Ask A Papist: Questions on Catholic Doctrine and Dogma!

[Murphy]

Hello everyone. That nasty Papist is bored again. So I am here to talk to you all about Catholic doctrine and dogma.

So, if you have any questions, I will be more than happy to answer them for you. I will be using various sources, but I will prodive names for the sources when required.

And lets try and keep this in perspective. I don't want questions like "Does God exist?". Because then we will simply go round in circles. I am here to try and explain, simply and clearly, the actual teachings of the Church and their consistency.

So, shoot.

[Psychonaut]

Dear The Papist,

What are your thoughts on papal infallibility?

[Arrow Cross]

All right, you have a dogma of "Papal Infallibility" since the XIXth Century. How do you reconcile it with both contradictions and outrageous human failures popes keep presenting us with? If they are infallible, wouldn't that require the popes, of mundane flesh and blood like the rest of us, to be perfect? Yet, I have a feeling many modern popes would have been insta-excommunicated and burned at the stake in the good ole Medieval.

What about celibacy? I personally have a great admiration for those who keep themselves to it, and consistently retain their chastitiy, but if the Protestant churches had it as a clerical requirement, I wouldn't be alive right now.
So in an age when priests can be faggots, and when forced restraint causes so many of the weaker-willed pastors to engage in sinful and criminal behaviour with children, would it not be more beneficial to make celibacy voluntary again, as it had been before the XIth Century?

[Grey]

All right, you have a dogma of "Papal Infallibility" since the XIXth Century. How do you reconcile it with both contradictions and outrageous human failures popes keep presenting us with? If they are infallible, wouldn't that require the popes, of mundane flesh and blood like the rest of us, to be perfect? Yet, I have a feeling many modern popes would have been insta-excommunicated and burned at the stake in the good ole Medieval.

The way I was taught was that the Pope is only infallible when giving an official interpretation of Catholic doctrine. Not trying to speak for the Papist, though.


@ The Papist: How was it determined which Biblical books were the word of God and which were false and were to be omitted?

[Murphy]

Dear The Papist,

What are your thoughts on papal infallibility?


All right, you have a dogma of "Papal Infallibility" since the XIXth Century. How do you reconcile it with both contradictions and outrageous human failures popes keep presenting us with? If they are infallible, wouldn't that require the popes, of mundane flesh and blood like the rest of us, to be perfect? Yet, I have a feeling many modern popes would have been insta-excommunicated and burned at the stake in the good ole Medieval.

This is a fair start, as it seems to be the one most people have a problem with. Much of the following is sourced from an old Catechism (from the late 1800s, reprint ofcourse) of mine, so I sadly cannot find links to other sites for you as I can with Aquinas. I hope you understand.

God has planted in our hearts a longing for truth which must be satisfied. Our first parents had no difficulties ti face in the search for truth. "In the state of innocence," says St Thomas, "it was impossible for man to mistake false for true." (I do not know if this is from his Summa). Ever since the Fall, to err is human. God, however, sent an infallible Teacher, His only begotten Son, that man might again find the truth; hence the words of Christ to Pilate: "For this I came into the world that U should give testimony of the truth" (John xviii. 37). Christ was to be a light to our understandings, darkened as they were by sin (John iii. 19). As Christ was not to remain always on earth, He appointed another infallible teacher, His Church, and provided it with the necessary gifts, especially with the assitance of the Holy Ghost.

Christ conferred on His apostles and their successors the teaching office, and promised them His divine assitance.

Thus He said at His ascension into heaven: "Going, teach ye all nations... ad behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20); and at the Last Supper: "I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth" (John xvi. 16, 17). To St Peter He said: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church" (Matt. xvi. 18). Since Christ is the Son of God, His words must be true. If the Church, in the carrying out of her teaching teaching office, could lead man into error, Christ would not have kept His word. Hence St Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. iii. 15), and measures decided upon by the apostles in the Council of Jerusalem were introduced with the words: "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" (Acts xv. 28). It is no recent belief that the Church is infallible. Long ago Origen writes, "As in the heavens there are twi great sources of light, the sun, and the moon which borrows its light from the sun, so there are two sources of our interior light—Christ and the Church. Christ, the light of the world, shares His light with the Church, and she enlightens all the earth" (not sourced). In the words of St Irenæus: "Where the Church is, there is also the Spirit of God (not sourced).

The Catholic Church is infallible in her teaching; i.e., the Holy Ghost assists the Church in such a manner that she cannot err in the preserving and announcing of revealed doctrine.

Just as our reason prevents us from making statements which are contrary to certain fundemental truths, so the Holy Ghost exerts His influence to prevent the Church giving any decision contrary to the truths taught by Christ. The infallibility of the Church is not in any way like that of God with God, for she attributes it not to herself but to God's special providence over her.

As n ever kingdom or republic, some court is established for the settlement of doubtful cases; it is evident that the all-wise God must have instituted some such tribunal in His kingdom; and this tribunal is the general assembly of the bishops, for at His ascent into heaven He gave them the power to teach, and promised them immunity from error (Matt. xxviii. 18-20). Hence the expression of St Cyprian: "The Church is in the bishops" (not sourced). Now since the bishps cannot always assemble together on account of their duties towards their particular dioceses, some other tribunal must exist with power to give infallible decisions. This tribunal is the Pope speaking ex cathedra. The priests have not this infallibility secured to them though their services are indispensible to the bishops in carrying out the teaching of the office. Priests when present in the assemblies of bishops are so as counsellors, but without any deciding vote in the question under consideration. So soon as the Church defines a question on doctrine, everyone is bound before God to submit under pain of excommunication.

So. The Vatican Council in 1870 decreed that all doctrinal decisons of the Pope were infallible. This is the logical consequence of the words of Christ to St Peter: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church" (Matt. xvi. 18.) If the foundation of he Church were to fail, it would not be a rock but a quicksand. More-over St Peter was appointed shepherd of the apostles and the faithful in these words of Our Lord: "Feed My lambs, feed My sheep" (John xxi. 15, 17), and he recieved power to fonrim his brethren in the faith (Luke xxii. 32). If then the Pope were to teach error, Our Lord's promise would have come to naught. Decisions in matters of doctrine were held in the greatest reverence from the earliest times. When the Roman See condemned in 417 the errors of Pleagius, St Augustine cried out: "Rome has spoken, the cause is at an end." (not sourced, though I think it's from his City of God). And St Cyprian says: "No heretics can gain admittance to the Church."(not sourced). Even general councils call the Bishop of Rome "the father and teacher of all Christians" (Council of Florence, 1439), and the Roman Church "the Mother and Teacher of the faithful" (Council of Lateran, iv., 1215); of course the Church understood here is the teaching, the "hearing" Church having no claim to teach. The Pope must be infallible for this reason, too, that "he has full power to govern the whole Church" (Council of Florence); for with this power is necessarily linked authority to teach. The supreme teaching office of the Church involves infallibility in accordance with the divine promise of the assistance of the Holy Ghost. In consequence of this the decisions of the Pope are infallible of themselves, quite independently of the consent of the bishops (Council of Vatican, iv. 4). Were it otherwise the rock (or successor of St Peter) would derive its strength and solidity from the building raised upon it (the Church). It would, however, be quite wrong to asser that the Pope in infallible in all things; for he is a man and can make mistakes as other men in writing, speaking, etc. He can also commit sin as other men, and sadly some of the Popes lef very scandalous lives. When the Pope gives a decision on a doctrinal matter, it is Christ Who keeps him from error by the agency of the Holy Ghost; moreover the bishops are always consulted before any such decision is given. Address to pilgrims, letters to kings and presidents, the brief suppression of the Society of Jesus in 1773, are not infallible pronouncements. Doctrinal decisions are usually accompanied by sentence of ecommunication against those who refuse to submit to them; hence such decisions are binding for all Catholics. Although the Pope is infallible in his solemn decisions, general councils are not for that reason superfluous; for they confer a greater external solemnity on the Pope's decrees, and the teaching of the Church can be more thoroughly examined in these assemblies. Hence these general councils may, under certain circumstances, be necessary as well as useful. Even the apostles held a general council at Jerusalem, though each single apostle was infallible in his office as teacher.

So I will stress further. The Pope is not infallible in himself. His office is infallible and protected by the Holy Ghost and Christ's promises.

[Murphy]

@ The Papist: How was it determined which Biblical books were the word of God and which were false and were to be omitted?

Read my post dealing with the infallibility of the Church and it might give you a hint ;)!

[Amapola]

It's much easier to understand...

Papal infallibility is to be understood as faith true but within the limits that the own Church sets, in other words, something that very seldom occurs.

[Anthropos]

Hello everyone. That nasty Papist is bored again.
Bored again Christians - the Cath'lic answer to Evangelicalism. No typo here! :frog:

[Loddfafner]

The advertising for this page asks, "Are you Christian and lonely?"

Now in the interest of staying on topic, did they ever sort out exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Eldritch]

Should infertile people marry?

[Groenewolf]

Now in the interest of staying on topic, did they ever sort out exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The answer to that question would depend on the whether or not the angels or being with a material nature.

But a question from me to the papist. What does the Catholic doctrine say about the relationship between pope and emperor, or more modernly phrased church and state?

[W. R.]

"Attempts to regulate the intimacy between spouses (with the exception of obvious mutilating and violence) cannot be accepted by Orthodox believers. It is characteristic for the Judaic Talmud and related scholastic delusions of Roman papism, some of them could be found in the [Orthodox] Church in XVII-XIX centuries. What happens behind the door of the bedroom is the husband and wife's own business", that was in an Orthodox hieromonk's answer to a question about sex.

Has the Catholic Church got rid of those 'scholastic delusions'? If not where I could read about them? :)

[Grey]

If the Pope is fallible, how can his choice in whom to excommunicate be perfect, and why should he have the power to shut one off from God without being infallibly certain it is necessary?

[Murphy]

I'll reply to the other questions soon, but this is an easy one.


If the Pope is fallible, how can his choice in whom to excommunicate be perfect, and why should he have the power to shut one off from God without being infallibly certain it is necessary?

Simple. You can only be excommunicated under certain circumstances. Like dissenting from an established dogma. The Pope cannot get up, figure he doesn't like someone because they like toast without butter so he excommunicates them.

But even then, excommunications can be lifted. A common example of this is someone who has confessed their repentance. If someone publicly speaks from a pro-abortion platform, has had abortions in the past etc., it's for the good of the Church as well as the sinner that they are excommunicated. But an ecommunication its self is not infallible.

[SwordoftheVistula]

1. How are you going to keep the gays/liberals out of the clergy? This may just be in the US, but everyone with personal knowledge I have heard from says the seminaries are 'dominated by queers'

2. Why doesn't/can't the Catholic Church set up its own family courts in the UK using the Arbitration Act, like the muslims have with their Sharia courts?

[Osweo]

Do I get to see my dog when I'm dead?

[Lutiferre]

Do I get to see my dog when I'm dead?

Yes, it's Gods dinner.

[Amapola]

Do I get to see my dog when I'm dead?

No, according to Catholicism, animals have a sensitive soul. Sorry cielo... :p

[Radojica]

I dont have a question,rather a sugesstion. If you want to clear Chatolicism from pedophilia allow,or even better make a rule, that every priest if wants to become one has to marry to a woman. In Orthodox church that is MUST if the priest want to have his own parochy. First marriage, than serving to God. There is no pederasty and no pedophilia in Orthodox church.

[Lutiferre]

I dont have a question,rather a sugesstion. If you want to clear Chatolicism from pedophilia allow,or even better make a rule, that every priest if wants to become one has to marry to a woman. In Orthodox church that is MUST if the priest want to have his own parochy. First marriage, than serving to God. There is no pederasty and no pedophilia in Orthodox church.
That is a lie. I have heard much about media scandals in Greece and Serbia with accusations of pederasty to priests and monasteries.

The fact is, there is pederasty and sexual abuse everywhere, and more significantly, in all institutions where adults have power over children.

There is no more so in the Catholic Church than anywhere else; it just so happens that the media makes a much bigger deal out of it when it happens in the CC than anywhere else, obviously because everyone is suspicious of anyone who claims to have enough self-mastery to remain celibate, and it gives us a feeling of moral superiority, power and "I told you so" when a few celibate priests (perhaps 0,1% of all celibate priests) are then exposed as pedophiles.

[Murphy]

If you want to clear Chatolicism from pedophilia allow,or even better make a rule, that every priest if wants to become one has to marry to a woman.

For a start, there is no a paedophilia problem within the Church. The vast majority of sex abuse involved men who were abusing post-pubescent boys; i.e., teenage boys. It was an issue of homosexuality in a minority of clergy.

Then you must consider the fact that the recent media storm has been dragging out cases that go back 50+ years. Most of the abusers are already dead and in their graves. But because the facts have been let out all at onces, it has created this air that it's going on right now. Which it isn't. In fact there has been a sharp decline in reported abuse since the turn of the century.

Now to deal with such an outlandish suggestion of yours. That if a man is married to a woman he will not abuse children. Do you know that the vast, vast majority of child abuse happens inside the home? The first suspect is always the father. If marriage was a cure to homosexuality, paedophilia or ephebophilia I assure you, instead of sending the bastards to a prison cell, we would just marry them off.

Marriage is not going to help here, because that is not the issue. Celibacy is not the issue. If you go for a few months without sex or masterbation, do you begin to have urgings to start touching little boys and girls? I didn't think so.

Sex abuse is about more than just the sex. It's about power and violence. A priest has a special position within the community. He is the shepherd. So some people have infiltrated this sacred community for the power it gives them. It doesn't matter if they are married or celibate.

Do you know that the rate of paedophiles and ephebophilies in Protestant clergy is the same as in the Catholic clergy in America. And most Protestant clergy are married.


In Orthodox church that is MUST if the priest want to have his own parochy.

Aren't the majority of priests in the Eastern Orthodox community actually celibate?

Even then, it is not a must for a priest to be married in the Eastern Orthodox community.


First marriage, than serving to God.

Then they are poor priests and poor Christians. God comes first, God comes before everything else.


There is no pederasty and no pedophilia in Orthodox church.

Bullshit. Western Media just wont sensationalise it.

[Murphy]

Do I get to see my dog when I'm dead?

Dogs, and other animals, have irrational and mortal souls. Men and women have rational and immortal souls. Wen we die, we either go to heaven or hell, but when an animal dies they simply.. stop.

However, although it is nice to think of God creating or preserving our beloved pets to be with us in Heaven, and if I have children I will no doubt tell them that very thing if a pet dies to make them smile, but I do not personally think it will be so.

[Murphy]

"Attempts to regulate the intimacy between spouses (with the exception of obvious mutilating and violence) cannot be accepted by Orthodox believers. It is characteristic for the Judaic Talmud and related scholastic delusions of Roman papism, some of them could be found in the [Orthodox] Church in XVII-XIX centuries. What happens behind the door of the bedroom is the husband and wife's own business", that was in an Orthodox hieromonk's answer to a question about sex.

Has the Catholic Church got rid of those 'scholastic delusions'? If not where I could read about them? :)

Is this referring to NFP? Or is it referring to the Catholic teaching against oral sex and anal sex etc.?

[Lutiferre]

Dogs, and other animals, have irrational and mortal souls. Men and women have rational and immortal souls. Wen we die, we either go to heaven or hell, but when an animal dies they simply.. stop.
Well, that is of course the Catholic doctrine, but it is from Aristotles De Anima (On the Soul), not from early Christian doctrine, which never had Aristotles platonic emphasis on the immortality of our nature, but saw human immortality as grace instead.

This is apparent when we consider that Christian eschatology and biblical mythology (as well as Jewish doctrine of Jesus historical period and cult) doesn't revolve around the immediate destiny of an immortal soul in the moment of death, but the ressurrection of everyone who is actually already dead and therefore mortal. Both those who go to heaven and hell will be ressurrected (because of Jesus' ressurrection in which all of humanity is ressurrected as an operation on human nature).

Pretty brutal doctrine: those who go to hell are already dead and mortal, but thanks to Jesus, we will be ressurrected just to spend an eternity in hell.

On the first subject, though, it's interesting to note how heathen platonic philosophy has made it into the CC's doctrine and confused and diluted early Christian doctrinal motifs into a Christian-platonic hybrid. Though even early Christianity of course was highly Greek and influenced by Platonism, culminating in the Gospel of Johns total Hellenisation of the remaining Jewish elements; that only the Greek-language gospels survive also show that what we call Christianity today is the legacy of only the Hellenic variety.


However, although it is nice to think of God creating or preserving our beloved pets to be with us in Heaven, and if I have children I will no doubt tell them that very thing if a pet dies to make them smile, but I do not personally think it will be so.
According to Christianity, there is nothing preventing God from giving people their pets as gifts of grace as a part of the "New Creation" (which is completed only in the afterlife), but there is no Christian doctrine that it will be so, either.

[Monolith]

Here's a question my younger cousin asked me the other day: What about death? Does your soul go somewhere when you die, or is it "asleep", waiting for the Resurrection of the flesh? In other words, are people judged immediately after they die, or do they remain dead, waiting for the Resurrection to be judged?

[Murphy]

1. How are you going to keep the gays/liberals out of the clergy? This may just be in the US, but everyone with personal knowledge I have heard from says the seminaries are 'dominated by queers'

That really does depend on the seminary. For instance, most of the liberal-modernist seminaries in the U.S are actually failing, with the traditionalist seminaries, especially those run by specifically traditionalist priestly socities, have been growing.

However, as to what can be done.. I do not know. Greater screening of candidates? Possibly need to see a Church therapist before being accepted. A more stringent education?

Perhaps it would be best to have candidates live in the seminary for 2 years befre beginning formal education, and since the Pope has brought back minor orders, lengthen the time one spends as a.. deacon for example. And have them spend some years at a parish under the watchful eye of a parish priest, to see how they handle the flock, and then they can go back to the seminary to finish their study and recieve the last of their Holy Orders?

Better men than me must figure out the answer to this question.


2. Why doesn't/can't the Catholic Church set up its own family courts in the UK using the Arbitration Act, like the muslims have with their Sharia courts?

Hm, to what purpose?

[Lutiferre]

Here's a question my younger cousin asked me the other day: What about death? Does your soul go somewhere when you die, or is it "asleep", waiting for the Resurrection of the flesh? In other words, are people judged immediately after they die, or do they remain dead, waiting for the Resurrection to be judged?
I believe there are mixed views on this in the patristics, because it is an area on which Christianity has, to a large degree, forgotten it's original doctrine (that we are simply dead until the ressurection) in favour of a platonism of an "immortal rational soul" which never dies.

Some of the patristics claim that the soul when separated from the flesh is in a sort of "sleep" mode until the ressurrection, while others say that it is simply in a sort of hell until saved by Jesus at the general event of the ressurrection after the end of the world.

[Murphy]

Here's a question my younger cousin asked me the other day: What about death? Does your soul go somewhere when you die, or is it "asleep", waiting for the Resurrection of the flesh? In other words, are people judged immediately after they die, or do they remain dead, waiting for the Resurrection to be judged?

There are two judgments we must face. There is the particular Judgement, and the general Judgement.

