religious freedom

[medincst]

viagra femminile
Sildenafil agisce sulla reazione alla stimolazione sessuale. Aziona attraverso l’aumento di rilassamento dei muscoli lisci usando l’ossido nitrico, un componente chimico prodotto normalmente in risposta alla stimolazione sessuale.

 

[Disinherited]

The diffirence between a secular person or a cafeteria catholic and a devout Catholic is that to the former, God exists but has no effect on the world. The Church is not a divine institution, its just an institution to him. To the latter, God exists and he works for Him and Mary). He works, lives and spends his life pleasing God (and Mary too!) and this is the mentality a Catholic state is supposed to follow.

It was because of this that the public worship of Protestantism wasn’t allowed, because truly, Protestantism is a perversion of everything Catholic and Christian and of the teachings of Jesus. I know I might sound harsh and I apologize but bear with me. You can’t ignore though the fact that Judaism was legal under the Papal states so there was some freedom of religion.

As for the babies bit, babies of course have no reason and can’t think as well as grown ups. Hell, if we don’t want to ‘abuse’ our child by forcing him to make decisions, why don’t we not tell him what gender he is? Why not leave it ambiguous like how that crazy family in Switzerland is doing to their child? In the same country, a nursery school forbids the children from calling their classmates ‘he’ or ‘she’ and instead forces them to call them friend’ instead. I discovered this on a website called cracked, I won’t give the link just because it is full of vulgarities.

Not meaning to intrude into our personal affairs Rence but if you had a child, you’ll give them freedom to choose which toys they want, which job they’ll take, which friends they’ll play with, etc… but you’ll tell them that they are a boy if they are a boy and you’ll bring them up that way. You won’t let play violent video games or see pornography because they want to because you want them to lead good lives. If the saints didn’t have good parents, do you think they’d have lead such holy lives? And even if they didn’t, their upbringing was important in the way they developed. If Superman, instead of being brought up by two innocent, loving folks from Kansas and instead was brought up by the communist government, what do you think would…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Oh. Never mind…

Do you see where I’m going with this? Religion is not a fad, it is a way of life., You can’t be part a saint, you have to give up sin, make sacrifices and practice virtue and love of God and Mary. There is no middle way. Sacrifice, by the way, means doing your daily duty and giving it to God (by way of the Blessed Virgin of course. Read True Devotion) and this was said by Jesus at one of the later apparitions of Fatima. You don’t have to flagellate yourself and being a saint doesn’t mean being an introvert. Just look at the Family of Saint Therese and the deep love there was between all of them! They effectively destroy the idea that only fear keeps the catholic family together (and yes, this is an actual quote from a very anti-catholic website and it sent me it made me so ferociously angry, I almost had a heart attack. I was sick at that time).

I’ll speak more about the syllabus in the following days. Its 2 in the morning.

 

[Rence]

Do you see where I’m going with this?

Honestly, no…

Religion is not a fad, it is a way of life.,

Yes, that’s correct. But it’s just as true for a Protestant, Muslim, Jew, etc. as it is for a Catholic. They take their religion seriously too.

You can’t be part a saint, you have to give up sin, make sacrifices and practice virtue and love of God and Mary. There is no middle way. Sacrifice, by the way, means doing your daily duty and giving it to God (by way of the Blessed Virgin of course. Read True Devotion) and this was said by Jesus at one of the later apparitions of Fatima. You don’t have to flagellate yourself and being a saint doesn’t mean being an introvert. Just look at the Family of Saint Therese and the deep love there was between all of them! They effectively destroy the idea that only fear keeps the catholic family together (and yes, this is an actual quote from a very anti-catholic website and it sent me it made me so ferociously angry, I almost had a heart attack. I was sick at that time).

And you don’t have to accept every single thing written or spoken by the Church either, especially if your conscience screams that you can’t. The notion that a Pope of previous times thinking that it’s wrong to think that a person has the right to choose his/her own religion, the right of a person to not accept Catholicism is something not acceptable to me. Because they do have that right…You can’t force people to be Catholic, it has to be their choice. Period.

