revelation. It is part of deposit of faith. I trust God guide his Church concerning moral anf faith issues. A man by himself cannot live a sanctifying life without someone to guide them. The Church guide us since the Church is the Bride of Christ.
The Seven Sacraments particular Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion, Sacrament of Penance, and Holy Order are the means which we received grace. In baptism, all our sins are cleansed both personal sin and original sin. Peter himself said that baptism saves you. In confirmation, we are annointed with oil. This seals us with the Holy Spirit. In the Sacrament of Penance, we received forgiveness from God working through his ministers.
Well, apparently Hannah, you don’t know much about Purgatory. The belief that you can buy someone out of Purgatory is false Catholic misconception that Protestants have. You need to get rid of tha misconception.
The Church recommends but does not require the faithful to donate certain amount of money; nor does she get souls out of purgatory by monetary offering.
Souls get out of Purgatory through prayer by the faithful. At the Mass, prayers for the deceased are made. I also have recently read the Diary of Saint Faustina. In her book, she recounts dead sisters who are in Purgatory who visited her at night. They come to ask her for more prayers; not monetary offering.
In Diary 58 Faustina wrote:
Prayers get people out of purgatory as well as offering yourself daily in behalf of the dead by loving your neighbor.
The Catholic Church recognizes the Sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Church as valid.
Because the Catholic Church has the full means of salvation. However, God can work outside his sacraments. Since God himself knows the heart of men. Through the ordinary means to be saved is through Jesus Christ and His Church, which Jesus Christ flows his grace upon.
J
JIMMY68
Guest
Manny my brother-
You’re wrestling with a pig in the mud…eventually you figure out the pig likes it.
These people need to do their own research, no matter what you provide, say or do, the Holy Spirit must move on their hearts and THEY must want to receive the graces…there’s nothing you can say or do to help that, it’s their decision to believe what they want.
You keep going back and forth, it’s an endless he-said/she-said scenario, our time is better spent praying for our separated brothers and sisters, probably much like they pray for us.
We’re dividing the body of Christ here in these exchanges, and every exchange is a nail in His cross.
I’m also more curious as to why non-catholic visit Catholic web sites…interesting thoughts hey? I certainly don’t visit non-catholic blogs to debate dogma, how about you?
Peace.
J.
- Status