When we die, we face our particular Judgement. This is where we face God's justice. We are either sent to heaven (Purgatory) or hell where we wait for the time Christ returns to Earth and the Resurrection of the Flesh.

There, when our souls have joined against with our flesh, we will face the general Judgement. Where the evil will know the face of the good, and the good will know the face of the damned.

But long story shot, when we die, we don't just wait around asleep ;).

[Murphy]

but there is no Christian doctrine that it will be so, either.

I did say it was my own personal opinion ;).

[W. R.]

Is this referring to NFP? Or is it referring to the Catholic teaching against oral sex and anal sex etc.?So the teaching does exist? Yes, I am very curious about what arguments against, for example, oral sex it uses.

Is curiosity a sin? :biggrin:

The hieromonk answered to a question about if it is acceptable to have sex during pregnancy. That is a good question! :) Is it acceptable for a Catholic to have sex with his wife if she is pregnant?

[Lutiferre]

So the teaching does exist? Yes, I am very curious about what arguments against, for example, oral sex it uses.
Of course, that the body has a teleology instituted by God, and that the body is morally bound to this teleology. Sex's purpose being: procreation. Oral sex is a use of sexual organs that has nothing to do with procreation, hence it is sinful.

Of course, if this "teleological morality of the body" was consistently applied, it would be sinful to place a hat on your head, because your head is not made by God for placing hats upon; it has its own teleology which hats have nothing to do with.

While that comparison may seem absolutely ridiculous, it actually follows from the teleological moral logic used by Catholics with regard to sex. So much for Aquinas. Reductio ad absurdum.


Is curiosity a sin? :biggrin:More often than not ;)

[W. R.]

Of course, that the body has a teleology instituted by God, and that the body is morally bound to this teleology. Sex's purpose being: procreation. Oral sex is a use of sexual organs that has nothing to do with procreation, hence it is sinful.Okay, but the Catholic Church is not the whole Christianity, you know. :) Some Christians dare to believe that "not every act of intercourse has to be for the express purpose of impregnation (http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/ocallaghan_sex_pornography.htm)", and this does not make them not Christian.

[Lutiferre]

Okay, but the Catholic Church is not the whole Christianity, you know. :) Some Christians dare to believe that "not every act of intercourse has to be for the express purpose of impregnation (http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/ocallaghan_sex_pornography.htm)", and this does not make them not Christian.
Well, no, this idea is especially manifest in Western Catholicism due to it's scholastic heritage which used Aristotelian teleology to build up a teleological morality. (This manmade web of philosophical doctrines by the way, forms part of its infallible deposit of faith)

But it is latent in all of Christianity since Paul and his platonic despise of the flesh, even if many Christians no longer accept it.

That goes for the Orthodox as well, who condemn "the passions" and consider them the main enemy in the spiritual fight - a heritage from the more mystical and ascetical (expressly anti-sexual) of saints and church fathers, condemning thus especially the passions of the sexual appetite.

[Radojica]

Yes, yes, yes. There is pedophilia in Orthodox church. I even heard for whole one case in the last 7 years.

[Monolith]

I believe there are mixed views on this in the patristics, because it is an area on which Christianity has, to a large degree, forgotten it's original doctrine (that we are simply dead until the ressurection) in favour of a platonism of an "immortal rational soul" which never dies.

Could you expand on this?

There are two judgments we must face. There is the particular Judgement, and the general Judgement.

What's the purpose of judging people if they have already been judged?

[Anthropos]

Of course, that the body has a teleology instituted by God, and that the body is morally bound to this teleology. Sex's purpose being: procreation. Oral sex is a use of sexual organs that has nothing to do with procreation, hence it is sinful.

Of course, if this "teleological morality of the body" was consistently applied, it would be sinful to place a hat on your head, because your head is not made by God for placing hats upon; it has its own teleology which hats have nothing to do with.

While that comparison may seem absolutely ridiculous, it actually follows from the teleological moral logic used by Catholics with regard to sex. So much for Aquinas. Reductio ad absurdum.
More often than not ;)
Beware of peeing or washing your weener it's sinful man yeah rrright. :fou12001:

And who says oral sex has nothing to do with procreation? If you define it as narrowly as that then strictly speaking only the conception is procreative and the things that lead to it would hence be sinful. Who cares what Thomas Aquinas said if it's sheer and utter nonsense?

[Eldritch]

Did you happen to miss question by any chance? It's at the bottom of page one of this thread. :)

[Murphy]

Did you happen to miss question by any chance? It's at the bottom of page one of this thread. :)

Not at all. I am going to answer yours, Arrow Cross's and W's questions in the same reply, because they all touch on the Catholic teaching on sexuality. I just haven't done it yet :P.

[Anthropos]

Did you happen to miss question by any chance? It's at the bottom of page one of this thread. :)
There's no such thing as the question here, it's just pappyism and vultures digging in on it as usual. :) If I was a Catholic I sure wouldn't take it seriously.

[Eldritch]

There's no such thing as the question here, it's just pappyism and vultures digging in on it as usual. :) If I was a Catholic I sure wouldn't take it seriously.

I typed too quickly and neglected to include the word "my".

This happens to me all the time. You see, Finnish is an agglutinative language, it has no prepositions, articles etc.

[Radojica]

Marriage is not going to help here, because that is not the issue. Celibacy is not the issue. If you go for a few months without sex or masterbation, do you begin to have urgings to start touching little boys and girls? I didn't think so.

A few months :confused:? They are in celibate for decades, for God's sake, not a few months. HUGE difference...


Sex abuse is about more than just the sex. It's about power and violence. A priest has a special position within the community. He is the shepherd. So some people have infiltrated this sacred community for the power it gives them. It doesn't matter if they are married or celibate.

Well, I believe that having a child, rising it, cleaning his shit, changing the dipers change a man, totally. I know men who turned out from the craziest fuckers and bullies to little kittens when they got a child. And many of them knows how they would feel if somebody hurt their child.


Do you know that the rate of paedophiles and ephebophilies in Protestant clergy is the same as in the Catholic clergy in America. And most Protestant clergy are married.

I believe you are going to show me the statistic now?



Aren't the majority of priests in the Eastern Orthodox community actually celibate?

Do not mix Orthodox priests and Orthodox monks, there is a difference between those two categories. Even I can become a monk, while for becoming a priest you have to finish faculty which is the hardest on Serbia university.

[QUOTE=Aequoreus;189066]Even then, it is not a must for a priest to be married in the Eastern Orthodox community.

A priest cannot get his parochial if he is not married. That is the fact.


Then they are poor priests and poor Christians. God comes first, God comes before everything else.

Who are you to say that?! We are all God's children. We should not exist then, right? A pope once said because he was impotent that nobody is allowed to have kids and get married and you are following that shit. I mean, come onnnn.


Bullshit. Western Media just wont sensationalise it.


Yes, sure :rolleyes:

[Lutiferre]

And who says oral sex has nothing to do with procreation? If you define it as narrowly as that then strictly speaking only the conception is procreative and the things that lead to it would hence be sinful.
"Nothing" was merely an expression; everything has something to do with most other things, however much or little.

But my point was that oral sex is not procreative, it lies in the very nature of the act that it cannot be procreative, like anal sex; whereas it lies in the nature of the act of vaginal sex that it can be procreative, even if it isn't and doesn't always have to be.

And Christians, not just Catholics, but all the Church Fathers and the whole tradition of Christianity, has always held procreation to be the morally binding reason and purpose for sex's existence at all, and held it's other aspects to be secondary at best, sinful at worst.

This doesn't mean they believe anything except conception is sinful; it means they believe any sexual act but vaginal sex is sinful. That has been the case in the entire history of Christianity, it is what has been considered "normal" and right while deviancies have been condemned as sins, and any attempt of modernist liberal Christian revisionism at this point is simply redundant.


Who cares what Thomas Aquinas said if it's sheer and utter nonsense?
All Christians believe in a fundamental moral teleology of sex, which is procreation, including (especially) the early Church Fathers, not just Thomas Aquinas.

I took the example of Thomas Aquinas because only Thomists have really formulated arguments for why nonprocreative sex is sinful; others, like the Church Fathers, have just stated it.

[Osweo]

About the celibacy thing, there's certainly NO doubt that it puts off a LOT of decent normal men from joining the priesthood. More of these might bring a different ethos to the Church. Catholic priests creep me out, Orthodox don't. It's 'man to man' with the latter, even though he has a big black coat and funny hat.

About the dog souls: :cry:

[W. R.]

Aren't the majority of priests in the Eastern Orthodox community actually celibate?

Even then, it is not a must for a priest to be married in the Eastern Orthodox community.As far as I know there are two ways to become an Orthodox priest: 1) to get married ("white" clergy); 2) to become a monk (and thus a hieromonk) ("black" clergy). There exist no other ways. The hierarchies of the two branches of clergy are somehow separate. For example traditionally bishops and metropolitans are recruited only from "black" clergy. (Daz racist! :eek:)

[Amapola]

Yes, yes, yes. There is pedophilia in Orthodox church. I even heard for whole one case in the last 7 years.

Hmmm... :rolleyes2: check this!:

http://www.pokrov.org/mission.asp

Rado... :D not about Orthodoxia in particular, (not to put all the Protestant cases) but if it was wanted, a horror media could be adressed to any religious or non-religious institution as it's actually done to Catholicism: Just the personal and media will, and the war starts. Anyway, don't forget the "dimensions" of Catholicism compared with any other Christian denomination.

Some anticlerical Catholics hope that the abuse scandals will bring down the whole clerical system like the sexual and financial misdeeds led to the Protestant Reformation.

The typically more decentralized and congregational polity of Protestant churches makes them less attractive targets. Thas is why the “pedophile pastor” rarely appears on television talk-shows.

But this campaign, after all, is not only against Catholic Church but against faith in general.

[Klärchen]

As (nearly) always, the Dutch are one step ahead:

Dutch justice minister: prosecute sexual abuse indefinitely (http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2513668.ece/Dutch_justice_minister_prosecute_sexual_abuse_inde finitely)

[poiuytrewq0987]

About the celibacy thing, there's certainly NO doubt that it puts off a LOT of decent normal men from joining the priesthood. More of these might bring a different ethos to the Church. Catholic priests creep me out, Orthodox don't. It's 'man to man' with the latter, even though he has a big black coat and funny hat.

About the dog souls: :cry:

Which makes me wonder why aren't Catholic priests converting to Orthodoxy in droves. :cool:

[Lulletje Rozewater]

All right, you have a dogma of "Papal Infallibility" since the XIXth Century. How do you reconcile it with both contradictions and outrageous human failures popes keep presenting us with? If they are infallible, wouldn't that require the popes, of mundane flesh and blood like the rest of us, to be perfect? Yet, I have a feeling many modern popes would have been insta-excommunicated and burned at the stake in the good ole Medieval.

What about celibacy? I personally have a great admiration for those who keep themselves to it, and consistently retain their chastitiy, but if the Protestant churches had it as a clerical requirement, I wouldn't be alive right now.
So in an age when priests can be faggots, and when forced restraint causes so many of the weaker-willed pastors to engage in sinful and criminal behaviour with children, would it not be more beneficial to make celibacy voluntary again, as it had been before the XIth Century?

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

Vatican II’s Explanation


Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

The problem with child abuse is the enormous mistake made by the church to insist on the priests being celibate.How in heavens name could a church believe in abstinent priests in a world full of sex,created by God to procreate,a normal natural expression

[Anthropos]

This doesn't mean they believe anything except conception is sinful; it means they believe any sexual act but vaginal sex is sinful. That has been the case in the entire history of Christianity, it is what has been considered "normal" and right while deviancies have been condemned as sins, and any attempt of modernist liberal Christian revisionism at this point is simply redundant.
Prove it: quote a canonical Christian source saying that "any sexual act but vaginal sex is sinful", please. I wouldn't know where you got the idea, and frankly I have only ever heard that sort of reasoning from people who believe that they are criticizing Christianity.

Don't give me another rant, just prove it.

[Lutiferre]

Prove it: quote a canonical Christian source saying that "any sexual act but vaginal sex is sinful", please. I wouldn't know where you got the idea, and frankly I have only ever heard that sort of reasoning from people who believe that they are criticizing Christianity.

Don't give me another rant, just prove it.
Why would there be a canonical source spelling it out? It would be a sin to mention the word vagina. There are canonical sources, saint's and church fathers writings and catechisms from the last 2000 years spelling out the essence of it, namely that sex is morally bound to its purpose, procreation.

And we don't need any more evidence than Pauls own ramblings for the fundamentally anti-erotic stance of Christianity.

[Anthropos]

Why would there be a canonical source spelling it out? It would be a sin to mention the word vagina. There are canonical sources, saint's and church fathers writings and catechisms from the last 2000 years spelling out the essence of it, namely that sex is morally bound to its purpose, procreation.

And we don't need any more evidence than Pauls own ramblings for the fundamentally anti-erotic stance of Christianity.

So now it's a sin to say 'vagina' too? :fou12001:

You would do much better to admit defeat. :)

(And besides, you are confusing the fundamental reason and cause for the reproductive function with your own puritan interpretation of it.)

I just read something quite fitting for the occasion in today's readings:


But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

The Gospel according to Matthew 23:13

[Lutiferre]

So now it's a sin to say 'vagina' too? :fou12001:
Well, that was a joke. But yes, I am pretty sure it's a sin ;)


(And besides, you are confusing the fundamental reason and cause for the reproductive function with your own puritan interpretation of it.)
Christianity has always held that there is a moral teleology involved in the body, which is based on Gods will. God created the reproductive system for procreation; therefore we are bound to accept Gods will.

This is far from Puritan, since the Puritan interpretation is Manichean and much more Greek/Platonic in this regard; it would have that the body is fundamentally bad, not that the body is just bound to Gods will.


I just read something quite fitting for the occasion in today's readings:
There we have it again, the classcal cheap shot used by Christians of diverse opinions to support diverse conclusions.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Pretty brutal doctrine: those who go to hell are already dead and mortal, but thanks to Jesus, we will be ressurrected just to spend an eternity in hell.

Not entirely correct.
The 'last' resurrection of the 'hellish' people is the last chance to confess their sin and accept Jesus as their savior.Consequently they are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ(Sounds rather like Thor on the war path:))
In the Catholic dogma there are very few 'hell benders'.
The only once are those who sin against the Holy Spirit.
I know of only 1:D

[Lutiferre]

Not entirely correct.
The 'last' resurrection of the 'hellish' people is the last chance to confess their sin and accept Jesus as their savior.
Nope. That is incorrect. Ask the initator of this thread. You can't change your destiny after death.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

So now it's a sin to say 'vagina' too? :fou12001:
It is a sin to use the word Vagina,use Vulva as per below :p



http://www.luckymojo.com/yoniinsignia.gif
Another unique vulva amulet is this 2 1/4" long bone carving, from the image-collection of Rufus C. Camphausen (http://clix.net/5thworld/no-osphere/3e/access.html), whose books "The Yoni" and "The Encyclopedia of Erotic Wisdom" are reviewed in the Sacred Sex Bibliography, letter "C" (http://www.luckymojo.com/tkbiblioc.html). Created between the two World Wars, it was an insignia used in the ritual garb of the Dutch branch of the occult order A:. A:., founded by Aleister Crowley. The sex-magicians of the A:. A:. practiced ritualized cunnilingus, which was performed in a religious setting. The downward-pointing triangle circumscribing the vulva is evocative of Hindu symbols of the great goddess. Traces of red paint in the labial folds signify menstrual blood.
The meaning of the vulva -- whether natural or metaphoric in form -- is always that of magical protection (http://www.luckymojo.com/protectionspells.html) and luck. Specifically, the vulva protects women and children from the evil eye (http://www.luckymojo.com/evileye.html) and bestows the joys of fecundity and plenty upon those who carry it. As a remnant of ancient goddess-worship, the sacred vulva has proven persistently popular. Even as late as the middle ages, carvings of the sheela-na-gig -- a thin, impishly smiling woman holding open her enormous vulva with both hands -- were placed at the doorways to Irish Catholic churches, so that all who entered might touch the sacred vulva and be blessed thereby.

[Lutiferre]

It is a sin to use the word Vagina,use Vulvaas per below :p



http://www.luckymojo.com/yoniinsignia.gif
Another unique vulva amulet is this 2 1/4" long bone carving, from the image-collection of Rufus C. Camphausen (http://clix.net/5thworld/no-osphere/3e/access.html), whose books "The Yoni" and "The Encyclopedia of Erotic Wisdom" are reviewed in the Sacred Sex Bibliography, letter "C" (http://www.luckymojo.com/tkbiblioc.html). Created between the two World Wars, it was an insignia used in the ritual garb of the Dutch branch of the occult order A:. A:., founded by Aleister Crowley. The sex-magicians of the A:. A:. practiced ritualized cunnilingus, which was performed in a religious setting. The downward-pointing triangle circumscribing the vulva is evocative of Hindu symbols of the great goddess. Traces of red paint in the labial folds signify menstrual blood.
The meaning of the vulva -- whether natural or metaphoric in form -- is always that of magical protection (http://www.luckymojo.com/protectionspells.html) and luck. Specifically, the vulva protects women and children from the evil eye (http://www.luckymojo.com/evileye.html) and bestows the joys of fecundity and plenty upon those who carry it. As a remnant of ancient goddess-worship, the sacred vulva has proven persistently popular. Even as late as the middle ages, carvings of the sheela-na-gig -- a thin, impishly smiling woman holding open her enormous vulva with both hands -- were placed at the doorways to Irish Catholic churches, so that all who entered might touch the sacred vulva and be blessed thereby.
Certainly not a Pauline legacy. Rather, an indigenous, pagan legacy.

Which only proves my point, that we had a more open relationship to eroticism and sexuality before Christianity. Afterwards, it has become taboo.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Nope. That is incorrect. Ask the initator of this thread. You can't change your destiny after death.
Then the initiator is wrong. Let him read the Catholic dogma on Apocalypse

[Murphy]

Then the initiator is wrong. Let him read the Catholic dogma on Apocalypse

It is not a Catholic dogma. I have no idea where you've pulled this one from. Perhaps it is a problem of translation?

[Lutiferre]

Then the initiator is wrong. Let him read the Catholic dogma on Apocalypse
You are wrong. The apocalypse is the prelude to judgement day, not change-opinion day. At that point, Christ will resurrect everyone to judge them. Not to change opinion. Everyone will be judged for what they have done up until that point.

This dogma is known as the Last/General Judgement in Catholicism.

From Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm):



Existence of the general judgment
1

Few truths are more often or more clearly proclaimed in Scripture than that of the general judgment. To it the prophets of the Old Testament refer when they speak of the "Day of the Lord" (Joel 2:31; Ezekiel 13:5; Isaiah 2:12), in which the nations will be summoned to judgment. In the New Testament the second Parusia, or coming of Christ as Judge of the world, is an oft-repeated doctrine. The Saviour Himself not only foretells the event but graphically portrays its circumstances (Matthew 24:27 sqq.; 25:31 sqq.). The Apostles give a most prominent place to this doctrine in their preaching (Acts 10:42; 17:31) and writings (Romans 2:5-16; 14:10; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:5; James 5:7). Besides the name Parusia (parousia), or Advent (1 Corinthians 15:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:19), the Second Coming is also called Epiphany, epiphaneia, or Appearance (2 Thessalonians 2:8; 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1; Titus 2:13), and Apocalypse (apokalypsis), or Revelation (2 Thessalonians 2:7; 1 Peter 4:13). The time of the Second Coming is spoken of as "that Day" (2 Timothy 4:8), "the day of the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 5:2), "the day of Christ" (Philemon 1:6), "the day of the Son of Man" (Luke 17:30), "the last day" (John 6:39-40).
2

The belief in the general judgment has prevailed at all times and in all places within the Church. It is contained as an article of faith in all the ancient creeds: "He ascended into heaven. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead" (Apostles' Creed). He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead" (Nicene Creed). "From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead, at whose coming all men must rise with their bodies and are to render an account of their deeds" (Athanasian Creed). Relying on the authority of Papias, several Fathers of the first four centuries advanced the theory of a thousand years' terrestrial reign of Christ with the saints to precede the end of the World (see article on MILLENNIUM). Though this idea is interwoven with the eschatological teachings of those writers, it in no way detracted from their belief in a universal world-judgment. Patristic testimony to this dogma is clear and unanimous.
3

The Roman Catechism thus explains why, besides the particular judgment of each individual, a general one should also be passed on the assembled world: "The first reason is founded on the circumstances that most augment the rewards or aggravate the punishments of the dead. Those who depart this life sometimes leave behind them children who imitate the conduct of their parents, descendants, followers; and others who adhere to and advocate the example, the language, the conduct of those on whom they depend, and whose example they follow; and as the good or bad influence or example, affecting as it does the conduct of many, is to terminate only with this world; justice demands that, in order to form a proper estimate of the good or bad actions of all, a general judgment should take place. . . . Finally, it was important to prove, that in prosperity and adversity, which are sometimes the promiscuous lot of the good and of the bad, everything is ordered by an all-wise, all-just, and all-ruling Providence: it was therefore necessary not only that rewards and punishments should await us in the next life but that they should be awarded by a public and general judgment."
Signs that are to precede the general judgment

The Scriptures mention certain events which are to take place before the final judgment. These predictions were not intended to serve as indications of the exact time of the judgment, for that day and hour are known only to the Father, and will come when least expected. They were meant to foreshadow the last judgment and to keep the end of the world present to the minds of Christians, without, however, exciting useless curiosity and vain fears. Theologians usually enumerate the following nine events as signs of the last judgment:
General preaching of the Christian religion

Concerning this sign the Saviour says: "And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come" (Matthew 24:14). This sign was understood by Chrysostom and Theophilus as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, but, according to the majority of interpreters, Christ is here speaking of the end of the world.
Conversion of the Jews

According to the interpretation of the Fathers, the conversion of the Jews towards the end of the world is foretold by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (11:25-26): "For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, . . . that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob".
Return of Enoch and Elijah

The belief that these two men, who have never tasted death, are reserved for the last times to be precursors of the Second Advent was practically unanimous among the Fathers, which belief they base on several texts of Scripture. (Concerning Elijah see Malachi 4:5-6; Sirach 48:10; Matthew 17:11; concerning Enoch see Sirach 44:16)
A great apostasy

As to this event St. Paul admonishes the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:3) that they must not be terrified, as if the day of the Lord were at hand, for there must first come a revolt (he apostasia).The Fathers and interpreters understand by this revolt a great reduction in the number of the faithful through the abandonment of the Christian religion by many nations. Some commentators cite as confirmatory of this belief the words of Christ: "But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8).
The reign of Antichrist

In the passage above mentioned (2 Thessalonians 2:3 sqq.) St. Paul indicates as another sign of the day of the Lord, the revelation of the man of sin, the son of perdition. "The man of sin" here described is generally identified with the Antichrist, who, says St. John (1 John 2:18), is to come in the last days. Although much obscurity and difference of opinion prevails on this subject, it is generally admitted from the foregoing and other texts that before the Second Coming there will arise a powerful adversary of Christ, who will seduce the nations by his wonders, and persecute the Church.
Extraordinary perturbations of nature

The Scriptures clearly indicate that the judgment will be preceded by unwonted and terrifying disturbances of the physical universe (Matthew 24:29; Luke 21:25-26). The wars, pestilences, famines, and earthquakes foretold in Matthew 24:6 sq. are also understood by some writers as among the calamities of the last times.
The universal conflagration

In the Apostolic writings we are told that the end of the world will be brought about through a general conflagration, which, however, will not annihilate the present creation, but will change its form and appearance (2 Peter 3:10-13; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:2; Apocalypse 3:3, and 16:15). Natural science shows the possibility of such a catastrophe being produced in the ordinary course of events, but theologians generally tend to believe that its origin will be entirely miraculous.
The Trumpet of Resurrection

Several texts in the New Testament make mention of a voice or trumpet which will awaken the dead to resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; John 5:28). According to St. Thomas (Supplement 86:2) there is reference in these passages either to the voice or to the apparition of Christ, which will cause the resurrection of the dead.
"The sign of the Son of Man appearing in the heavens"

In Matthew 24:30, this is indicated as the sign immediately preceding the appearance of Christ to judge the world. By this sign the Fathers of the Church generally understand the appearance in the sky of the Cross on which the Saviour died or else of a wonderful cross of light.
Circumstances accompanying the general judgment
Time

As was stated above, the signs that are to precede the judgment give no accurate indication of the time when it will occur (Mark 13:32). When the Disciples asked the Saviour: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" He answered: "It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Acts 1:6-7). The uncertainty of the day of judgment is continually urged by Christ and the Apostles as an incentive to vigilance. The day of the Lord will come "as a thief" (Matthew 24:42-43), like lightning suddenly appearing (Matthew 24:27), like a snare (Luke 21:34), as the Deluge (Matthew 24:37).
Place of the judgment

All the texts in which mention is made of the Parusia, or Second Coming, seem to imply clearly enough that the general judgment will take place on the earth. Some commentators infer from 1 Thessalonians 4:16, that the judgment will be held in the air, the newly risen being carried into the clouds to meet Christ; according to others the prophecy of Joel (3:1 sq.) places the last judgment in the Valley of Josaphat.
The coming of the Judge

That this judgment is ascribed to Christ, not only as God, but also as Man, is expressly declared in Scripture; for although the power of judging is common to all the Persons of the Trinity, yet it is specially attributed to the Son, because to Him also in a special manner is ascribed wisdom. But that as Man He will judge the world is confirmed by Christ Himself (John 5:26-27). At the Second Coming Christ will appear in the heavens, seated on a cloud and surrounded by the angelic hosts (Matthew 16:27; 24:30; 25:31). The angels will minister to the Judge by bringing all before Him (Matthew 24:31). The elect will aid Christ in a judicial capacity (1 Corinthians 6:2). The lives of the just will in themselves be a condemnation of the wicked (Matthew 21:41), whose punishment they will publicly approve. But the Apostles will be judges of the world in a sense yet more exact, for the promise that they shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28) seems to imply a real participation in judicial authority. According to a very probable opinion, this prerogative is extended to all who have faithfully fulfilled the counsels of the Gospel (Matthew 19:27-28). Nothing certain is known as to the manner in which this delegated authority will be exercised. St. Thomas conjectures that the greater saints will make known the sentence of Christ to others (Supplement 88:2).
Those to be judged

All men, both good and bad, according to the Athanasian Creed, will appear in the judgment to give an account of their deeds. As to children that have personally done neither good nor evil, the baptized must be distinguished from the unbaptized. The former appear in the judgment, not to be judged, but only to hold the glory of Christ (Supplement 80:5), while the latter, ranked with the wicked, although not judged, will be enabled to realize the justice of their eternal loss (Suarez). The angels and the demons will not be judged directly, since their eternal destiny has already been fixed; yet, because they have exercised a certain influence over the fortunes of men, the sentence pronounced on the latter will have a corresponding effect on them also (Supplement 89:8).
Object of the judgment

The judgment will embrace all works, good or bad, forgiven as well as unforgiven sins, every idle word (Matthew 12:36), every secret thought (1 Corinthians 4:5). With the exception of Peter Lombard, theologians teach that even the secret sins of the just will be made manifest, in order that judgment may be made complete and that the justice and mercy of God may be glorified. This will not pain or embarrass the saints, but add to their glory, just as the repentance of St. Peter and St. Mary Magdalen is to these saints a source of joy and honour.
Form of the judgment

The procedure of the judgment is described in Matthew 25:31-46, and in the Apocalypse 20:12. Commentators see in those passages allegorical descriptions intended to convey in a vivid manner the fact that in the last judgment the conduct and deserts of each individual will be made plain not only to his own conscience but to the knowledge of the assembled world. It is probable that no words will be spoken in the judgment, but that in one instant, through a Divine illumination, each creature will thoroughly understand his own moral condition and that of every fellow creature (Romans 2:15). Many believe, however, that the words of the sentence: "Come, ye blessed", etc. and "Depart from me", etc. will be really addressed by Christ to the multitude of the saved and the lost.
Results of the general judgment

With the fulfilment of the sentence pronounced in the last judgment the relations and the dealings of the Creator with the creature find their culmination, are explained and justified. The Divine purpose being accomplished, the human race will, as a consequence, attain its final destiny. The reign of Christ over mankind will be the sequel of the General Judgment.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Certainly not a Pauline legacy. Rather, an indigenous, pagan legacy.

Which only proves my point, that we had a more open relationship to eroticism and sexuality before Christianity. Afterwards, it has become taboo.

Look,with all due respect to Paul,he was an ass.
Ever since he started to twist the Jesus doctrine to suit his own impotence all became a a confused soup of pagan-Pauline ideology.

In deed we had a better relationship also during the early Christianity.
Read up on Mithra etc
Read this for fun

http://www.physorg.com/news67783446.html

Paul would do wise the be resurrected, on second thought, he would never enter the pearly gates of heaven. He sinned against nature of the Holy Spirit

[Lutiferre]

Look,with all due respect to Paul,he was an ass.
Ever since he started to twist the Jesus doctrine to suit his own impotence all became a a confused soup of pagan-Pauline ideology.

In deed we had a better relationship also during the early Christianity.
Read up on Mithra etc
Read this for fun

http://www.physorg.com/news67783446.html

Paul would do wise the be resurrected, on second thought, he would never enter the pearly gates of heaven. He sinned against nature of the Holy Spirit
Paul is the author earliest documented mention of Christ and Christianity. The Gospels came after the Pauline letters. Paul was largely responsible for early and especially Greek Christianity (and only Greek Christianity and Greek language gospels survive today) in his mission to the gentiles.

This condemnation of Paul (and thus Christianity, even though you dont realize it) is another obvious heresy of yours.

The Catholic Church, along with the Orthodox, Lutheran, Calvinists, and 99% of all Christians, venerate Paul as a saint, as the most important apostle, for which reason he is referred to as "THE Apostle".

[Lulletje Rozewater]

You are wrong. The apocalypse is the prelude to judgement day, not change-opinion day. At that point, Christ will resurrect everyone to judge them. Not to change opinion. Everyone will be judged for what they have done up until that point.

This dogma is known as the Last/General Judgement in Catholicism.

From Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm):
See section 3 and read judgment(a second chance)
What applies to a Dajak,not knowing God applies to the Xians,Muslim etc
Jesus is fair,it is not a question of opinion day.
You make Jesus out for a fool.He knows and understand the workings of a human being.
Suggest you understand the mentality of a down-syndrome murderer.who at the last judgment has all his faculties and then tells Him-I am sorry I did not understand.
If you are still unclear ask a Jesuit priest, and do not read some encyclopedia without understanding it.

[Lutiferre]

See section 3 and read judgment(a second chance)

It says nothing about a second chance. It's a final judgement, not a second chance.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Paul is the author earliest documented mention of Christ and Christianity. The Gospels came after the Pauline letters. Paul was largely responsible for early and especially Greek Christianity (and only Greek Christianity and Greek language gospels survive today) in his mission to the gentiles.

This condemnation of Paul (and thus Christianity, even though you dont realize it) is another obvious heresy of yours.

The Catholic Church, along with the Orthodox, Lutheran, Calvinists, and 99% of all Christians, venerate Paul as a saint, as the most important apostle, for which reason he is referred to as "THE Apostle".

Oh yes,what a foxtrotted terrier you are. First paragraph is crap.
Read again the Bible,the bloody fool was not even at the last supper.Then he was hit by lightening,got a speech impediment,became crippled and blabbered all sorts of celibacy nonsense. I bet you he could have talked Jesus from the cross straight into the shroud.

I will condemn Paul for all the inequities in the Catholic Church along with Constatine,who by the way chose only 4 Epistles and used the bad Greek translation i.s.o. the Hebrew or Aramaic one.

Stick To Heidegger or Newton--The apple does not fall far from the tree

[Lulletje Rozewater]

It says nothing about a second chance. It's a final judgement, not a second chance.

Thank you,another stupid remark.
Jesus loves you,now voetsek.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) These verses say nothing about the wages of sin being everlasting punishment in hell.

[Groenewolf]

Which makes me wonder why aren't Catholic priests converting to Orthodoxy in droves. :cool:

vGl-9Vnt5ak

Just ignore the Alex Jones part after it ;) .

[Lulletje Rozewater]

It is not a Catholic dogma. I have no idea where you've pulled this one from. Perhaps it is a problem of translation?

I was speaking to Lutti,he only understand dogma etc.

[Lutiferre]

Thank you,another stupid remark.
Jesus loves you,now voetsek.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) These verses say nothing about the wages of sin being everlasting punishment in hell.It says whoever believes in him, which entails conversion to Christianity.

Jesus own words:

Those who do not have faith, "they sit in the darkness and in the shadow of death" (Luke i. 79). Our Lord says, "He who believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi. 16), and again "He who believeth no is condemned already" (John iii. 18).

"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!" (Luke 12:49)

I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire (Mt. 5.21-22)

And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire (Matthew 5)

But I will warn you whom ye shall fear: Fear HIM (God), who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell: yea, I say unto you, Fear him. (Lk. 12.4-5)

"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ." (Matthew 25)

But those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring here, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:12,14,15,27)

Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell (Matthew 23)

Oh yes,what a foxtrotted terrier you are. First paragraph is crap.
Read again the Bible,the bloody fool was not even at the last supper.Then he was hit by lightening,got a speech impediment,became crippled and blabbered all sorts of celibacy nonsense. I bet you he could have talked Jesus from the cross straight into the shroud.
And he is the earliest, at least 15 years before any of the gospels were written, for any mention of Jesus or Christianity.




I will condemn Paul for all the inequities in the Catholic Church along with Constatine,who by the way chose only 4 Epistles and used the bad Greek translation i.s.o. the Hebrew or Aramaic one.

Fine, but dont pretend to be an expert on Christian doctrines then. The Hebrew gospels don't exist any longer, because only Greek (Pauline) Christianity survived and is documented.

[W. R.]

There are canonical sources, saint's and church fathers writings and catechisms from the last 2000 years spelling out the essence of it, namely that sex is morally bound to its purpose, procreation.I am also humbly asking for a quote or two. Pleeease? :)

[Anthropos]

Lutiferre says that any sexual act apart from vaginal sex is a sin and condemnable.

Jesus says (see Matthew 23:13) that people who do not themselves (want to) enter into the Kingdom of God, but who nevertheless want to hinder others who do want to, are condemnable hypocrites. (His words were directed towards 'scribes' and 'Pharisees', but who says that there are in our times no corresponding individuals? I've been into that sort of hypocrisy myself, and I certainly think that it's applicable to our times.)

Lutiferre could see no relation between his words on sex and the words of Jesus on the Kingdom of God, and he says that I pulled a 'cheapshot' when quoting Jesus. I myself think that the cheapshot is to pose a choice between sex and the Kingdom of God; that's quite an example of the Phariseean hypocrisy of our times, in my opinion.

[Lutiferre]

I myself think that the cheapshot is to pose a choice between sex and the Kingdom of God;
Not at all. Unless you claim vaginal sex is not sex.

But of course, you are the real hypocrite considering Christianity on the one hand, narrows down and exclusivises sex to the marriage, which is generally once and forever, and then you claim that there is no need to choose between sex and God, because most human beings want to have sex with multiple partners, not just the one or two spouses they will have in their life, and Christianity condemns this as sin.

[Lutiferre]

I am also humbly asking for a quote or two. Pleeease? :)
Letter of Barnabas

"Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11 :29]. For he means, 'Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness"' (<Letter of Barnabas> 10:8 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Alexandria

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (<The Instructor of Children> 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

Clement of Alexandria

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid. 2:10:95:3).

Hippolytus

"[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion]" (<Refutation of All Heresies> 9:12 [A.D. 225]).

Lactantius

"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (<Divine Institutes> 6:20 [A.D. 3o7]).

Lactantius

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid. 6:23:18).

Council of Nicaea I

"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated [sterilized] himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (canon l [A.D. 325]).

Epiphanius

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (<Medicine Chest Against Heresies> 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

John Chrysostom

"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]" (<Homilies on Matthew> 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

John Chrysostom

"[T]he man who has mutilated [sterilized] himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, 'I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5 :12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and be impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds" (ibid. 62:3).

John Chrysostom

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well.... Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (<Homilies on Romans> 24 [A.D. 391]).

John Chrysostom

"Observe how bitterly he [Paul] speaks against their deceivers . . . 'I would that they which trouble you would cut the whole thing off' [Gal. 5:12] .... On this account he curses them, and his meaning is as follows: 'For them I have no concern, "A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition." If they will, let them not only be circumcised but mutilated' [Titus 3:10]. Where then are those who dare to mutilate [sterilize] themselves, seeing that they drawn down the apostolic curse, and accuse the workmanship of God, and take part with the Manichees?" (<Commentary on Galatians> 5:12 [A.D. 395]).

Jerome

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (<Against Jovinian> 1: 19 [A.D. 393]).

Jerome

"You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility [oral contraceptives] and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion]" (<Letters> 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" (<Against Faustus> 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

Augustine

"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny" (ibid., 22:30).

Augustine

"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery].... [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman" (<The Good of Marriage> 11-12 [A.D. 401]).

Augustine

"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion" (<The Morals of the Manichees> 18:65 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives] . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (<Marriage and Concupiscence> 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]).

Caesarius

"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (<Sermons> 1:12 [A.D. 522]).

[Anthropos]

Not at all. Unless you claim vaginal sex is not sex.

But of course, you are the real hypocrite considering Christianity on the one hand, narrows down and exclusivises sex to the marriage, which is generally once and forever, and then you claim that there is no need to choose between sex and God, because most human beings want to have sex with multiple partners, not just the one or two spouses they will have in their life, and Christianity condemns this as sin.

You are the one preaching about what exactly it is that human beings can and cannot do sexually, based on your own imagination of what the Church teaches. The only thing that is clearly condemned by the Church is stated in the 7th commandment (or 6th, according to Catholicism and Lutheranism) thus:

"You shall not commit adultery."