 

[Disinherited]

I’m curious though, in real life (outside of online forums) is your practice to tell people that they must and have to, and don’t have the right not to, accept everything that comes from the Church? If you encounter someone who disagrees with a teaching or part of it (such a an item in the syllabus), do you tell them they don’t have the authority to disagree? And what is their reaction? And…does it actually work?

If I were to be talking to a Jews or a Protestant, I’d tell them why I think my faith is the only true faith. I’m well aware that to them my religion is false so I have to show them why we believe in the infallibility of the Pope, how history shows the Catholic Church is the true Church, etc… I may not have any authority to preach but I’m not preaching, I’m discussing. Loophole abuse? Of course not, its evangelizing and its OK to do it as long as you’re educated in the Catholic faith. I’m not telling you that you don’t have freedom, nor am I forcing you to accept the every single doctrine of the Church, either by pointing a gun at you or by annoying you until you give in, I’m just pointing out what to me are logical fallacies. You can’t be Catholic and be tolerant of abortion at the same time, nor can you be Catholic and tolerate homosexuality, the idea that Protestantism is valid, that the Jews who don’t believe in the Messiah aren’t waiting for another one for nothing, the idea that Muslims worship the true God, etc… all ideas condemned by the Church.

Does it actually work? I can’t say. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. The thing is the Church never said that you can reject which doctrines it teaches and accept only those which you like. If you rejected the dogma of the Holy Trinity, would you adore the same God? If you rejected the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, how can you expect Christ to accept you as His own brother if you reject this honor towards Mary? If you reject the power and infallibility of the Pope, how pray tell me, can you expect to be in good standing with the Church if the same church is telling you that you’re wrong/ Its not like the concept of Papal Infallibility is wrong, because if the Pope wasn’t infallible and wasn’t appointed by Christ, how can we accept the moral teachings he gives us? If there is a chance that he is ALWAYS wrong, does that mean that Christ left us to ourselves like the protestants who have a zillion different interpretations for each verse in the Bible?

Hell, do you think the other religions act any differently from your way of thinking? Don’t Muslims and Hindus themselves think they are the one true religion? They don’t want to kill us because we’re different but they certainly don’t think we are the ones who are right unless they convert to our religion, and Protestants themselves certainly don’t think the Catholic faith is valid at all. They’ll say that while it is A-OK to have differing opinions on what Christ taught (or on what Christ wanted us to believe) because believing in Jesus is the only thing that matters, Catholics cannot go to heaven because though they believe in Christ they are so far away from what He taught because of their belief in tradition that its impossible for them to be saved.

http://pawsru.org/fc/src/fc100525_jesus-facepalm-facepalm-jesus-epic-demotivational-.jpg

 

[Rence]

Hell, do you think the other religions act any differently from your way of thinking? Don’t Muslims and Hindus themselves think they are the one true religion? They don’t want to kill us because we’re different but they certainly don’t think we are the ones who are right unless they convert to our religion, and Protestants themselves certainly don’t think the Catholic faith is valid at all. They’ll say that while it is A-OK to have differing opinions on what Christ taught (or on what Christ wanted us to believe) because believing in Jesus is the only thing that matters, Catholics cannot go to heaven because though they believe in Christ they are so far away from what He taught because of their belief in tradition that its impossible for them to be saved.

Of course people of different religions think their religion is the one true religion and everyone else’s is false. They wouldn’t be that religion if they didn’t.

 

[severus68]

If I were to be talking to a Jews or a Protestant, I’d tell them why I think my faith is the only true faith. I’m well aware that to them my religion is false so I have to show them why we believe in the infallibility of the Pope, how history shows the Catholic Church is the true Church, etc… I may not have any authority to preach but I’m not preaching, I’m discussing. Loophole abuse? Of course not, its evangelizing and its OK to do it as long as you’re educated in the Catholic faith. I’m not telling you that you don’t have freedom, nor am I forcing you to accept the every single doctrine of the Church, either by pointing a gun at you or by annoying you until you give in, I’m just pointing out what to me are logical fallacies. You can’t be Catholic and be tolerant of abortion at the same time, nor can you be Catholic and tolerate homosexuality, the idea that Protestantism is valid, that the Jews who don’t believe in the Messiah aren’t waiting for another one for nothing, the idea that Muslims worship the true God, etc… all ideas condemned by the Church.

