M
MariaTS
Guest
Once you present your facts, I will present mine. You have not presented any facts thus far, just your beliefs.
- Status
M
MariaTS
Guest
I have discovered why so many Catholics are opposed to religious freedom. They are opposed to religious freedom because they do not believe they are opposed to religious freeedom even though they are opposed to religious freedom.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
K
kimmielittle
Guest
K
kimmielittle
Guest
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I have discovered why Maria is opposed to Catholic teaching. She is opposed to Catholic teaching because she does not believe she is opposed to Catholic teaching even though she IS opposed to Catholic teaching.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
This forum is not here for the purpose of a boxing match. Stay on topic or move on.
A
adstrinity
Guest
I’d still like to see where most Catholics want the USA to approve of Catholicism as a State religion and how we hate our God given freedom for all. The OP has yet to prove his case.
M
MariaTS
Guest
I’m a girl, please respect that. Also, there is no case to prove, I was simply asking why some Catholics wanted Catholicism to be the state religion?
D
Dale_M
Guest
Every large group (religious, political, culture etc) has some individuals with extreme views. The exist on the fringes and are not part of the mainstream. In the past, these extreme views would rarely be heard from, but the internet gives the fringe elements a level of visibility they didn’t have in the past.
In other words, very few Catholics (at least in the US) want the Church to be the state religion. The handful who do are probably number at the same level as the people who believe that the Church hasn’t had a pope for more than 50 years.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
I suggest you ask them. Why would people who don’t hold these views know?
As for the answer, perhaps you should check out my previous thread on making Christianity the state religion and address the people there.
For the record, my personal stancee after reading through the responses on that thread and after some reflection is that it would open up far too large a can of worms and would probably end up having unfortunate moral implications, even if they’re unintentional.
A
Aboveallbereal
Guest
Rarely have so many inventions, false assumptions, mistruths, half truths, non sequiturs and outright fallacies found their way into one paragraph.
One cannot even begin to untangle the layered nonsenses.
S
Sullibe
Guest
Allow me to clarify for you.
It is well to begin by stating the ecclesiological truths that are assumed to be established before the question of infallibility arises. It is assumed:
Code:
* that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society;
* that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them;
* that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship; and that
* in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy — and on them exclusively — the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed.It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church’s infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. **We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. *** newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Therefore, while yes, there have been few papal infallibility teachings over the course of 2000 years, Ecclesiological infallibility applies to the Churches teachings on Faith and MORALS. So yes, the teachings on gay marriage, abortion, and the Catholic Church being the One True Faith are, indeed, infallible teachings.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Everyone has the right to Religious Freedom. 
No one has the right to expect Catholicism to conform to their ideas or desires.
No one has the right to present anti-Catholic ideas, falsehoods, contortions as Catholic Teachings. These are not Religious Freedoms…merely contortions.
No one has the right to expect Catholicism to conform to their ideas or desires.
No one has the right to present anti-Catholic ideas, falsehoods, contortions as Catholic Teachings. These are not Religious Freedoms…merely contortions.
M
MariaTS
Guest
I don’t expect Catholicism to conform to any ideas that I might have but I do expect Catholics to realize what their faith really means.Everyone has the right to Religious Freedom.
No one has the right to expect Catholicism to conform to their ideas or desires.
No one has the right to present anti-Catholic ideas, falsehoods, contortions as Catholic Teachings. These are not Religious Freedoms…merely contortions.
I have merely presented Catholicism as it is truly defined.
By the way, your post has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.
M
MariaTS
Guest
None of this is false, it is simply based on what many Catholics have said, most assuredly not what most or all Catholics have said. To claim more than an insignificant minority of Catholics believe this would be nonsense, but I never claimed that now did I?
M
MariaTS
Guest
That is simply not true.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Was this not your the lead sentence in your post?
Is not this thread title “Re: Religious Freedom” ?
M
MariaTS
Guest
Sorry, I don’t understand the first sentence. You said that no one had a right to be anti-Catholic, I have never met an anti-Catholic.Was this not your the lead sentence in your post?
Is not this thread title “Re: Religious Freedom” ?
K
kimmielittle
Guest
- Status