[Lutiferre]

Of course, Anthropos, you may be enough of a helldamned heretic to claim that according to Christianity, sex doesn't exclusively belong to marriage. But that is simply not correct.

The Orthodox Catechism,

His All Holiness Bartholomew: Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

PRE-MARITAL SEX

PRE-MARITAL SEX: The Orthodox Christian faith holds to the biblical teaching that sexual intercourse is reserved for marriage.

http://www.bible.ca/cr-Orthodox.htm#catechism

The same, of course, is the case in the Catholic catechism and in all the Church Fathers writings and in Paul.

[Anthropos]

But the thing is, Lutiferre, that you seem to have some sort of obsession with sex, attributing to sex an importance that is completely unproportional. The advice that the Church may give on occasion should be kept apart from what is a part of the doctrine of the Church. Not everything that any 'father' has said is strictly canonical, and what is more, no sin, no matter how grave, is a good reason to stay away from God. But nothing really grave was under consideration here anyway. Oral sex between spouses is not considered sinful to any degree whatever as far as I'm aware.

[Germanicus]

Lactantius

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid. 6:23:18).

So by these words anal sex between husband and wife is forbidden?

[Lutiferre]

But the thing is, Lutiferre, that you seem to have some sort of obsession with sex, attributing to sex an importance that is completely unproportional.
Which is just ad hominem concerns. Whether I am "obsessed" with sex or not the fact remains that Christianity has always limited sexual intercourse for the primary purpose of procreation in marriage - marriage being the institution for procreation. And furthermore, Christianity has for the most part had a limiting attitude to even this form of sex in general, and considered celibacy a higher virtue - just look at Paul's writings, which relegate marriage to almost just a secondary escape plan for moderating the sin of lust. He literally says marriage is for those who are too weak for celibacy. Christians through history have themselves been obsessed with sex - even though it is a negative, not a positive, obsession.


The advice that the Church may give on occasion should be kept apart from what is a part of the doctrine of the Church.
The general negative attitude to sex in Christianity is not "occasional advice", but a constant factor since it's inception. It is the tendency to which I am referring, not isolated quotes and exceptions, but a general attitude. And when oral sex in specific, has been mentioned by the Church Fathers - it has been condemned.

And this general tendency quite natural, considering Christianity was founded by celibate ascetes - Jesus and Paul.


Not everything that any 'father' has said is strictly canonical,
But it is canonical that sex exclusively belongs to the marriage, and that even here, it's primary purpose is procreation, just like marriage's primary purpose is the creation of a family, which necessitates procreation. Pauls words are also canonical because they are considered inspired, and they expressly state that celibacy is better than marriage.


and what is more, no sin, no matter how grave, is a good reason to stay away from God. But nothing really grave was under consideration here anyway. Oral sex between spouses is not considered sinful to any degree whatever as far as I'm aware.
Whether that is so or not is irrelevant to my above points. But I am sure many believe it is, since there are numerous injunctions against "spilling your seed". I know that according to the Catholics (http://www.nds.edu/old/well-Palermo.htm), it is sinful because it cannot create life - and this accounts for the majority (1,2 billion out of 2 billion) of all Christians.

[Anthropos]

Oral sex between spouses is not considered sinful to any degree whatever as far as I'm aware.Whether that is so or not is irrelevant to my above points.

No my dear friend, it is not at all "irrelevant", because you yourself started the whole controversy with a statement to the contrary. When you failed to prove that the doctrine properly so called of the Church could lend any support to your statement, you immediately changed the subject to a wide-ranging variety of other concerns of a sexual nature. You really do not seem to be interested in finding the answers to what Christianity teaches, but in your present state of mind you seem only to be interested in throwing accusations at it, just as you were previously preoccupied with proving how fantastic is Christianity! What else are we to make of statements such as these:


Christians through history have themselves been obsessed with sex - even though it is a negative, not a positive, obsession.I assure you that most of the authoritative texts of Christianity have only in passing (if at all) touched on sex, and if that means, to you, that the writers have 'a negative obsession with sex', then you are no different from the most extreme fringes of the gay lobby, which always claim that everyone is homo- or bisexual deep down somewhere, and no different from dogmatic psychoanalysts who always claim that their (potential or real) patients are in denial in so far as they do not accept their 'analyses'. It's a very far-reaching and generalized claim that you made, and it's not any more applicable to Christians than to any other group; neither is it possible to prove that you are right: so generalized is that claim, and so far removed from any reality is it.

This thread I put in a folder entitled 'The Dump', by the way. It's not a serious thread in my opinion. It's much more an invitation to the vultures, as I already said. Just look at the first post in it:


Hello everyone. That nasty Papist is bored again. So I am here to talk to you all about Catholic doctrine and dogma.

[The Lawspeaker]

Not at all. I am going to answer yours, Arrow Cross's and W's questions in the same reply, because they all touch on the Catholic teaching on sexuality. I just haven't done it yet :P.
I am going to repeat a couple of questions asked by Pat Condell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LStcajxvb_E)(2.59):

Is it more of a sin for a priest to rape a child while wearing a condom ? Or while not wearing a condom ?"

How much more evil is it to wear the condom ?

And would it be o.k (i.e would you keep quiet about it <--aimed at members of the priesthood), if he went to confession after it and truly repented.. until the next time ?

[W. R.]

Thank you for the quotes, Lutiferre.

Now I know that I must be just thankful that the Orthodox Church does not insist on all that merely reducing all the rules to the formula "sex within marriage is good, sex outside marriage is bad".
But it is canonical that sex exclusively belongs to the marriage, and that even here, it's primary purpose is procreation, just like marriage's primary purpose is the creation of a family, which necessitates procreation. Pauls words are also canonical because they are considered inspired, and they expressly state that celibacy is better than marriage.Some Orthodox Christians believe that "rather, marriage is the setting up, by two people, of a miniature church, a family church, wherein people may worship the true God and struggle to save their souls".

Also, I checked the part in the Epistle to Corinthians, that you probably mean, in my Bible with comments (first published in 1913, so it is hardly... mmm... modernist).

The comment says that Saint Jerome was possibly mistaken when he believed that Paul's words "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" means that to touch a woman as a wife is bad and immoral, since it would contradict Paul's high-toned teaching about marriage, for example in his Epistle to the Ephesians (V, 25-33). Paul's καλόν is most probably used with the meaning "beautiful", "decent": the celibacy does not contain anything indecorous, unsuitable for a Christian. But neither contains the marriage. And the Apostle does not say that celibacy is holier than marriage.

[Fortis in Arduis]

My dad told me that the early Church permitted young lovers to feel each other up before marriage, without copulation. Is this still permissible and, if so, what is the Latin expression for it?

I do this with my girlfriend. Will God strike me down with a thunderbolt?

Oh and I know someone who is a transvestite, will he get into trouble for dressing up like a tart? lol...

[Óttar]

There we have it again, the classcal cheap shot used by Christians of diverse opinions to support diverse conclusions.
Wait. Didn't you use to use that one yourself? :p (About the Pharisees) As a matter of fact, I know you did. :cool:

[poiuytrewq0987]

My dad told me that the early Church permitted young lovers to feel each other up before marriage, without copulation. Is this still permissible and, if so, what is the Latin expression for it?

I do this with my girlfriend. Will God strike me down with a thunderbolt?

Oh and I know someone who is a transvestite, will he get into trouble for dressing up like a tart? lol...

I felt you up last night and I'm sure you're not a dude.

[Óttar]

You are the one preaching about what exactly it is that human beings can and cannot do sexually, based on your own imagination of what the Church teaches.

Imaginings!? *faints* IMAGININGS!?! :rage

This guy quotes pages in weight about how the Church has condemned sex throughout the ages, from the church fathers' mouths no less, and then you go on to accuse Lutiferre of being "sex obsessed" and then basically compare him to a homosexual i.e. "Waa, Waa, you're a fag!" :rolleyes2:


When you failed to prove that the doctrine properly so called of the Church could lend any support to your statement, you immediately changed the subject to a wide-ranging variety of other concerns of a sexual nature.

That's the thing about Church dogma and all the various convoluted categories and legal trappings, it's all very convenient when you can reduce everything to merely being a part of "Pious tradition" or "Popular tradition" or some other such horsebunk... WTF difference does it make?! The result is the same. :rolleyes2:


Why would there be a canonical source spelling it out? It would be a sin to mention the word vagina.

:lmao :pound:

[Lutiferre]

Wait. Didn't you use to use that one yourself? :p (About the Pharisees) As a matter of fact, I know you did. :cool:

Indeed I did ;) Which only makes my comment even truer.

[Lutiferre]

, you immediately changed the subject to a wide-ranging variety of other concerns of a sexual nature.
It was wider-ranging from the beginning; it was about the moral teleology of the body as Christianity sees it, before vaginal sex was even mentioned.

No my dear friend, it is not at all "irrelevant", because you yourself started the whole controversy with a statement to the contrary. When you failed to prove that the doctrine properly so called of the Church could lend any support to your statement
I proved my statement generally speaking already, which was about sex being seen as immoral outside of a marital, procreative respect, by Christianity, and for Catholics at least (1.2 out of 2 billion Christians worldwide), anything but vaginal sex being seen as sinful.


You really do not seem to be interested in finding the answers to what Christianity teaches,
This was not about "the answers", it was about the absurdity of the moral teleology which is behind the narrowness of Christian sexual morality.

You cannot read the long selection of quotes among the earliest and the most authoritative of Church Fathers and still say there is not a general tendency, or even read Paul for that matter.

[Lutiferre]

Also, I checked the part in the Epistle to Corinthians, that you probably mean, in my Bible with comments (first published in 1913, so it is hardly... mmm... modernist).[/

The comment says that Saint Jerome was possibly mistaken
Right, but your the "comment in your bible" does not overrule the authority of Saint Jerome, and this does not hinge on Saint Jerome, either - it's a Pauline verse! And there are many others than just this one.

But this Pauline verse has always been interpreted as saying "it is good not to marry", and it fits in with the next paragraph, (in 1 Corinthians 7) which makes marriage secondary to celibacy, only for those who cannot control themselves which is obviously less holy and inferior to controlling yourself and remaining celibate:

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: "It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Paul goes on making a case for preferring celibacy to marriage by comparing: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

And the Apostle does not say that celibacy is holier than marriage.
Non-sequitur. That simply does not follow from your consideration of a verse which I never mentioned anyway.

Paul clearly says that celibacy is holier than marriage.

Not to mention Revelation 14:3-5 for further reference to celibacy, and negative attitude against sex:

And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

It says whoever believes in him, (Matthew 23)
hehehehe believeth it is ,'believes' is modern lingo in the RC Jerusalem Bible



So I was right :):) the cripple is a fake or a ruined bruin after the lightning.:thumbs up



[QUOTE]Fine, but dont pretend to be an expert on Christian doctrines then. The Hebrew gospels don't exist any longer, because only Greek (Pauline) Christianity survived and is documented.The experts are the Papist and two of the Spanish guard.I just happen to be an expert on sin, I am the sin eater duly authorized by Peter
They do exist in the Vatican and also the Gospel of Thomas and some others, and the full history of Mithra. The Greek translation is full of errors.

So you know a few passages hehehe good for you.


Jesus Preached To Lost Souls In The Bottomless Pit

Jesus Preached To The Souls In hell. Souls were sent to the abyss in Noah's day. The Atonement Of Jesus spoke to the dead . The Jews Murdered Jesus, but the dead heard His voice :Jesus brought captivity (captive :: “captivity captive” )means that Jesus led a host of prisoners out of hell and bottomless pit :Jesus released from hell all souls which believed in Him :: Jesus received imprisoned slaves as a tribute for His sacrifice :: As compensation For His Death and Resurrection, Jesus received the souls of imprisoned slaves. He paid for lost souls, with His crucified death :: He received the souls which He ransomed :: Jesus received the souls, which He redeemed :: Jesus paid for all souls, thus all souls are his. Millions, if not billions, of souls were imprisoned in hell :: Jesus brought Ancient Souls Out of the Bottomless Pit of Hell :: Jesus, made the atonement For all Souls born in the earth :: The Jews Murdered Jesus of Nazareth :: God Raised Him Up And Glorified Him :: Jesus of Nazareth, Who The Jews Murdered, God Raised Up And Glorified :: He Is The Sacrificial Lamb of God And Scapegoat :: Through His Death And Resurrection He Delivered Souls From The Abyss Of The Bottomless Pit :: As The Anointed Heavenly High Priest, He Preached To Souls That Went To Hell During The Great Flood :: He Made For Sin A Blood Atonement :: Jesus of Nazareth As Scapegoat Was Thrust Into the Abyss of Hell :: From Which He Preached To Lost Souls The Hope Of The Gospel :: Jews Crucified Him; But God Raised Him out of the dead, to expiate "blot out " our sins :: To Sit in Majesty and Glory in The Throne of God :: To establish, the church (Jews and Gentiles as one people) :: To Give Deliverance To All Ordained To Believe That Jesus of Nazareth Is Both Lord and Christ :: Jesus of Nazareth, son of God, and High Priest Was Made An Offering For Sin :: Thus say the Lord: “all souls are mine... the soul that continues in sin shall die. Ezekiel 18:4


Reading and interpreting Existence of the general judgment
It is of utmost importance to remember:
Jesus is the Alpha and Omega.
He is the past and Future at the same time
He knew me at the beginning of time and knew me at the end of time,He judged me when I was still in the womb.

He knew my sins and the sins of my children not yet born.
His house has many mansions.
He was/is the LOVE incarnate and for that reason the final judgement is the same as the judgement on resurrection day.


That you take over this thread from the originator stinks

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Paul taught that the whole function of Jesus centred on his death which released the faithful from the burden of their sins, their misery and the power of Satan. In fact not a single word Paul wrote in the Epistles gives the actual teaching of Jesus, nor does he mention even one of his parables; instead he spreads his own philosophy and his own ideas.
Paul tends to characterise all people as children of anger, ie. as subject to the wrath of God (see Eph. 2,3). All are (without exception) quite lost (eg. Romans 5,18; Cor. 15,18), without hope and without God (Eph. 2,12), for Satan has power over everyone (without exception) (eg. Rom. 3,9; Gal. 3,22; Col 2,14). A sentence of damnation hangs like a sword of Damocles over all people (eg. Rom. 5,16).
Thus Paul as a human teacher made out of the joyous tidings his threatening tidings and implied that only he could show the path to salvation. Of course with such an attitude one can hardly arrive at a natural view of death, for it makes death a solution to sin.
In no other religion do we find such cultivation of the fear of death as in the Pauline Christianity. With Paul Christianity became a religion in which Christians, beset by fears, would bow docilely under the yoke of threats. The religion was already veering away from the concept of the kind and loving, all-forgiving God of Jesus, and reverting to the crudities of the wrathful Old Testament God, as borne out by Paul's words.
The point comes home best when one considers Paul's explicit statement that the human individual can do nothing himself to secure salvation, "Š(cf. Rom. 3,24; 3,28; 9,11; 9,16; 1.Cor. 1,29; Gal. 2,16). For according to Paul salvation depends solely on the Grace of GodŠ" (Eph. 2, 8-9).
Thus the Pauline doctrine makes salvation a one-sided matter for God; people on earth have their hands bound (cf. Rom. 3,24; 4,16; Eph. 2,5; 2,8-9; 2. Tim. 1,9; Tit. 3,5-7). What Paul says here is of course quite attractive, because it is comfortable. By joining the fold, salvation ensues "automatically". No effort on one's own part is then necessary to arrive at the goal of life, for every Christian is saved once and for all by the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross at Golgotha.
It means that one has only to sign up with this "institution", pay the "membership fee", and (lo and behold!) everything is settled for securing a seat in paradise for all eternity. Naturally such a teaching attracted many supporters and spread rapidly. After all it is easier to believe in something that can be had safely and comfortably.
Simply by the simple act of conversion a person is then redeemed, saved, made a child of God, and becomes a completely new person. According to this teaching, every attempt on one's own part to work towards salvation plays down Jesus' role, is even a deadly sin. And conversely, every person, however exemplary and good his or her life may have been, is declared by his teaching to be lost if he or she does not gratefully acknowledge the sacrifice of the cross as constituting their entire personal salvation.
Most Christians think the greatness and uniqueness of Christianity stands and falls with the truth of his teaching. On closer inspection, however, it is found to be a fabrication, far removed from the real ideas of Jesus. There is no hint of the so called Christian doctrine of salvation in the gospels, either in the sermon on the mount - the quintessence of Jesus' message - or in the Our Father, or the traditional parables of Jesus!
Jesus did not supply theories to be ground in the mills of academia, about his path and message -- he just lived his teaching!
Paul: fanatic, heretic, egotist, misogynist... gay?*
After intensive and extensive research, the psychiatrist Wilhelm Lange-Eichbaum was able to recreate a detailed portrait of Paul's character in his well-known work 'Genius, Madness and Fame'. Paul was frail, plain and small, yet at the same time harsh, rejecting, impetuous and passionate. His Zeal in the persecution of Christians was a compensation for his own feelings of inadequacy. The vast attraction of Paulinism is the idea of redemption and release from inner crises. Paul had boundless energy and matching ego. He suffered from severe attacks, which he blamed on demons. The latest sources have shown that there may have been a cause for what he often described as "a thorn in the flesh", his own personal cross. He might have suffered tragically from his own homosexuality. His problem caused him great antipathy towards sexuality altogether, and was decisive in his development of an ascetic doctrine of marriage, which has been of formative influence in the base image of sexuality and of woman that continued to dominate Christian thinking.


* The editors are not homophobes; we merely suggest that Paul's antisexual, woman hating attitudes may have arisen from his own inability to come to terms with his homosexuality. An alternative interpretation might be that Paul was an epileptic whose 'Vision' was a pre-seizure sensory phenomenon.

[Murphy]

Is it more of a sin for a priest to rape a child while wearing a condom ? Or while not wearing a condom ?"

Both are mortal sins, both will deliver a man to the Second Death.


How much more evil is it to wear the condom ?

It's a mortal sin, it's a sin which will damn you.


And would it be o.k (i.e would you keep quiet about it <--aimed at members of the priesthood), if he went to confession after it and truly repented.. until the next time ?[/I]

Well, of course the priest will keep quiet about it if its in the Confessional. The Seal of the Confessional is sacred beyond measure, and any man who breaks that Seal will be excommunicated.

However, in regards to a repentent child abuser.. yes, they can be forgiven. However, the confessional does not work like a shop. You don't just pop in and out. You must truly want forgiveness, you must truly have repented. Going in week in and week out with the same sin to confess is hardly true repentence, especially from a child abuser.

Instead, the Priest should not absolve the pentinent, until they have confessed their crimes to a civil authority, and then they can be absolved. A good priest will direct the abuser to telling the truth. And withold all other absolutions from the pentinent because he knows that by continuing to allow the pentinent to keep up the charade of confession, the priest helps him in mocking Christ, His Church and the Holy Ghost.

[Jamt]

[QUOTE=Aequoreus;190335]However, in regards to a repentent child abuser.. yes, they can be forgiven....

I don’t know the scripture that well but I wonder if that one is not unforgivable. Crimes against children, the elderly and to some extent women are something special.