Does it actually work? I can’t say. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. The thing is the Church never said that you can reject which doctrines it teaches and accept only those which you like. If you rejected the dogma of the Holy Trinity, would you adore the same God? If you rejected the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, how can you expect Christ to accept you as His own brother if you reject this honor towards Mary? If you reject the power and infallibility of the Pope, how pray tell me, can you expect to be in good standing with the Church if the same church is telling you that you’re wrong/ Its not like the concept of Papal Infallibility is wrong, because if the Pope wasn’t infallible and wasn’t appointed by Christ, how can we accept the moral teachings he gives us? If there is a chance that he is ALWAYS wrong, does that mean that Christ left us to ourselves like the protestants who have a zillion different interpretations for each verse in the Bible?

Hell, do you think the other religions act any differently from your way of thinking? Don’t Muslims and Hindus themselves think they are the one true religion? They don’t want to kill us because we’re different but they certainly don’t think we are the ones who are right unless they convert to our religion, and Protestants themselves certainly don’t think the Catholic faith is valid at all. They’ll say that while it is A-OK to have differing opinions on what Christ taught (or on what Christ wanted us to believe) because believing in Jesus is the only thing that matters, Catholics cannot go to heaven because though they believe in Christ they are so far away from what He taught because of their belief in tradition that its impossible for them to be saved.

http://pawsru.org/fc/src/fc100525_jesus-facepalm-facepalm-jesus-epic-demotivational-.jpg

Firstly, I must say my post is a general to your posts to Rence.

Rence did not say she picks and chooses what she wants to believe in. She was referring to the Syllabus. How is the Syllabus applicable today please and in non Catholic states? I do not think hat even all Catholic theologians accepted it in its entirety when it was first published.

You mentioned going to Mary. That is not Church doctrine. We honour her she is the most blessed but she is not God.

On other religions. Some Muslims believe that the whole world must become Islamic- at the point of a sword if necessary. For the most, Hindus are fine with others practising their own religions and they do not think that non Hindus are damned. Their are many Protestant denomininations. The mainline Protestants today do not say Catholics cant go to heaven. It is some of the evangelical Christians who think Catholicism is wrong and go to mosty Catholic countries like those in South America and the Philippines to ‘convert’.

The best way to convert people to Catholicism is by example. I believe that is what St Francis of Assisi taught.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I am always going to disagree about including Protestants in the same category as Muslims. Protestants are CHRISTIANS.

Christians who are in error, and some in more error than others. However, they are Christians whom we should pray for constantly that God would convert their hearts and minds so that they would come back to the one true Church, but they are not Muslims.

Well said Truelight, and I’m sorry if my comment was misunderstood. I didn’t mean to say Protestants and Mohammedans are the same in all ways. They are not.

Digging deeper into your comment, raises some very interesting questions though. Two that jump to my mind-

Is Mohammadenism (aka Islam) really a Christian heresy?

What makes someone Christian? The traditional answer is a vaild baptism. That leaves many people who identify themselves as Christians outside the actual definition of the term. One group in this category is Mormons. They say they are Christians, but they are not validly baptized, and so the Church teaches that they are not actually Christians. The same thing would apply to some “non-denominational” and other Protestants who don’t baptize at all or in an invalid manner.

To be clear, none of that means that God loves any of these people less, or that we should either. At the same time, the words we use are important, and even more important is seeking the grace of sacraments and welcoming ALL people to the Catholic Church.

Have a great day and God bless.

Pax

 

[TrueLight]

Well said Truelight, and I’m sorry if my comment was misunderstood. I didn’t mean to say Protestants and Mohammedans are the same in all ways. They are not.

Digging deeper into your comment, raises some very interesting questions though. Two that jump to my mind-

Is Mohammadenism (aka Islam) really a Christian heresy?

What makes someone Christian? The traditional answer is a vaild baptism. That leaves many people who identify themselves as Christians outside the actual definition of the term. One group in this category is Mormons. They say they are Christians, but they are not validly baptized, and so the Church teaches that they are not actually Christians. The same thing would apply to some “non-denominational” and other Protestants who don’t baptize at all or in an invalid manner.