[Murphy]

I don’t know the scripture that well but I wonder if that one is not unforgivable. Crimes against children, the elderly and to some extent women are something special.

I understand the feeling. I don't think I could ever personally find it within my self to forgive someone who abused children, especially my children. But I am not God.

However, I think I recall the only unforgivable sin is to blasphemy the Holy Ghost. I seem to recall seeing something like that in Scripture, though I may be wrong.

[W. R.]

Right, but your the "comment in your bible" does not overrule the authority of Saint Jerome, and this does not hinge on Saint Jerome, either - it's a Pauline verse! And there are many others than just this one.I mentioned Saint Jerome although I didn’t need to. I did it because I wanted to point out that surprisingly even his high authority didn’t make his opinion a dogma and it could be discussed.

The Paul’s verse can be interpreted in different ways, not only in the way Saint Jerome did. I can add another interpretation to the two mentioned above (well, excuse me, but I again take it from the comment): the word “good” (καλόν) might be here a contextual synonym of the word "useful" (συμφέρειν) (like they are in similar verses Matthew 5:29 and Matthew 18:9), so Paul could mean simply convenience of being celibate.
Paul goes on making a case for preferring celibacy to marriage by comparing: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).When speaking about celibacy it must not be forgotten that celibacy is not about being abstinent from sex, but about not having a spouse and family.

It’s obvious that it is rather people who are free from marriage bonds who could wholly devote themselves to serving God. It is more difficult for a person who has a family and must care about it. And following plain logic everybody would agree with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:27-34. Indeed, especially in the times of first Christians, “those who marry will have worldly troubles”, indeed “the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided” and so on. And that is the reason why monks live in celibacy: having no family makes the path of salvation simpler.
Paul clearly says that celibacy is holier than marriage.Where exactly? In my opinion he just recommends celibacy as a better choice; not forgetting to add that “every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this, and another after that”. For one the gift of God will be celibacy, for another it will be a marriage. They both are God’s gifts.

Paul proposes a sinless way to satisfy one’s sexual desires (the marriage) as the alternative to the sin of fornication, but he doesn't say a word about sex itself being bad.

[Lutiferre]

The Paul’s verse can be interpreted in different ways, not only in the way Saint Jerome did. I can add another interpretation to the two mentioned above (well, excuse me, but I again take it from the comment): the word “good” (καλόν) might be here a contextual synonym of the word "useful" (συμφέρειν) (like they are in similar verses Matthew 5:29 and Matthew 18:9), so Paul could mean simply convenience of being celibate.When speaking about celibacy it must not be forgotten that celibacy is not about being abstinent from sex, but about not having a spouse and family.
It can, yet the most competent Greek translators don't, and a patristic authority doesn't.

Besides, it's irrelevant as this isn't the most explicit verse. The one I quoted is, which says explicitly that he who does not marry, does better (7:38).

[Lulletje Rozewater]

However, in regards to a repentent child abuser.. yes, they can be forgiven. However, the confessional does not work like a shop. You don't just pop in and out. You must truly want forgiveness, you must truly have repented. Going in week in and week out with the same sin to confess is hardly true repentence, especially from a child abuser.

I like this post of yours,thanks.
The grace of Jesus and his endless love for humanity allows a person to be forgiven( for whatever heinous crime) a split second before dying,by a simple thought :" Jesus forgive me I was wrong."
Although I am not a Catholic any more,despite the fact that I studied 7 months at a Jesuit seminary, I find your approach to Roman Catholicism refreshing.

I hope that this thread may shed some light on the inner-thoughts and iseas of the RC church.
I would like to see a similar thread on the Greek Orthodox-the Protestants-The Anglicans-The LDS- The Jehovah Witnesses

[Borat Paor]

My question: Aequoreus, are you yourself Catholic in the first place? I mean, not in any stupid "identitarian" sense, but do you actually practice and abide by the Catholic faith?

[Murphy]

My question: Aequoreus, are you yourself Catholic in the first place? I mean, not in any stupid "identitarian" sense, but do you actually practice and abide by the Catholic faith?

Yes.

[Lutiferre]

My question: Aequoreus, are you yourself Catholic in the first place? I mean, not in any stupid "identitarian" sense, but do you actually practice and abide by the Catholic faith?
Someone who is willing to leave Europe for his faith if it be necessary can hardly be called an "identitarian" surface-Catholic.

[Anthropos]

[...] you may be enough of a helldamned heretic [...]


paul the heretic
[...]

"It was said concerning Abba Agathon that some monks came to find him having heard tell of his great discernment. Wanting to see if he would lose his temper they said to him 'Aren't you that agathon who is said to be a fornicator and a proud man?' 'Yes, it is very true,' he answered. They resumed, 'Aren't you that Agothon who is always talking nonsense?' 'I am." Again they said 'Aren't you Agothon the heretic?' But at that he replied 'I am not a heretic.' So they asked him, 'Tell us why you accepted everything we cast you, but repudiated this last insult.' He replied 'The first accusations I take to myself for that is good for my soul. But heresy is separation from God. Now I have no wish to be separated from God.' At this saying they were astonished at his discernment and returned, edified."

Sayings of the Desert Fathers

[Lutiferre]

"It was said concerning Abba Agathon that some monks came to find him having heard tell of his great discernment. Wanting to see if he would lose his temper they said to him 'Aren't you that agathon who is said to be a fornicator and a proud man?' 'Yes, it is very true,' he answered. They resumed, 'Aren't you that Agothon who is always talking nonsense?' 'I am." Again they said 'Aren't you Agothon the heretic?' But at that he replied 'I am not a heretic.' So they asked him, 'Tell us why you accepted everything we cast you, but repudiated this last insult.' He replied 'The first accusations I take to myself for that is good for my soul. But heresy is separation from God. Now I have no wish to be separated from God.' At this saying they were astonished at his discernment and returned, edified."

Sayings of the Desert Fathers



So what? The Arians had no wish to be separated from God, nor any other heretics.

Heretic simply means: unorthodox, in conflict with God. The Orthodox consider the Catholics and many other Christians to be heretics and in conflict with God and truth, even though those people have no wish to be separated from God.

Quite to the contrary, these "heretics" have an explicit wish to be united with God, just a different opinion about how to do so which is considered unorthodox by others.

[Anthropos]

"It was said concerning Abba Agathon that some monks came to find him having heard tell of his great discernment. Wanting to see if he would lose his temper they said to him 'Aren't you that agathon who is said to be a fornicator and a proud man?' 'Yes, it is very true,' he answered. They resumed, 'Aren't you that Agothon who is always talking nonsense?' 'I am." Again they said 'Aren't you Agothon the heretic?' But at that he replied 'I am not a heretic.' So they asked him, 'Tell us why you accepted everything we cast you, but repudiated this last insult.' He replied 'The first accusations I take to myself for that is good for my soul. But heresy is separation from God. Now I have no wish to be separated from God.' At this saying they were astonished at his discernment and returned, edified."

Sayings of the Desert Fathers

So what? The Arians had no wish to be separated from God, nor any other heretics.

Heretic simply means: unorthodox, in conflict with God. The Orthodox consider the Catholics and many other Christians to be heretics and in conflict with God and truth, even though those people have no wish to be separated from God.

Quite to the contrary, these "heretics" have an explicit wish to be united with God, just a different opinion about how to do so which is considered unorthodox by others.

Try again.

[Lutiferre]

Try again.

I keep calling them "heretics" because heretic has always been used about anyone deemed unorthodox, in conflict with God. It has never been used as meaning "a person who wants to be separated from God"; if that was the case, it would be a much broader word, it would apply just as well to apostates, blasphemers, heathens, it could even be used for any sinner as sin is itself the separation from God.

Now a sinner, apostate or blasphemer is not the same thing as a heretic. Your attempt at revisionism of the words definition is absurd.

[Anthropos]

I keep calling them "heretics" because heretic has always been used about anyone deemed unorthodox, in conflict with God. It has never been used as meaning "a person who wants to be separated from God"; if that was the case, it would be a much broader word, it would apply just as well to apostates, blasphemers, heathens, it could even be used for any sinner as sin is itself the separation from God.

Now a sinner, apostate or blasphemer is not the same thing as a heretic. Your attempt at revisionism of the words definition is absurd.
You'd have to blame Abba Agathon for that. :D

I find it's boring to discuss with you. You have a great brain capacity but you are too polemical, and it's my impression that you are not interested in what others have to say. Technically that's an ad hominem, but it's not an insult. Ad hominem only means 'to the person'.

[Anthropos]

My question: Aequoreus, are you yourself Catholic in the first place? I mean, not in any stupid "identitarian" sense, but do you actually practice and abide by the Catholic faith?


Yes.
I don't care what you do Aequoreus. But you did say, in replying to someone who asked you why you post so much about Catholicism, that "it's just my forum gimmick".

[Lutiferre]

You'd have to blame Abba Agathon for that. :D

I find it's boring to discuss with you. You have a great brain capacity but you are too polemical, and it's my impression that you are not interested in what others have to say. Technically that's an ad hominem, but it's not an insult. Ad hominem only means 'to the person'.
I am not interested in playing word games with you, or with your attempts at concealing what Christianity truly teaches. I think you are the polemical one. To try to distort the meaning of a word just to disagree with and oppose what others have to say - which is what you attempted with your citation, in this case with "heretic" - is dishonest and highly polemical. And no, you didn't write the citation, but you chose to quote it while pointing to my use of "heretic", and asked me to "try again" to go on quoting it again, implying that you agreed with it.

But then, I don't blame you; I never said I wasn't polemical when I was myself defending Christianity.

[Osweo]

Yawn... Let's get back on topic. ;)

So, how come yous lot burnt so many people? Not very nice, I always thought. What's the justification for being so horrible?

[Electronic God-Man]

Protestants executed lots of people too. :)

[Osweo]

Protestants executed lots of people too. :)

Yeah, but they're evil! Papists are the good ones. That's why I'm puzzled at their equal bloodthirstiness. Especially since Jesus was such a nice feller in most respects. :shrug:

[Amapola]

Not so nicest feller....
Obviously, you forget the "sword" epidose.
:P

[Arrow Cross]

Protestants executed lots of people too. :)
Not on "the continent". Just remember the Hugenotts!

[Electronic God-Man]

Not on "the continent". Just remember the Hugenotts!

Protestants killed Catholics (and members of other sects of Protestantism) in continental Europe.

[Osweo]

Not so nicest feller....
Obviously, you forget the "sword" epidose.
:P

I come to bring a sword?

A rhetorical sword. He never killed anyone, or ordered a death. He even intervened at an execution. Quite nice, for a cult leader.

That Mohammed fellow compares VERY unfavourably in this light, surprisingly.... :rolleyes:

[Amapola]

I come to bring a sword?

A rhetorical sword. He never killed anyone, or ordered a death. He even intervened at an execution. Quite nice, for a cult leader.

That Mohammed fellow compares VERY unfavourably in this light, surprisingly.... :rolleyes:

I don't think that whipping the merchants to get them out of the temple was very "pacifist". And in Luke 22,36-38, He advised their disciples to buy a sword (not symbolic) but real. The topic of the "fair" War and the legitimate defense is very well developed in his teaching and Saint Thomas also mentioned it. The thing is that nowadays the tendency is presenting a very relativist, watered-down and pacifist gospel, very much related to "the weak thought". Peace and turning the other cheek have their place too but that's not all the gospel. Just like San Francisco de Asís is portrayed as a hippy and ecologist, all peace and love, but they forget to say he participated as a chaplain in of the crusades. :rolleyes:

[Osweo]

"pacifist" hippy and ecologist, all peace and love
Ah, but you miss my point, Cielo! I never portrayed Jesus as some 1960s San Franciscan in a Ban The Bomb tee-shirt, just as not a cruel man.

The money changers in the temple were disgusting parasitic hypocrites, and Jesus rightly kicked their arse. But he left it at that. (Mohammed would probably have stabbed their eyes out too... ;))

Catholic functionaries seem not to have taken their founder's example to heart, and started upholding all sorts of murderous and twisted punishments that he would not have been particularly impressed with, I imagine. What is the explanation or justification for this? ;)

[Murphy]

I will be turning this into a blog:

http://askthepapist.blogspot.com/

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I don't think that whipping the merchants to get them out of the temple was very "pacifist". And in Luke 22,36-38, He advised their disciples to buy a sword (not symbolic) but real. The topic of the "fair" War and the legitimate defense is very well developed in his teaching and Saint Thomas also mentioned it. The thing is that nowadays the tendency is presenting a very relativist, watered-down and pacifist gospel, very much related to "the weak thought". Peace and turning the other cheek have their place too but that's not all the gospel. Just like San Francisco de Asís is portrayed as a hippy and ecologist, all peace and love, but they forget to say he participated as a chaplain in of the crusades. :rolleyes:

There is a tendency to leave out matters of great disturbance in the Bible.
IE The Jerusalem Bible left out a number of verses in Deuteronomy, for instance, which were horrifying.
The tendency is to make the NT(love) predominant not the OT(justice)
I like the juicy OT stories:)
Ever been to a hanging,man, what is nicer than hearing the snapping of the neck and the thrashing of the body and the splashing of urine and waste(This was a mistake,they should have given the guy an enema):wink:eek:

[Murphy]

Do I get to see my dog when I'm dead?

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/7024/churchsignwar.jpg

[Amapola]

Yes mi cielo, but blaming Christianity crimes is not safe from any denomination, including secularism (probably excluding Islam :p). The comparison in time or size does not legitimate a better morality.


Catholic functionaries
Clarification: by using the word “Christian” instead of “Catholics”, we will avoid lapsing into an unnecessary exclusivism.


seem not to have taken their founder's example to heart, and started upholding all sorts of murderous and twisted punishments that he would not have been particularly impressed with, I imagine. What is the explanation or justification for this? ;)

The answer is very simple...
The justification for this is the same that human beings like laymen could look for their "democratic" and based on human right "crimes".

Incidentally, violence and crimes are not the common denominator of Christians, Christianity or religion though, but of a behavior and action whose fruit, Civilization, was never peaceful. The proof is how, legalized by their doctrine or not, Christians, Muslims or pagans murdered in the name of God/s, likewise, secularism or laymen, legalized by their laws or not, did the same in the name of other things, including democracy.

[Murphy]

But a question from me to the papist. What does the Catholic doctrine say about the relationship between pope and emperor, or more modernly phrased church and state?

I posted this article over on another forum, it may interest you.



Separation of Church and State
Manifest Destiny or Manifest Heresy?
by David Palm

As the last of the formerly Catholic governments of Europe are shedding every vestige of their distinctively Catholic character as rapidly as possible, it seems well worth looking again at the Catholic Church's teaching on the relationship of the Church to the State. Like just about all Americans, I imbibed the twin secular dogmas of religious liberty and the separation of Church and State with my mother's milk. And when I converted to Catholicism over ten years ago, my conversion seemed to pose no great challenges to either. Given the prevailing understanding of the Second Vatican Council, said to be gleaned particularly from certain passages in Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae, I would have agreed wholeheartedly with George Sim Johnston who wrote in his recent article "Why Vatican II Was Necessary" that, "The council made it clear that she no longer wanted a confessional state tied to a monarchy; it was high time to make peace with liberal democracy." 1

But now, after some years of reflection and more careful examination not only of Vatican II but of pre-conciliar magisterial teaching on the matter, I find that Johnston's claim just doesn't hold up. For starters, one will search in vain for the words "monarch", "monarchy", "democracy", "democratic", or the phrase "confessional state" in the conciliar documents. Even the passages that contain the words "government" and "governments" fail to establish the "clear" teaching to which Johnston alludes. Yes, certain passages of Gaudium et Spes indicate a preference for governmental systems that encourage participation by the greater portion of citizens in public life (e.g. Gaudium et Spes §31, 73, 75, echoing John XXIII's Pacem in Terris §26). But such participation can be manifested in any number of governmental systems, including constitutional monarchies. These passages, then, fall far short of a carte blanche endorsement of full-blown democracy, let alone the liberal democracy with which Johnston insists the Church made peace.

On the contrary, as Fr. E. Cahill, S.J. has pointed out, the foundations of liberal democracy are incompatible with Catholicism:


In the theory of the Liberal State, personal human rights are acknowledged, and indeed exaggerated, for they are regarded as paramount, the rights of God and the limitations set by the divine law being disregarded. In actual practice, however, all individual rights are merged in or made subservient to the power of the majority, by which the actual government of the State is set up. Hence the governing authority again becomes omni-competent, although this omni-competence is upheld in virtue of a title different from the title of a deified emperor or a civil body identified with the deity.2

Although, according to the system's chief proponents, individual rights are better upheld in a liberal democracy, in fact this has not held good in any liberal democracy anywhere in the world. Rather, we see a consistent pattern of the erosion of basic human rights-most notably that of life-in preference to the wishes of an ephemeral majority: "Again, although in the Liberal theory of civil organisation, all the members of the social body have civic rights, these rights not being regarded as of divine institution may be over-ridden by a majority." 3

One aspect that remains a rock-solid conviction of every liberal democracy is the secular dogma of the separation of Church and State. And here we must turn from what the Second Vatican Council didn't say to what it did say. The opening section of the declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, insists that the council "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ." 4 If, then, the Catholic Church taught prior to the council that Church and State ought not to be separated and that the State has an obligation to profess the Catholic religion, then this phrase leaving that teaching "untouched" would seem to undermine Johnston's claim.

Although religious liberty and separation of Church and State are certainly related, it is clear from the passage of DH cited above that they are nevertheless separate issues. I hope to address the much-debated issue of religious liberty in a future essay, but the focus of the present piece will be on the separation of Church and State in the Church's solemn teaching prior to Vatican II. It seems critical to me-especially as our nation's leaders insist that modern liberal democracy in its present incarnation is so superior to any other form of government that it may be spread throughout the world by force of arms-to look again at the "traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of . . . societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ" which the Second Vatican Council left "untouched".


What the Church's Traditional Teaching is Not

Lest we be thwarted by some persistent misconceptions before we even start, I want to look at what the Catholic Church does not teach on the separation of Church and State. Three common misunderstandings stand out.

First, the Catholic Church does not support the notion of a theocracy, that is, that both ecclesiastical and secular authority are vested in the same individuals, so that a priestly class also holds the reins of government. Rather, the Church has always taught that the Church and the State are separate powers and each has its own legitimate sphere of influence, although, as Pope Leo XIII noted, "their subjects are the same, and not infrequently they deal with the same objects, though in different ways." 5 This separation of powers was first enunciated magisterially by Pope St. Gelasius I in the fifth century6, but has been repeated numerous times by Fathers, Doctors, Popes, and Councils. St. Thomas Aquinas summarizes admirably:


Both powers originate in God. Therefore the secular power is subordinate to the spiritual power in matters that concern the salvation of souls. In matters that concern more the civil common good, a person is obliged to obey the secular rather than the spiritual power.7

Another misconception is that the Catholic Church-prior to the Second Vatican Council at least-gave her unqualified support to monarchy as the best form of government. But this, too, is a vast oversimplification. St. Robert Bellarmine (a Doctor of the Church, who wrote in great detail on the subject) does note the intrinsic superiority of monarchy, but only if power is wielded by an ideal monarch:


Monarchy theoretically and in the abstract, monarchy in the hands of God who combines in Himself all the qualifications of an ideal ruler, is indeed a perfect system of government; in the hands of imperfect man, however, it is exposed to many defects and abuses. A government tempered, therefore, by all three basic forms (i.e., monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy), a mixed government, is, on account of the corruption of human nature more useful than simple monarchy.8

The acceptance of a multiplicity of governmental systems is given magisterial force by Pope Leo XIII:


The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature of the government, rulers must ever bear in mind that God is the paramount ruler of the world, and must set Him before themselves as their exemplar and law in the administration of the State.9

Even democratic governments are not in and of themselves contrary to Catholic teaching: "Again, it is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power." 10 Pope Pius XI echoes this: ". . . these different forms of government are not of themselves contrary to the principles of the Catholic Faith, which can easily be reconciled with any reasonable and just system of government." 11 Vatican II said the same:


Yet the people who come together in the political community are many and diverse, and they have every right to prefer divergent solutions. . . . It is clear, therefore, that the political community and public authority are founded on human nature and hence belong to the order designed by God, even though the choice of a political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free will of citizens.12
Finally, the Church has never taught that she (or the State) may use the power of the State to coerce religious belief. Johnston states that after Vatican II, "Henceforth the Church does not impose but proposes the truth; she will not rely on the coercive machinery of the state." 13 Frankly, this is a disturbing caricature of the Church's teaching before Vatican II, savoring more of stock anti-Catholic propaganda than the reflections of a sober Catholic scholar. One wants to ask Johnston when the Church has ever taught that it was permissible to impose the truth on anyone, through the power of the State or otherwise? For, on the contrary, the Catholic Church has reiterated throughout her history that it is wrong for the Church, the State, or an individual to coerce belief in the Catholic faith. Here is just one example: "And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, 'Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.'" 14


What is the Church's Traditional Teaching?

Very well. The Church doesn't support a theocracy, she at least allows for (if not unequivocally supports) some form of democracy, and she rejects use of State power to coerce belief. Many Catholics-including many orthodox and learned ones-conclude from those points that, therefore, the State should be entirely separate from the Church and should treat all religions equally.

But to conclude that, because the State is forbidden to coerce belief, it must therefore declare itself entirely separate from the Church or treat all religions equally is not only a non sequitur, it runs contrary to the Church's perennial teaching. To demonstrate this, we should look again at "the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion" which Vatican II left "untouched".

The fact is that separation of Church and State, of the kind that we have in all of the liberal democracies of the world, has been consistently and repeatedly denounced by the pre-conciliar Popes in no uncertain terms. In the Syllabus of Errors, for example, Pope Pius IX condemned as false the proposition that, "In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship." 15

The encyclicals Immortale Dei and Libertas Praestantissimum by his successor, Leo XIII, are devoted almost entirely to the Catholic Church's teaching on the right ordering of state and society. The authority of Immortale Dei is particularly high. While falling short of an ex cathedra definition, Leo XIII intended for it to be definitive, for he summarizes his teaching as follows: "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the constitution and government of the State." 16

There is no substitute for reading both of these encyclicals in their entirety, but I will present a few pertinent snapshots. In Libertas, the Pontiff insists that the State is not only obligated to protect the temporal and physical well-being of the people, it is obligated to protect their spiritual well-being as well:


There are [those] . . . who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men's souls in the wisdom of their legislation.17

It follows, then, that the protection and promotion of religion is one of the paramount responsibilities of the State. The State may not adopt a stance of indifference toward all religions, treating them all with equality. Rather, the State is obliged to promote that religion that God Himself has established, namely, the Catholic Faith. Again, Leo XIII:


Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide-as they should do-with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community.18

In Immortale Dei, Leo XIII teaches that secular rulers are obligated, as part of their governance, to promote the one true Faith. The Pope, "insists on public acknowledgment of religion by the State as a logical deduction from acceptance of the premise that God is the Author of civil authority. Such acknowledgment has reference to the only true religion-the Catholic Faith . . . " 19 Pope Leo teaches:


As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. . . . So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule.20

The Pope states unequivocally that "it is not lawful for the State, any more than for the individual, either to disregard all religious duties or to hold in equal favor different kinds of religion." 21 He rejects the sort of separation of Church and State that has been upheld by every Supreme Court decision on the subject in this country:


But this teaching is understood in two ways. Many wish the State to be separated from the Church wholly and entirely, so that with regard to every right of human society, in institutions, customs, and laws, the offices of State, and the education of youth, they would pay no more regard to the Church than if she did not exist; and, at most, would allow the citizens individually to attend to their religion in private if so minded. Against such as these, all the arguments by which We disprove the principle of separation of Church and State are conclusive; with this super-added, that it is absurd the citizen should respect the Church, while the State may hold her in contempt.22

And there is no lack of condemnation of the principle of the separation of Church and State in the writings of Leo XIII's successors. For example, Pope St. Pius X wrote:


That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. . . . Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.23

The claim that the State has nothing to do with the spiritual well-being of its citizens inverts the order of things, wrongfully elevating the natural good of the nation above the supernatural good of its citizens. As St. Pius stated:


Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.24

And Pope Pius XI wrote this, concerning the separation of Church and State enacted as part of the establishment of liberal democracy in Spain:


We learned with great sorrow that therein, at the beginning, it is openly declared that the State has no official religion, thus reaffirming that separation of State from Church which was, alas, decreed in the new Spanish Constitution. We shall not delay here to repeat that it is a serious error to affirm that this separation is licit and good in itself, especially in a nation almost totally Catholic. Separation, well considered, is only the baneful consequence-as We often have declared, especially in the Encyclical Quas Primas-of laicism, or rather the apostasy of society that today feigns to alienate itself from God and therefore from the Church.25

The repeated teaching of the Popes on a doctrinal matter is, of course, inherently authoritative and demands our assent, as Vatican II taught in Lumen Gentium §25.26 And let us remember, again, that it is precisely this "traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ" that Vatican II explicitly left "untouched", even in her declaration on religious liberty.

Nor has this teaching anywhere been explicitly rescinded by any post-conciliar magisterial document. Vatican II, in Dignitatis Humanae itself, spoke of circumstances in which "special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society" (DH §6), making it clear that the council did not intend to do away with the notion that Catholicism can (and should) be the official religion of those countries in which the majority of citizens are Catholic.

It is true that in the post-conciliar period the doctrine has not been forcefully reiterated. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its discussion of the relationship of Church and State (§2244-46), states rather tamely that, "Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man's origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man." 27 On the other hand, the CCC elsewhere insists:


The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ." By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live." The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church. Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.28

Fr. Brian Harrison notes that here the CCC has reasserted the ongoing applicability of two of the most prominent pre-conciliar papal documents on the necessity of societies (and hence the State) to uphold Catholicism:


It refers at that point to the two pre-conciliar encyclicals which most emphatically condemned the masonic ideal of the religiously "neutral" state, Leo XIII's Immortale Dei ("On the Christian Constitution of States") and Pius XI's Quas Primas, instituting the Feast of Christ the King. Moreover, the reference is to these two encyclicals in their entirety, not just to a particular passage. (In Dignitatis Humanae only one quite bland passage from Immortale Dei is cited, and there is no reference at all to Quas Primas or the social kingship of Christ.) 29

Statements of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith concerning "the rightful autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of religion and the Church" 30 and by Pope John Paul II of a "legitimate and healthy secularity" 31 - taken by some to signal a complete about-face on the matter of Church/State relations-are each found in the context of reaffirmations of the rightful (and necessary) separation of powers between Church and State. This, as I have noted above, was firmly taught prior to Vatican II as well and so forms no break with pre-conciliar teaching. And certainly these statements must be read in light of both DH §6 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not to mention the solemn teaching of the pre-conciliar Popes.

So, although this post-conciliar content remains somewhat muted from the direct and forceful teachings of the pre-conciliar Popes insisting on the State's obligation to "favor [the Catholic] religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws", it in no way contradicts their teaching. As Fr. Harrison has stated: "From the fact that the Church (wisely or unwisely) decides no longer to ask for a clear-cut implementation of the doctrine of Christ's social kingship in the traditional manner, it by no means follows that she has renounced the doctrine itself as a matter of principle." 32 And lest there be any doubt that the pre-conciliar Popes considered their teachings on this matter to be well within the realm of faith and morals on which they are fully competent to bind the faithful, Pope Pius XI explicitly condemned any fundamental dilution of these papal teachings:


Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.33

Therefore, the traditional teaching of the Church with regard to responsibilities of the State to the Catholic Faith remains in force, even if for prudential reasons this teaching is downplayed by the Magisterium in our modern context.


What Are the Consequences of Abandoning the Church's Teaching?

Far from being something to celebrate, as Johnston would seem to have it, the consequences for nations having abandoned the Church's teaching on the matter of the separation of Church and State have been severe. The pre-conciliar Popes were truly prophetic in this regard.

In 1832, Pope Gregory XVI recalled how greatly the peace of both Church and society was disturbed by various rebellious sects, "the Waldensians, the Beghards, the Wycliffites, and other such sons of Belial, who were the sores and disgrace of the human race." 34 He insisted that the modern clamor for the separation of Church and State would fare no better:


Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty.35

Leo XIII taught that the benefits for both Church and State have been great and manifest:


There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies. . . . A similar state of things would certainly have continued had the agreement of the two powers been lasting. More important results even might have been justly looked for, had obedience waited upon the authority, teaching, and counsels of the Church, and had this submission been specially marked by greater and more unswerving loyalty. For that should be regarded in the light of an ever-changeless law which Ivo of Chartres wrote to Pope Paschal II: "When kingdom and priesthood are at one, in complete accord, the world is well ruled, and the Church flourishes, and brings forth abundant fruit. But when they are at variance, not only smaller interests prosper not, but even things of greatest moment fall into deplorable decay.36

Ultimately, the Pope argued, the State that sets aside religion altogether or treats different religions as equals will inevitably work against all religion, a prediction that we see coming to fruition all around us:


To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name.37

Pope St. Pius X taught that no society would long remain stable and free if the Catholic Church was not acknowledged by the State and her teachings given their due place in the life of the State:


The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. . . . Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men.38

Pope Pius XI insists that such a separation is fatal to the State, undermining the very basis for its own authority:


But if the pretension of excluding from public life God the Creator and Provident Ruler of that same society is impious and absurd for any people whatsoever, it is particularly repugnant to find this exclusion of God and Church from the life of the Spanish Nation, where the Church always and rightly has held the most important and most beneficially active part in legislation, in schools, and in all other private and public institutions. If such an attempt results in irreparable harm to the Christian conscience of the country, especially to its youth, whom they would educate without religion, and to families, profaned in the most sacred principles, no less harm befalls that same civil authority. When this loses the support that recommends it, nay sustains it, in the conscience of the people, namely the persuasion of its Divine origin, dependence and sanction, it loses at the same time its greatest power to obligate, and its highest title to be respected.39

Elsewhere he reiterates this axiom, that the State that rejects the authority of Jesus Christ will inevitably find its own authority rejected:


If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. "With God and Jesus Christ," we said, "excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.40

If we see an erosion of civility, piety, morals, and good order in every liberal democracy ever established, we should not find this particularly surprising. We have had ample warning.

These frequent warnings and their vindication through subsequent events keep me from following Johnston in heaping unqualified praise on the separation of Church and State as we have it here in the United States. Johnston claims that by (allegedly) doing away with a confessional State and making peace with liberal democracy in the documents of Vatican II, "the Americans, especially the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray, made their contribution to the council. The Constitution of the United States, which keeps the government out of the chancery, had served the Church well." 41

He is correct that non-interference of the State in the affairs of the Church does indeed serve the Church well. This is upheld by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical letter to the hierarchy of the United States:


[T]hanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance.42

But this is only part-and certainly not the most important part-of the story. The Pontiff continues:


Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.43

Pope St. Pius X insists that to have the Church and the State separated, with the State failing to acknowledge the Catholic Faith as the true religion-as it is in the United States-amounts to a grave injustice to God:


[By adopting] the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him.44

Pope Pius XI noted that this refusal on the part of the State to give Jesus Christ and the Church He founded due public recognition is very far from a matter of indifference:


[N]ot only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. . . . Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults; for his kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education.45

Certainly, by virtue of its repetition and the authority with which it has been advanced, the condemnation of the separation of Church and State and the affirmation of its positive corollary-that the state is obligated to uphold and advance the Catholic Faith-is every bit as explicit and solid as the Church's teaching on, say, contraception. And it is, through history, a great deal more explicit than the Church's prohibition of female priests, which Card. Ratzinger recently declared to be infallible (i.e. irreformable) by virtue of its constant repetition by the ordinary Magisterium. Surely it would be reasonable to argue that the matter of the State's obligation publicly to profess, protect, and promote the Catholic Faith has also been taught infallibly through her ordinary Magisterium.

We should reflect carefully on what the Catholic Church has solemnly taught concerning the right ordering of civil government. This is especially true as our nation continues to advance, often by force of arms, a particular variety of liberal democracy as the only system of government worthy of any nation. For some, my insistence that the present position of the government of the United States with respect to the separation of Church and State is not rightly ordered will seem a sort of blasphemy, albeit a secular one. But as Catholics, our first obligation is to the teaching of the Church and not to the founding documents of our country.

Obviously the United States is not a Catholic country. A great many American Catholics have become so inured to that fact that they seem to place the authority of our Constitution above that of the Popes. For example, Mr. Thomas Scott wrote recently to The New Oxford Review that, "Our presidents have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the U.S., not the teachings of the Catholic Church. One writer was upset because neither [political] party reflects Catholic values. Guess what! They never will. Not in this country." 46

But surely our Constitution can not be endowed with such authority that it stands above authentic Catholic criticism; it is not, after all, a part of the Deposit of Faith. And should we really be satisfied with this status quo, especially in light of the doctrinal teachings of the Sovereign Pontiffs concerning the right ordering of the State? After all, there was a time when all Catholic countries were not Catholic countries. The change took place the old-fashioned way, through evangelism which had as its goal the conversion of all men to the one true Faith.

For my part, based on the solemnly declared faith of the Catholic Church which Vatican II left untouched, I pray for the day in which my countrymen are converted to the Catholic Faith in sufficient numbers that we will elect Catholic leaders and amend our Constitution to give Jesus Christ and the Church He established rightful place in our government. Then and only then, as Pope Pius XI predicted, "When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony." 47

SOURCE (http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a050615.html)

[Óttar]

Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it? :D

[Amapola]

Mister Papist, :P
From a superstitious Spanish Papist to a less-superstitious Irish papist:

what about the souls of the purgatory? can I pray to them so they give me what I ask :D

....

[Murphy]

Mister Papist, :P
From a superstitious Spanish Papist to a less-superstitious Irish papist:

what about the souls of the purgatory? can I pray to them so they give me what I ask :D

....

Well, my dear Spanish heretic :coffee:! It is once again up to the Irish to save Spain's arse :D:P!

No, you cannot pray for the souls in Purgatory to wake you up if your alarm clock does not work ;)!

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I come to bring a sword?

A rhetorical sword. He never killed anyone, or ordered a death. He even intervened at an execution. Quite nice, for a cult leader.

That Mohammed fellow compares VERY unfavourably in this light, surprisingly.... :rolleyes:

He did and plenty of them.
Jesus=God the Father
God the father killed millions and millions (Genesis 6:5-7:22,just one verse of the many):wink

[Murphy]

He did and plenty of them.
Jesus=God the Father
God the father killed millions and millions (Genesis 6:5-7:22,just one verse of the many):wink

No, no, no!


"The Father is God"
"The Son is God"
"The Holy Spirit is God"
"God is the Father"
"God is the Son"
"God is the Holy Ghost"
"The Father is not the Son"
"The Son is not the Father"
"The Father is not the Holy Ghost"
"The Holy Ghost is not the Father"
"The Son is not the Holy Ghost"
"The Holy Ghost is not the Son"

[Lulletje Rozewater]

No, no, no!

"The Father is God"
"The Son is God"
"The Holy Spirit is God"
"God is the Father"
"God is the Son"
"God is the Holy Ghost"
"The Father is not the Son"
"The Son is not the Father"
"The Father is not the Holy Ghost"
"The Holy Ghost is not the Father"
"The Son is not the Holy Ghost"
"The Holy Ghost is not the Son":D:D:D:D

Sounds like the Rosary.
The Trinity repeat after me.
The Father-the Son and the Holy Ghost are 3 persons in Godhead.
The Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.The one can not do something without the other two agreeing with it.
If the Father chops a head off,it is as if the other 2 are doing it too.

http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/images/trinity_diagram.jpg

[Osweo]

No, you cannot pray for the souls in Purgatory to wake you up if your alarm clock does not work ;)!
Leave these time-honoured traditions alone! I just hope the Spaniards remember that these so called 'animos' are just the good old Lares and Penates and quit with the charade... ;)

No, no, no!


"The Father is God"
"The Son is God"
"The Holy Spirit is God"
"God is the Father"
"God is the Son"
"God is the Holy Ghost"
"The Father is not the Son"
"The Son is not the Father"
"The Father is not the Holy Ghost"
"The Holy Ghost is not the Father"
"The Son is not the Holy Ghost"
"The Holy Ghost is not the Son"

LOL. It's tha way ye tell em!

[Amapola]

Leave these time-honoured traditions alone! I just hope the Spaniards remember that these so called 'animos' are just the good old Lares and Penates and quit with the charade... ;)

AnimAs

....

Not really!!! The following day after the Todos los Santos holiday, Catholic Church celebrates All souls' Day -on the 2nd, November-that has its roots in the Middle Age since it was established by a Benedictine monk in 998.

Its biblical foundation is found in the Old Testament (Mac . 12 38-46).

Now again, most Spaniards who have acquired this tradition through family channels have never stopped to question the religious rigor that lies in their family version, as it usually happens with traditions. There is a big difference between "asking them for" (as many people think) or "ask for them" (as it is established). Calling or invoking the deceased has very little to do with Catholic practice but prediction practice used by spiritism and other stuff linked to satanism. :icon_eek:

[Eldritch]

Don't want to bitch or anything, but perhaps my question has been back-burnered long enough already?

[Osweo]

AnimAs
...
Te amO :D

Not really!!! The following day after the Todos los Santos holiday, Catholic Church celebrates All souls' Day -on the 2nd, November-that has its roots in the Middle Age since it was established by a Benedictine monk in 998.
We have it very similar, of course.

Its biblical foundation is found in the Old Testament (Mac . 12 38-46).
LOL.
'Biblical foundation'...

38
Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the week was ending, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there.
39
On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his men went to gather up the bodies of the slain and bury them with their kinsmen in their ancestral tombs.
40
But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain.
41
They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden.
42
7 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
43
He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view;
44
for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.
45
But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
46
Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

Exchange with the gods on behalf of the living and the dead is widespread everywhere. You don't need to look in the Torah for it. It's common sense.