To be clear, none of that means that God loves any of these people less, or that we should either. At the same time, the words we use are important, and even more important is seeking the grace of sacraments and welcoming ALL people to the Catholic Church.

Have a great day and God bless.

Pax

No problem Dan. I generally Protest certain comments about Protestants all over the board.

The majority of Protestants are validly baptized. I don’t consider Mormons to be Protestant.

Is Mohammadenism (aka Islam) really a Christian heresy?

I don’t know.

Is Christianity a Jewish heresy?

 

[Dan_Daly]

I realize you feel that way, but not everyone does.

I don’t think so, because Vatican City and the Vatican has an agreement with Italy as to their arrangment. However, that’s between the Vatican and Italy.

It’s not a question of feeling regarding Kennedy’s speech. It’s historical fact.

From Kennedy’s speech:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; **where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; **and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

and

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

Emphasis mine.

Condemned in the Syllabus of Errors by Pope Pius IX:

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

1. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails. – Ibid.

1. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction. – Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

1. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

JFK essentially crowns himself Pope in his speech, claiming to beyond not only obedience to Church authority but even unwilling to request or accept **instruction **from the Church. It’s not surprising the speech went over well with many Protestants, since it is essentially a declaration that Kennedy has joined them.

Pax and God bless.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I don’t know.

Is Christianity a Jewish heresy?

Very good question. The answer is a fascinating one.

No. Christianity is not a Jewish heresy. Christianity IS Jewish. By that I mean, Abraham, Isaac, David…they are the same faith as us. The Old Testament Jewish Faith and the New Testament Catholic Faith are the same faith.

So what is modern rabbinical judaism? It is actually the Jewish heresy- the heresy of rejecting the Messiah. Modern Jews do not practice the same religion as Old Testament Jews. The Talmud was written *after *the New Testament, by people who had explicitly rejected Christ.

Pax and God bless.

 

[Rence]

It’s not a question of feeling regarding Kennedy’s speech. It’s historical fact.

I know what Kennedy said. I meant how you felt about it. I OTOH appreciated it as a citizen.

JFK essentially crowns himself Pope in his speech, claiming to beyond not only obedience to Church authority but even unwilling to request or accept **instruction **from the Church. It’s not surprising the speech went over well with many Protestants, since it is essentially a declaration that Kennedy has joined them. Pax and God bless.

I understand how you feel about JFK’s speech, but I don’t feel the same way and I don’t think a whole lot of others do either. I don’t think he in any way “crowns himself Pope in his speech”. In his speech, he was assuring the citizens that he would represent them equally, no matter what religion they practiced, and would not infringe on their rights by making his decisions based on Catholic rules and laws. Of course it went over well with many Protestants because they don’t want to be subject to the Pope…if they did, they’d be Catholic. So it’s understandible that people appreciated him. They were assured that they wouldn’t be constrained by the rules of the Church, and they appreciated it because they don’t subject themselves to the Pope…again, if they did, they’d be Catholic. I wouldn’t want to be subject to the rules of the Jewish or Muslim religion either, or to the rules of Baptism or Lutheranism. So I can understand them not wanting to be subject to the rules of the Church.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I know what Kennedy said. I meant how you felt about it. I OTOH appreciated it as a citizen.

I understand how you feel about JFK’s speech, but I don’t feel the same way and I don’t think a whole lot of others do either. I don’t think he in any way “crowns himself Pope in his speech”. In his speech, he was assuring the citizens that he would represent them equally, no matter what religion they practiced, and would not infringe on their rights by making his decisions based on Catholic rules and laws. Of course it went over well with many Protestants because they don’t want to be subject to the Pope…if they did, they’d be Catholic. So it’s understandible that people appreciated him. They were assured that they wouldn’t be constrained by the rules of the Church, and they appreciated it because they don’t subject themselves to the Pope…again, if they did, they’d be Catholic. I wouldn’t want to be subject to the rules of the Jewish or Muslim religion either, or to the rules of Baptism or Lutheranism. So I can understand them not wanting to be subject to the rules of the Church.

Whether you or anyone else agreed with or appreciated what Kennedy said in his speech, the fact remains that what he said is heretical to Church teaching. That was my point. Not that what he said was bad, or that I disagree with it (although I do). The point is that what he said…wasn’t Catholic.