There is a big difference between "asking them for" (as many people think) or "ask for them" (as it is established).
Actuality versus the Official. Actuality is of more significance usually. ;)

Calling or invoking the deceased has very little to do with Catholic practice but prediction practice used by spiritism and other stuff linked to satanism. :icon_eek:
Damn the Church for linking good wholesome traditional activity with such sordid filth that wasn't even heard of until it came along! :rage

[Amapola]

... Te amO :D
:o


LOL. 'Biblical foundation'...
Indeed, the reason is found there, LOL all you want but check it. :rolleyes:


Exchange with the gods on behalf of the living and the dead is widespread everywhere. You don't need to look in the Torah for it. It's common sense.
Obviously you didn't understand. You pray to GOD for their salvation (las ánimas), there is not an exchange whatsoever. The misunderstood exchange is actually part of the superstition.


Actuality versus the Official. Actuality is of more significance usually. ;)
??


Damn the Church for linking good wholesome traditional activity with such sordid filth that wasn't even heard of until it came along! :rage
What's a healthy tradition? invoking the deceased? :lmao

[Amapola]

What's a healthy tradition? invoking the deceased? :lmao

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_1s7o0jDm2MY/S04mOQIDt_I/AAAAAAAAZCk/0ykRaUwliHc/perico%20mide.jpg

[Osweo]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_1s7o0jDm2MY/S04mOQIDt_I/AAAAAAAAZCk/0ykRaUwliHc/perico%20mide.jpg

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek:

Oh shit.... :icon_eyes::scared::shocked::eek3::fear::faint2::e ek2::icon_eek::icon_sorry::cry

[Murphy]

Don't want to bitch or anything, but perhaps my question has been back-burnered long enough already?

I do apologise, Eldritch. I've been focusing too much on researching Canon Law and the history of the sex abuse scandal in attempts to defend Pope Benedict XVI from the onslaught of the mainstream media.

I haven't had time to fully look into your question. I do recall hearing that inferitle couples should not marry. Though do not take my word on it until I do more research.

[W. R.]

Hello everyone. That nasty Papist is bored again. So I am here to talk to you all about Catholic doctrine and dogma.

So, if you have any questions, I will be more than happy to answer them for you. I will be using various sources, but I will prodive names for the sources when required.

And lets try and keep this in perspective. I don't want questions like "Does God exist?". Because then we will simply go round in circles. I am here to try and explain, simply and clearly, the actual teachings of the Church and their consistency.

So, shoot.Does there exist a rite of consecration of weapon (namely knives)?

[W. R.]

Does there exist a rite of consecration of weapon (namely knives)?In case someone finds this question strange I'll elaborate. It is from the Ukrainian history. "Consecrated knives" were weapon of rebels. In the Ukrainian literature the expression "consecrated knives" may sometimes be used as a metaphor of rebellion.

So I am simply curious what the process of consecrating knives may look like.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

In case someone finds this question strange I'll elaborate. It is from the Ukrainian history. "Consecrated knives" were weapon of rebels. In the Ukrainian literature the expression "consecrated knives" may sometimes be used as a metaphor of rebellion.

So I am simply curious what the process of consecrating knives may look like.

TITLE: CATHOLIC PRIEST TAUGHT HE CAN COMMAND JESUS CHRIST DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND ONTO THE ALTAR!

A Witch will purify himself and all his instruments by mixing water with salt and then praying over it. Here is one part of the ceremony used to consecrate a witch's knife, or athame. "May the Sacred Water and the smoke in the Holy Incense drive out any impurities in the knife, that it may be pure and cleansed, ready to serve me and my gods in any way I desire. So mote it be." [Marquis, page 217]
This is at the bottom of the article

http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/rc122.htm

I the Scripture I could not find anything than just the above.

[M.I.A.]

I haven't had time to fully look into your question. I do recall hearing that inferitle couples should not marry. Though do not take my word on it until I do more research.

That's really dumb in my opinion, they're not doing anything on purpose to prevent pregnancy so aren't sinning with contraception so what's the problem? :coffee:

[Murphy]

That's really dumb in my opinion, they're not doing anything on purpose to prevent pregnancy so aren't sinning with contraception so what's the problem? :coffee:

The purpose of marriage is procreation. To beget children into a stable family unit, the bedrock of society. Procreation is a vital aspect of the married state.

[Murphy]

[. . .]

If you want to get into a debate with me on dogma of Transubstantiation, then by all means I accept. But please, do yourself a favour and don't link to the typical shite as per above.

[Murphy]

I think I still owe Eldritch an answer or two, as well as a few others. I will get around to them as soon as I can.

Agan I apologse.

[Wyn]

Should infertile people marry?

I know that this is JP's thread, but I just saw this and thought I might respond. Canon Law states that there is no restriction on infertile or sterile people marrying and having sexual relations.

Canon 1084 §3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098 [A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life].

So a sterile woman of 60 can marry, if she wishes. In Catholicism, reproduction is not the sole end pursued in sexual relations.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

If you want to get into a debate with me on dogma of Transubstantiation, then by all means I accept. But please, do yourself a favour and don't link to the typical shite as per above.

I suggest you follow the whole thread.....sucker and do not assume,I WAS NOT DEBATING I was giving a website on knives and witches

[Lithium]

What about the people who never knew about christianity, is it said that they will be punished on the final judgement ?

[Murphy]

What about the people who never knew about christianity, is it said that they will be punished on the final judgement ?

God is both Just and Merciful.. how could He punish His children for an ignorance they could not prevent? That being said, I don't know whether they can ever enjoy the beatific vision due to never having heard the Gospel. But that doesn't mean they will necessarily suffer eternal fire.

But we just don't know. What we do know however is that spreading the Word of God is a good start :P.

[Lithium]

If you do good and you do not harm anyone, but you simply worship another Gods, is this a valuable reason for punishment?

[Murphy]

If you do good and you do not harm anyone, but you simply worship another Gods, is this a valuable reason for punishment?

If you have heard the Truth of the Catholic Faith and continue to worship false gods, then yes, you're walking the path to hell.

However, if let us say we have an African Bushman who has never had contact with civilisation, and knows not Christ in any form, and worships his pagan dieties, if he lives a good life, he will come under the post I listed above.

[Lithium]

Thanks, this is one of the things that I don't like in the christianity ;]

[Murphy]

Thanks, this is one of the things that I don't like in the christianity ;]

Why do you not like this?

[Lithium]

Because IMO, it gives you non sense borders. I mean, if I do good to the others, who cares who I worship? I think that this kind of rule is made to make the people fear and accept the christianity faster and easier.

No offence

[Murphy]

I mean, if I do good to the others, who cares who I worship?

Simply because it is not other men who will judge you. Your duty to God, He who created you and breathed life into you, He who sustains your existance, is greater than your duty to other men.

When you sin, you sin against God more than you do agaist men.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Because IMO, it gives you non sense borders. I mean, if I do good to the others, who cares who I worship? I think that this kind of rule is made to make the people fear and accept the christianity faster and easier.

No offence

There is such a thing as grace of God.
And God's grace is open to all humans,be they Bushmen,Dutch(?????) and anyone who does not worship the God of the Christian.
You will be shoved in purgatory-play chess with God and if you win you go to heaven.


God in his wisdom let's you replay your life with Jesus in mind and that is grace.
There are just about nobody who will be sent to hell,bar South Africans.:D

[The Lawspeaker]

What's the Church's position on Rev. 13- 16:18 ?
Is the Church warning Catholics against the latest developments in electronic purchasing, protection of ones identity and privacy, ID-laws, personal freedoms etc. ?

[Murphy]

What's the Church's position on Rev. 13- 16:18 ?

That is quite broad Tristan, anything in particular?


Is the Church warning Catholics against the latest developments in electronic purchasing, protection of ones identity and privacy, ID-laws, personal freedoms etc. ?

Generally, the Church has no position (excepting personal freedoms).

[The Lawspeaker]

That is quite broad Tristan, anything in particular?
I will write down the Bible text for you using the King James version.


16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.As you might know there are developments in electronic purchases or microchips used for personal identification. For instance the RFID-chip which is now used in both your and my passport (combined with mandatory fingerprints) and there are plans to chip animals. As a matter of fact this is already done for identification purposes. Supermarkets in the Netherlands (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=255598#post255598) have plans to outlaw cash money and only allow electronic money instead. (and disco's, shops etc abroad already have a membership system with inplanted RFID-chips. Does this, in any way, remind you of Revelations 13: 16-18 ?



Generally, the Church has no position (excepting personal freedoms).
Regrettably so then.

[Murphy]

Don't think I can help you with that one Tristan :D! Let's try stick with dogma :p.

[The Lawspeaker]

Don't think I can help you with that one Tristan :D! Let's try stick with dogma :p.
Too bad. Because this would have been rather interesting to learn more about as I wondered whether the Church was already onto it. :)

[Monolith]

Supermarkets in the Netherlands have plans to outlaw cash money and only allow electronic money instead. (and disco's, shops etc abroad already have a membership system with inplanted RIVD-chips. Does this, in any way, remind you of Revelations 13: 16-18 ?


I'm not letting them put a chip inside me, no sir. ;)

Seriously now, I think it does sound disturbingly similar.

[Sally]

I'm not letting them put a chip inside me, no sir. ;)

Seriously now, I think it does sound disturbingly similar.

Are you sure? I have a chip reader I'd like to try out! ;)

But seriously, people shouldn't interpret passages from Revelation literally, because much of the Book of Revelation is allegorical. As for the "Mark of the Beast", some folks in the United States were worried when zip codes were starting to be assigned many years ago, too.

[Monolith]

But seriously, people shouldn't interpret passages from Revelation literally, because much of the Book of Revelation is allegorical. As for the "Mark of the Beast", some folks in the United States were worried when zip codes were starting to be assigned many years ago, too.
Of course. Nonetheless, I'll always be opposed to tagging people with RFID implants and whatnot.

[Megrez]

Is it wrong a woman to use a crucifix as dildo?

[Murphy]

Is it wrong a woman to use a crucifix as dildo?

I pity you, really.

[Megrez]

That was a serious question. Another one:

I was baptized and raised as catholic, but abandoned christianity when I was 8. What the church thinks of me? Am I going to hell?

[Murphy]

That was a serious question.

No, it was not.


Another one:

I was baptized and raised as catholic, but abandoned christianity when I was 8. What the church thinks of me? Am I going to hell?

You're certainly on the right path for the place.

[Megrez]

How the catholic church regard the evangelical churches? Is it wrong for a catholic to hate the evangelicals?

[Murphy]

How the catholic church regard the evangelical churches? Is it wrong for a catholic to hate the evangelicals?

Hate the sin, not the sinner. It would be wrong to hate Evangelicals as people.. but one should hate the heresy they promote.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I will write down the Bible text for you using the King James version.

As you might know there are developments in electronic purchases or microchips used for personal identification. For instance the RFID-chip which is now used in both your and my passport (combined with mandatory fingerprints) and there are plans to chip animals. As a matter of fact this is already done for identification purposes. Supermarkets in the Netherlands (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=255598#post255598) have plans to outlaw cash money and only allow electronic money instead. (and disco's, shops etc abroad already have a membership system with inplanted RFID-chips. Does this, in any way, remind you of Revelations 13: 16-18 ?.

Usury on Credit cards is strictly forbidden by the Church.
Then again,the Church end money to their flock,I can not tell you by how much the interest is
“If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.” - Exodus 22:25 (KJV)
“Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.” – Leviticus 25:36,37 (KJV)
“Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.” – Deuteronomy 23:19,20 (KJV)

[Eldritch]

I believe that according to Catholic dogma, animals can be possessed by the Devil just like people can. Can animals be exorcised? Or should possessed animals be put down?

[Eldritch]

Is it wrong a woman to use a crucifix as dildo?

There's no need for her to bruise her delicate nether regions with a crucifix made of hard wood, metal or plastic.

Behold The Jackhammer Jesus:

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/a/a5/Jackhammer_Jesus_dildo.jpg

[Megrez]

^

I've seen that, some of these are used in this movie: http://www.megavideo.com/?v=CH6YRAOW

[Tolleson]

Behold The Jackhammer Jesus:

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/a/a5/Jackhammer_Jesus_dildo.jpg

Looks more like Holy Jammin' Jesus to me. :D

[Monolith]

Is it wrong a woman to use a crucifix as dildo?
Sure.

Fun fact #1
It's also wrong for a woman not to teach her child manners.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I believe that according to Catholic dogma, animals can be possessed by the Devil just like people can. Can animals be exorcised? Or should possessed animals be put down?

I tried to put down my cat,but the darn animal has nine lives and the devil only one:eek:

[Murphy]

I have noticed I have made some errors on my replies to some questions (that's what I get for answering most off the top of my head). So I'll be posting my replies to questions by using the Apricity blog function from now on. But don't worry, I'll post links here so you do not miss them :D!

[Murphy]

I believe that according to Catholic dogma, animals can be possessed by the Devil just like people can. Can animals be exorcised? Or should possessed animals be put down?

It is not a dogma, no. I'll explain about the differences between dogma and doctrine at a later date, for now all you need to know is a dogma is something a Catholic has to believe in.

Now, yes it is not unknown for demons to use animals in their plots against the souls of men. In such cases, a demon will not remain within the animal forever, or even for long.

"Holy Michael Archangel, defend us in the day of battle; be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.—May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God thrust down into hell Satan and all the other wicked spirits, who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen."

I have highlighted an important part of this prayer.

The diabloc's goal is to seek the ruin of as many souls as possible. Posession is all about this. To drag a soul to hell to suffer with them.

As Catholics, we believe men have immortal souls, that will live forever. Animals however have a finite soul, a soul that will only animate its body until it's death, whence it will simply.. cease. So exorcising an animal is pointless, it will bring nothing.

Though it may be possible :P.

[Eldritch]

It is not a dogma, no. I'll explain about the differences between dogma and doctrine at a later date, for now all you need to know is a dogma is something a Catholic has to believe in.


Okay. I did wonder whether or not I used the right term there, but since this is a question thread, I didn't bother cheking and trusted that you'd correct me if it was wrong. :cool:

[Tomasz]

Dominus Vobiscum

What is your (I mean catholic) approach towards the theory of evolution? I've heard it's accepted from some time but I'm not sure of that and I'd like you ask you.

Also, I wonder if ealier proto-human species like Neanderthals or Homo Erectus would be considered human (having souls). Where is the line, where we can talk about animals and where "humans" start?

[Psychonaut]

Is there an official church position on non-Catholic religious experience? I'm curious what the church believes is occurring when a non-Catholic has a religious vision/experience/whatever whose content is contrary to the teachings of the church. Do you guys think that it is:
The Devil?
A hallucination?
A vision of the one true God misinterpreted due to the biases of the visionary?
Something else?
Also, if there is a church doctrine on this, is it one that has changed at any point in the church's history?

[Murphy]

What is your (I mean catholic) approach towards the theory of evolution? I've heard it's accepted from some time but I'm not sure of that and I'd like you ask you.

The Church does not dictate on whether one needs to accept or reject evolution theory. The only thing a Catholic is bound to accept is Adam and Eve.

A Catholic can believe in evolution, as long as God maintains His place in the Creation, and Adam and Eve are in there as well.

I my self am an Old-Earth Creationist of the "progressive creationism" sway.

[Wyn]

Is there an official church position on non-Catholic religious experience? I'm curious what the church believes is occurring when a non-Catholic has a religious vision/experience/whatever whose content is contrary to the teachings of the church. Do you guys think that it is:
The Devil?
A hallucination?
A vision of the one true God misinterpreted due to the biases of the visionary?
Something else?
Also, if there is a church doctrine on this, is it one that has changed at any point in the church's history?

I'll let DV elaborate on this (sorry for butting in again, J. :D), but I'll say that appearances from the devil are described by St Paul:

2 Corinthians 11:14
And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.

[Murphy]

Is there an official church position on non-Catholic religious experience? I'm curious what the church believes is occurring when a non-Catholic has a religious vision/experience/whatever whose content is contrary to the teachings of the church. Do you guys think that it is:
The Devil?
A hallucination?
A vision of the one true God misinterpreted due to the biases of the visionary?
Something else?
Also, if there is a church doctrine on this, is it one that has changed at any point in the church's history?

I cannot find anything "official" for you Psy outside of the quote Caed' provided for you.

From all of the sources I have read however.. I would say it's all of the above.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I cannot find anything "official" for you Psy outside of the quote Caed' provided for you.

From all of the sources I have read however.. I would say it's all of the above.

Look up Saul,later Paul.
He got 'bliksemed' from a dizzy height

[Groenewolf]

Can any officially Catholic male become the pope? No matter whether or not they are priest or not?

[Murphy]

Can any officially Catholic male become the pope? No matter whether or not they are priest or not?

No, only a Bishop can become the Pope, as the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, the heir of St Peter's See.

[Groenewolf]

No, only a Bishop can become the Pope, as the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, the heir of St Peter's See.

Recently I have heard of a research that states that many of Catholic clergy are atheists who keep up the pretense because they can not go back. Now leaving the reliability of this aside, what if the pope is revealed to be a closet atheist and had passed reforms that is motivated by his atheism. Now how would this fit with the doctrine that the pope can not be wrong on issues of doctrine, or what the doctrine was. And how should Catholic act in such a case?

[Murphy]

Recently I have heard of a research that states that many of Catholic clergy are atheists who keep up the pretense because they can not go back.

I have not heard of atheist clergy. I have heard some reports that Satanists and Freemasons have infiltrated parts of the Church however.

But how reliable is this research?


Now leaving the reliability of this aside, what if the pope is revealed to be a closet atheist and had passed reforms that is motivated by his atheism. Now how would this fit with the doctrine that the pope can not be wrong on issues of doctrine, or what the doctrine was. And how should Catholic act in such a case?

He would not be able to pass such reforms. It's simply impossible. The Pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from error in certain things, such as concerns the deposit of the faith. But he would not be able to teach, in his official role as a Teacher, errors that are contrary to the Catholic Faith.

There is something more to this.. which I cannot get too fully into because I am not as well versed in it as I would wish to be. But I believe that if the Pope is declared a formal heretic, then he is no longer the Pope.

[Sahson]

Saint Joseph is the patron of work and labor, so who is the patron of luck, or is there none?

[Murphy]

Saint Joseph is the patron of work and labor, so who is the patron of luck, or is there none?

No such thing as luck.

[Groenewolf]

There is something more to this.. which I cannot get too fully into because I am not as well versed in it as I would wish to be. But I believe that if the Pope is declared a formal heretic, then he is no longer the Pope.

But then who must issue this formal declaration? As far as I know only the pope has the final authority over these kind of things. I am thinking about the little I know about excommunication.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Saint Joseph is the patron of work and labor, so who is the patron of luck, or is there none?

Here a whole list of saints,DV is missing though.:D he could be luckymojo

http://www.luckymojo.com/patronsaints.html

[Murphy]

But then who must issue this formal declaration? As far as I know only the pope has the final authority over these kind of things. I am thinking about the little I know about excommunication.

A Pope can be condemned by a general council. There was once a Pope, and excuse me for not remembering his name or names and dates of others, whom held to a heresy against the Faith.

A Cardinal called for a General Council of the Bishops to condemn this Pope as a heretic. Said Pope settled himself down quick enough :D!

But again, I am on very shaky ground here, as it's very legalistic. You'll need to take what I say with a pinch of salt right now until I can provide something more authoritative.

[Grey]

So, here's one I've never gotten a good answer about (rural American Catholics aren't usually well-versed in Catholic dogma): When an unbaptized infant dies (stillborn, etc.) does their soul go to Hell, Purgatory, or Limbo and why? I've never particularly liked the idea that we're born tainted (unrefined, perhaps, but not tainted), and that's a major reason for my earlier rejection of Catholicism.

[Tomasz]

So, here's one I've never gotten a good answer about (rural American Catholics aren't usually well-versed in Catholic dogma): When an unbaptized infant dies (stillborn, etc.) does their soul go to Hell, Purgatory, or Limbo and why? I've never particularly liked the idea that we're born tainted (unrefined, perhaps, but not tainted), and that's a major reason for my earlier rejection of Catholicism.

Very good question, I'm waiting for answer. :)

[Wyn]

When an unbaptized infant dies (stillborn, etc.) does their soul go to Hell, Purgatory, or Limbo and why?

Their precise fate is unknown. Purgatory though is a state prior to heaven for those who die in a state of Grace, not a condition in which a soul spends eternity. It has to be said that Limbo is not that commonly an expressed belief any more (in my opinion) and I don't think very many supposed that the souls of infants went to hell.

Anyway, from the CCC:

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Sorry once again DV...

[Murphy]

So, here's one I've never gotten a good answer about (rural American Catholics aren't usually well-versed in Catholic dogma): When an unbaptized infant dies (stillborn, etc.) does their soul go to Hell, Purgatory, or Limbo and why? I've never particularly liked the idea that we're born tainted (unrefined, perhaps, but not tainted), and that's a major reason for my earlier rejection of Catholicism.

Original Sin does not mean you are tainted.. Original Sin is simply being born in a state in which you do not have Sanctifying Grace. And grace is a gift from God, you do not deserve it and you have no right to it.

Now, as for the fate of the unbaptised.. Caed provided a quote from the CCC, but that's most speculation and should be ignored. What we do know is that for one to enter Heaven, they must be baptised. No two ways around it.

But God is Just, so infants who die without baptism are not consigned to a fate of suffering. They exist in Limbo, with a natural happiness. They will not see the Beatific Vision but nor will they suffer the fires.

[Tomasz]

What's with people of other religions. What happens to them after death?

Is there a difference between someone consciously rejects christianity and someone who didn't had a chance of knowing it (born in different culture for example)?

What's with non-catholic christians?

[Murphy]

What's with people of other religions. What happens to them after death?

Is there a difference between someone consciously rejects christianity and someone who didn't had a chance of knowing it (born in different culture for example)?

What's with non-catholic christians?

If they live good lives, and through no fault of their own have never even heard of Christ or His Gospel, they make it to Limbo.

If others, who have heard the Truth of the Catholic Faith, and reject it, well, that's a road to hell.

[Tomasz]

Catholic faith? So if someone is, say, protestant then he's going to burn in hell anyway? Despite being christian?

[Murphy]

Catholic faith? So if someone is, say, protestant then he's going to burn in hell anyway? Despite being christian?

Protestantism is the road to hell yes.

Christ established His Church, the Catholic Church. He gave His Church authority and protection. He didn't found a West Baptist Reformation of 1898 congregation.

[Tolleson]

Protestantism is the road to hell yes.

Christ established His Church, the Catholic Church. He gave His Church authority and protection. He didn't found a West Baptist Reformation of 1898 congregation.

I'm just glad that you are tolerant of other faiths and find value in their existence. :thumb001: :D

[Eldritch]

To what extent are depictions of the Devil and demons in religious art to be taken literally, and to which extent should we consider them allegorical (if that's the right word)?

http://www.city-journal.org/assets/images/20_3-td.jpg

[Grey]

In reality, then, even though they don't suffer eternally, unbaptized infants and those who never heard of Christ but lived good lives are still second-class people and get stuck in Heaven-lite?

[Murphy]

In reality, then, even though they don't suffer eternally, unbaptized infants and those who never heard of Christ but lived good lives are still second-class people and get stuck in Heaven-lite?

It really cannot be compared to Heaven.

But I think you are approaching this in the wrong way.. God does not owe you anything. We are but worms to Him. Less so. But He came down to earth and assumed a fallen human nature, and He shed His Precious Blood on the Holy Cross for Our Salvation.

We owe God more than we can even repay, in fact this is a principal reason for Christ's Passion. He has paid our debt, he was purchased for us the rewards of eternal life.

It is open for all to take, but only a few will. And those that, for example are under pure ignorance for not knowing the Gospel.. it can all be traced back to man. The Gospel would have spread over the whole earth by now if not for man.

God is not denying men heaven, men are.

[Murphy]

To what extent are depictions of the Devil and demons in religious art to be taken literally, and to which extent should we consider them allegorical (if that's the right word)?

http://www.city-journal.org/assets/images/20_3-td.jpg

Satan and his fallen angels are exactly that: fallen angels. An angel is an immaterial spirit. They have no natural material existence. However, they can assume material forms. Such as when the angel defended Israel from the pagans or when the Archangel Gabriel appeared to the Blessed Virgin.

And so demons can take many forms. I am reminded of St Thomas Aquinas. I am sure you are aware of who he is and his importance to the Catholic Church. Well, because of his importance, Satan was loathe to let him rest. St Thomas one day went up to his cell (before he left for the Order of Preachers) and found in there many devils clothed in the flesh of young virgins dancing for him, naked as sin.

He fled of course and prayed to Our Lord.

But this is just an example. Satan does not always appear as a Dragon.

Though he often does, and in the end, St Michael by the power of God will ast him down into hell for good.

[Monolith]

We are but worms to Him. Less so.
I strongly disagree. We wouldn't exist if we weren't important to God.

[Murphy]

I strongly disagree. We wouldn't exist if we weren't important to God.

Oh no, I know that God loves us and we are important to Him. He did shed His Precious Blood for us did He not?

I meant in comparison to God, we are but worms. It was not a measure of God's infinite love for us.

[Eldritch]

Satan and his fallen angels are exactly that: fallen angels. An angel is an immaterial spirit. They have no natural material existence. However, they can assume material forms. Such as when the angel defended Israel from the pagans or when the Archangel Gabriel appeared to the Blessed Virgin.

And so demons can take many forms.
...

Satan does not always appear as a Dragon.

Though he often does, and in the end, St Michael by the power of God will ast him down into hell for good.

Gotcha.

*** *** ***

I'm not entirely serious with the next one, but this isn't full-blown trolling either.

As a Catholic, does this seems somehow bizarre, unhealthy, wrong or sick to you?

Original thread. (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=127185813)


I also love "bubbling" pictures. It's so hot. (picture example inside)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Being mormon, I can't look at porn or nudity. So I have to get creative.



That's why I invented "bubbling". Hard to explain so just scroll down:


http://a.imageshack.us/img816/227/54207590.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img814/9348/151lr.jpg

http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2010/09/02/1283447618-bubblemormonporn.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img835/4567/68966009.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img686/8872/1copyax.jpg

[Radojica]

What will happen with the people who are deliberately putting someone in danger, lie to them for their selfish reasons? Is love enough reason for those who are doing those things to be forgiven? Is it enough for them to pray to God to clean their sins and after that like nothing happened and they can continue to live their happy lives?

[Lithium]

Is it only linguistically or your god is represented like a man?

[Murphy]

As a Catholic, does this seems somehow bizarre, unhealthy, wrong or sick to you?

Very much so. And he's a fool if he thinks his sin of lust is in anyway lessened because there is no full-nudity in the images,

[Murphy]

What will happen with the people who are deliberately putting someone in danger, lie to them for their selfish reasons?

They have sinned against those they endanger and lie to and more importantly they have sinned against God. Sinning against God separates us from Him, which means we are deprived of grace.


Is love enough reason for those who are doing those things to be forgiven? Is it enough for them to pray to God to clean their sins and after that like nothing happened and they can continue to live their happy lives?

Sins can only be forgiven if someone is truly sorrowful for them. It is not enough to just jump into the confessional.

[Murphy]

Is it only linguistically or your god is represented like a man?

I'm sorry, what :P?

[Lithium]

I mean, your god is represented like a creature from male gender, is that true?

[Murphy]

I mean, your god is represented like a creature from male gender, is that true?

Well.. Christ is a man and He is God, so yes :D!

[Nodens]

Original thread. (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=127185813)

Call them crypto-Jews.

Znth9H-0-8g

[Radojica]

They have sinned against those they endanger and lie to and more importantly they have sinned against God. Sinning against God separates us from Him, which means we are deprived of grace.

Do I hear hell here? :confused: :(

That is surely not what I want :ohwell:


Sins can only be forgiven if someone is truly sorrowful for them. It is not enough to just jump into the confessional.

I told to that person that can wipe of ass with that confession because God will not forgive that, so I was not far from the truth in the end :swl?

[Psychonaut]

The church posits that matter and spirit are fundamentally different substances, right? That being the case, what is the official explanation of how they interact? Historically, this has been the biggest (some would say insurmountable) problem of dual-substance ontologies, and I'm curious what (if any) official explanation the church has.

[Murphy]

Do I hear hell here? :confused: :(

That is surely not what I want :ohwell:

If you commit a sin, then you are in grave danger of hell yes.


I told to that person that can wipe of ass with that confession because God will not forgive that, so I was not far from the truth in the end :swl?

I do not think I understand?

If one is truly sorrowful for their sins, and they go to the confessional, and confess their sins and receive absolution, then their sins have been forgiven. If someone is not sorry for their sins, and they go to the confessional, speak their sins aloud, and then leave, their sins have not been forgiven and they have committed an even greater sin in not only presuming on God's Mercy but also committed grave insult to the Holy Ghost.

[Murphy]

The church posits that matter and spirit are fundamentally different substances, right? That being the case, what is the official explanation of how they interact? Historically, this has been the biggest (some would say insurmountable) problem of dual-substance ontologies, and I'm curious what (if any) official explanation the church has.

I'm out of my waters here, Psychonaut. I can only recommend that you seek for your answers in the depths of Aquinas' Summa and save me the time of doing so my self :D!

I think, off the top of my head and how my current understanding of it works, is that the soul animates the material body.

[Äike]

Well.. Christ is a man and He is God, so yes :D!

Was Christ the guy who was nailed to a giant cross? Wasn't he the son of God?

[Tomasz]

Nevermind...

[Murphy]

Was Christ the guy who was nailed to a giant cross? Wasn't he the son of God?

Scutum Fidei. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity)

[Murphy]

[. . .].

You do not seem to understand what lust is. Lust is not the simple desire to procreate. A desire to procreate is natural, lust is a perversion of the good and natural desire.

[Äike]

Scutum Fidei. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity)

So... God was Jesus and at the same also in heaven? He was 2 individuals at the same time? Or when Jesus was alive, then was God only in the body of Jesus and he went back to heaven when the body of Jesus, died?

[Tomasz]

You do not seem to understand what lust is. Lust is not the simple desire to procreate. A desire to procreate is natural, lust is a perversion of the good and natural desire.

Well, I don't know maybe this word in Polish has a bit other meaning. By lust I meant "urge to procreate". So I guess we misunderstood each other. :embarrassed

But anyway, I don't see a reason, why we should believe in existence of providence. According to your religion, god gave us free will. Isn't it contradicting providence? As I understand it, god shouldn't interfere in the life of humans because they have free will after all and that's the root of all evil in this world. Please describe it to me.

[Murphy]

So... God was Jesus and at the same also in heaven? He was 2 individuals at the same time? Or when Jesus was alive, then was God only in the body of Jesus and he went back to heaven when the body of Jesus, died?

The Trinitarian dogma can be hard to understand, as it is a mystery of the Faith beyond the full conception of our limited human understanding.

God is One in Three Divine Persons. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The Son took to himself a fallen human nature which we give expression to by speaking of a Hypostatic Union (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm).

The above link should help explain the relationship between the humanity in Christ and the Divinity in Christ.

And also, don't forget, Christ didn't just die, He rose as well ;).

[Murphy]

Well, I don't know maybe this word in Polish has a bit other meaning. By lust I meant "urge to procreate". So I guess we misunderstood each other. :embarrassed

Yes, it was just a misunderstanding. Do not forget, God did say go forth and multiply ;). The Catholic faith completely supports procreation. Do not forget, it is Protestant that allows for condoms that work against procreation and it is liberal-atheism that allows for abortion, which kills the unborn.


But anyway, I don't see a reason, why we should believe in existence of providence. According to your religion, god gave us free will. Isn't it contradicting providence? As I understand it, god shouldn't interfere in the life of humans because they have free will after all and that's the root of all evil in this world. Please describe it to me.

I would like to answer the subject of providence and free will at a later date. I have an excellent article on it, but I will need to type it up from one of my books. So be patient for it ;).

[Psychonaut]

I'm out of my waters here, Psychonaut. I can only recommend that you seek for your answers in the depths of Aquinas' Summa and save me the time of doing so my self :D!

I think, off the top of my head and how my current understanding of it works, is that the soul animates the material body.

Hmm, I was hoping you guys had something a little more current...

Since Interactionist theories of mind/body dualism pretty much died off with Descartes, there've been plenty of independent Catholic thinkers who've proposed Idealist and Panpsychist theories, but it seems like official church doctrine still tends to favor spirit as a discrete substance, muddying the philosophical/theological waters.

[Murphy]

Hmm, I was hoping you guys had something a little more current...

Since Interactionist theories of mind/body dualism pretty much died off with Descartes, there've been plenty of independent Catholic thinkers who've proposed Idealist and Panpsychist theories, but it seems like official church doctrine still tends to favor spirit as a discrete substance, muddying the philosophical/theological waters.

Well, there is no official Church doctrine on this relationship in normal men, as far as I understand it. What you mean, I think, is that the current accepted standard by the majority of the theologians of the Church is that of Aquinas' et cetera?

That may be the case, and it is completely open to debate amongst theologians. You would be surprised at how much room we Catholics actually have :P.

But again, I'm out of my depth on this subject.

[Loki]

The Trinitarian dogma can be hard to understand, as it is a mystery of the Faith beyond the full conception of our limited human understanding.


Yet it's humans who have come up with the idea. In fact, long before Christianity even the idea of a trinity of gods was seen in Zoroastrianism - Ahura Mazda, Anahita and Mitra.

[Murphy]

Yet it's humans who have come up with the idea. In fact, long before Christianity even the idea of a trinity of gods was seen in Zoroastrianism - Ahura Mazda, Anahita and Mitra.

See, Loki here is a fine example of a limited human capability to understand. Christians do not believe in three gods, we believe in One God in Three Divine Persons.

But Loki, I did not intend this as a thread for debate, instead a thread for the actual teachings of the Church, as best as I can supply them.

[Nodens]

Christians do not believe in three gods, we believe in One God in Three Divine Persons.

And some Vedists believe the same.

[Psychonaut]

And some Vedists believe the same.

:nod:

The triple God is one of the most strikingly Indo-European adaptive leaps that Christianity made from Judaism.

[Lutiferre]

The church posits that matter and spirit are fundamentally different substances, right? That being the case, what is the official explanation of how they interact? Historically, this has been the biggest (some would say insurmountable) problem of dual-substance ontologies, and I'm curious what (if any) official explanation the church has.

Perhaps the whole Aristotelian metaphysics of Aquinas is applicable here, as to how they material and immaterial interact. It is a matter of actus and potentia, form and matter; matter becomes actual in its form, and so is passive and contingent, whereas form is actual and active. In the Aristotelian world view, matter is not "force"; it's simply inactive, passive, "stuff", which is given "movement" by a being which is essentially form and not matter (God).

"Spirit" is comparable to "form", which in the form versus matter distinction, is that which is most purely actual; e.g., matter depends on its form for its actuality, and so, matter is more potential/contingent/passive than form, whereas form is the active, actual, and actualizing "agent".

Not sure that even helps, or is completely correct, but its a small fragment of what I remember of thomistic ontology.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

The church posits that matter and spirit are fundamentally different substances, right? That being the case, what is the official explanation of how they interact? Historically, this has been the biggest (some would say insurmountable) problem of dual-substance ontologies, and I'm curious what (if any) official explanation the church has.

Although not RC here is an interesting article
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:mmTYBbLw94EJ:www.mtnmath.com/willbe/rv.pdf+matter+and+spirit+communicate&hl=en&gl=za&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjy6qegotNp9OgEZFnQsGupDKWwWMrJJ5jJKf5H W8zVMkaDjd71V6qqJXeJ-QIfbhfj-a0xgDURIzLQIRBuQa_3FGePo2GpW5ZHZLK6mDfYXAG9TCtXwX3 KIFfjWssdDbVvl_j9&sig=AHIEtbT73F1C4cKFnoN6zQ1Q5AfXQ5l2YA

[Murphy]

Well, this papist has been to see the Pope of Rome, has attended a Papal Mass, and returned to convert the infidel.

Any more question?

[Eldritch]

Should Protestants, Muslims, atheists etc. be allowed to apply for help from Catholic charities?

And should Catholics accept help from Protestant charities?

[Murphy]

Should Protestants, Muslims, atheists etc. be allowed to apply for help from Catholic charities?

Of course. Look at Mother Teresa's work in India, it was not restricted to just Catholics.


And should Catholics accept help from Protestant charities?

I should think of no reason why not.

[Murphy]

I will no longer be doing apologetics on this forum. I will comment on issues of course and it will all be shaped by my Catholic faith, but I will refrain from arguments concerning doctrines, dogma, disciplines etcetera of the Catholic Church.

I think I've done a okay performance for my self here, but it is def' below standards of one who would presume to defend Holy Mother Church. Instead I will fall back on the greatest of weapons. The rosary.

I will be praying for Apricity's membership.

(NOTE: I am NOT leaving the Apricity. Just warning you that if you try to get into an argument with me on Church teaching, I will simply ignore you. However, if people have serious questions for me, then PM me.)

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I will no longer be doing apologetics on this forum. I will comment on issues of course and it will all be shaped by my Catholic faith, but I will refrain from arguments concerning doctrines, dogma, disciplines etcetera of the Catholic Church.

I think I've done a okay performance for my self here, but it is def' below standards of one who would presume to defend Holy Mother Church. Instead I will fall back on the greatest of weapons. [B] The rosary.[\B]

I will be praying for Apricity's membership.

(NOTE: I am NOT leaving the Apricity. Just warning you that if you try to get into an argument with me on Church teaching, I will simply ignore you. However, if people have serious questions for me, then PM me.)

http://cdn4.lookbook.nu/files/looks/medium/224207_rosary.jpg?1244061250 (http://lookbook.nu/look/157375-Barbie-Wants-to-be-Me-or-maybe-not)




1. Saint Rita Rosary




I bet you do:D

http://cdn3.lookbook.nu/images/check.gif?1285462669 You're a fan

[Murphy]

Back to taking questions. Can broaden it to questions on Church history and social teaching as well if you want.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Back to taking questions. Can broaden it to questions on Church history and social teaching as well if you want.

Murphy's law:Only a camel threads through a needle