Pax and God bless.

 

[Rence]

Whether you or anyone else agreed with or appreciated what Kennedy said in his speech, the fact remains that what he said is heretical to Church teaching. That was my point. Not that what he said was bad, or that I disagree with it (although I do). The point is that what he said…wasn’t Catholic.

Pax and God bless.

Yes, of course it wasn’t Catholic. His speech was meant to be made from the perspective of one running for the office of President of the United States, and was received by the citizens he was to represent.

 

[Dan_Daly]

It’s also worth pointing out that Protestants are subject to the Pope whether they want to be or not. The Pope is the Pope of all humanity, not just Catholics. Likewise, Mary is the Queen of Heaven and Earth, which includes non-Catholics and non-Christians. Refusing to acknowledge someone’s authority, doesn’t make that authority cease to exist.

Pax and God bless.

 

[Rence]

It’s also worth pointing out that Protestants are subject to the Pope whether they want to be or not. The Pope is the Pope of all humanity, not just Catholics. Likewise, Mary is the Queen of Heaven and Earth, which includes non-Catholics and non-Christians. Refusing to acknowledge someone’s authority, doesn’t make that authority cease to exist.

Actually, it does. Refusing to acknowledge someone’s authority does make that authority cease to exist. One is not subject to the Pope unless they make themselves subject to him. If they don’t make themselves subject to them, then they are not subject to him. Church teaching is irrelevent to those who don’t believe in it, and there is no way to enforce the teachings. So being subject to them is completely voluntary.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Actually, it does. Refusing to acknowledge someone’s authority does make that authority cease to exist. One is not subject to the Pope unless they make themselves subject to him. If they don’t make themselves subject to them, then they are not subject to him. Church teaching is irrelevent to those who don’t believe in it, and there is no way to enforce the teachings. So being subject to them is completely voluntary.

You are incorrect. If I decide not to pay my taxes, because I’m not subject to the government of my locality, state, and country, I will find out that I am mistaken.

Likewise, a child can not listen to his parents about eating vegetables, dating, or a million other things, that doesn’t erase the parental authority.

Church teaching is very relevant to everyone, those who believe and don’t believe. There is no salvation outside of the Church. The Church’s authority, like all lawful authority, comes from God. By your argument an atheist escapes God’s authority as well, because he does not believe in it. In that case an atheist is not wrong to murder or steal or rape or anything else, because he does not acknowledge the authority that prohibits those acts and by doing so voids that authority.

Pax and God bless.

 

[Rence]

You are incorrect. If I decide not to pay my taxes, because I’m not subject to the government of my locality, state, and country, I will find out that I am mistaken.

That is because you are subject to the laws of the country in which you live. Otherwise, you don’t have to live there.

It’s the same with Catholicism. Catholics are subject to the laws of the Church. Otherwise, they don’t have to belong there.

Likewise, a child can not listen to his parents about eating vegetables, dating, or a million other things, that doesn’t erase the parental authority.

A child is subject to his/her parents because he/she doesn’t have a choice. An adult child is not subject to his/her parents unless they make themselves subject to their parents. Adults are not children, and if we don’t subject ourselves to the teachings of the Church, then we’re not.

If there is no one enforcing themselves on an individual, claiming their authority over the person is kind of useless unless that individual agrees.

 

[Dan_Daly]

That is because you are subject to the laws of the country in which you live. Otherwise, you don’t have to live there.

It’s the same with Catholicism. Catholics are subject to the laws of the Church. Otherwise, they don’t have to belong there.

A child is subject to his/her parents because he/she doesn’t have a choice. An adult child is not subject to his/her parents unless they make themselves subject to their parents. Adults are not children, and if we don’t subject ourselves to the teachings of the Church, then we’re not.

If there is no one enforcing themselves on an individual, claiming their authority over the person is kind of useless unless that individual agrees.

Can a person exempt themselves from the authority of God?

Pax.

 

[Rence]

Can a person exempt themselves from the authority of God?

Pax.

Did God give the person free will?

 

[Dan_Daly]

He did. Free will does not exempt us from His authority though.

Who will be judged when they die? Everyone. Those who obey Him and those who don’t.

So do you agree, is everyone subject to the authority of God?