Question for Catholics

[The Ressurrected One]

I know this has been asked and answered in various forms and in various threads throughout the virtual world of the internet but, just for grins;

Pope Benedict XVI Condemns Same-Sex Unions (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050606/ap_on_re_eu/pope_1)


ROME - Pope Benedict XVI condemned same-sex unions as anarchic "pseudo-matrimony" Monday and reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to abortion.

How do pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Catholics reconcile their positions with that of their church...and remain Catholic?

At least Martin Luther had the decency to leave the faith when he realized he could no longer reconcile his heart with the teachings of the religion.

Just curious.

[travis2]

Ask John Kerry.

Since I don't agree with gay marriage or abortion, I can't answer your question.

[DrRich]

That is a tough question to answer. But what you will find is that the majority of catholics are anti abortion and are against same-sex marriages. I have talked to pro-choice catholics and they have stated they are exactly that---pro-choice, not necessarily "pro-abortion". Many believe it is the right of the woman to choose but that they feel the pregancy should not be aborted. Most wish that abortion was not an option but don't want it to be illegal because women would have them anyway without the protection from unlicensed practioners.

As for same sex marriages, I for one don't care one way or the other, just don't call it marriage. Call it a civil union if you want to be legally jioned as husband and husband or wife and wife! Other Catholics I have talked to have similiar views, but there are also several that believe in strict adhereance to the Book of Genesis!

[Useruser666]

Don't ask, don't tell.

[Bandit2981]

I have talked to pro-choice catholics and they have stated they are exactly that---pro-choice, not necessarily "pro-abortion". Many believe it is the right of the woman to choose but that they feel the pregancy should not be aborted
somehow, that little tidbit always flies past TRO's head..lalalala i cant hear you!!

[The Ressurrected One]

somehow, that little tidbit always flies past TRO's head..lalalala i cant hear you!!
I'm pretty sure the church isn't "pro-choice" either. In fact, I'd say they're adamantly opposed to abortion and condemn those who receive them. Period.

So, how do you jibe a pro-choice position with that of the church?

[Bandit2981]

how can you take a church's doctrine for how to live your life seriously when they cover up for their own priests who molest children?

[DrRich]

We all know for a fact that the Church is pro-life. I believe that the majorty of Catholics are also pro-life, but there are some who could be considered pro-life and pro-chioce in the same breath. Yes, they would rather have the baby be born. But in a strict leagal sense, they are pro-choice for the sole purpose of preserving the woman's right to choose, not for her right to kill an innocent human being.

[The Ressurrected One]

how can you take a church's doctrine for how to live your life seriously when they cover up for their own priests who molest children?
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.

That's a whole other hornet's nest that makes me wonder why Catholicism is still a serious religion.

[DrRich]

Catholism is still a serious religion because it is the Original church of JESUS CHRIST. Now, before I say this understand I am not condoning any of the church's actions with certain priests. But you also have to know you cannot condemn the Entire church because of the action of less that 1% of its priest. Yeah, this is a very bad black-eye for the Catholic Church, but changes are being made to improve these situations.

The good that the Catholic Church and its preists do for the world as a whole far outweigh the bad!

BTW, There are Baptist ministers that have affairs and so forth. Does that mean we condemn the entire Baptist Church as a religion? No, of course not!

[MannyIsGod]

I can't say that I'm really a catholic other than in conformation only, but I think it could be a rather simple explanation.

I don't know anyone that is proabortoin, just pro choice. You don't want people to take that action, but that doesn't mean you have a legal right to stop them from doing so. Laws are not determined from church law, only your actions are.

And as far as same sex marriage, it's the same thing. The catholic church doesn't have to acknowledge the union, but government marriages are a totaly seperate institution.

[MannyIsGod]

It amazes me how some of the supposed straunchest believers are some of the ones who have such little grasp on the spirit of their religions.

[MannyIsGod]

So, how do you jibe a pro-choice position with that of the church?
How do you justify not making adultery against the law when it's against church law?

[desflood]

Some people of weak personality have only their faith to believe in, right or wrong.

[The Ressurrected One]

I can't say that I'm really a catholic other than in conformation only, but I think it could be a rather simple explanation.

I don't know anyone that is proabortoin, just pro choice. You don't want people to take that action, but that doesn't mean you have a legal right to stop them from doing so. Laws are not determined from church law, only your actions are.

And as far as same sex marriage, it's the same thing. The catholic church doesn't have to acknowledge the union, but government marriages are a totaly seperate institution.
We're not talking about law or the legality in stopping someone from marrying a same-sex partner or from ripping an unborn child from a womb.

We're talking about the Church's condemnation of the practices of abortion and same-sex unions, Manny. And, since you're not a "true" Catholic in that you don't really adhere -- or even try to adhere -- to church doctrine, I'm thinking the question wasn't directed at you.

[The Ressurrected One]

It amazes me how some of the supposed straunchest believers are some of the ones who have such little grasp on the spirit of their religions.
What are you talking about?

The Holy See says that Catholic Doctrine condemns abortion and same-sex marriage and you see some "spirit" in the doctrine that allows Catholics to wiggle out of the condemnation or, at the very least, ignore the practice in others?

[Bandit2981]

But you also have to know you cannot condemn the Entire church because of the action of less that 1% of its priest
this isnt just a case of "a few bad apples"...cover-ups and hush-hush orders came from high places as well, including the current pope...archbishop flores really took the cake though, when after covering for his molesting priests he has the gall to ask parishoners of the church to write him checks for the legal fees to help these same priests! man of god my ass.

[IX_Equilibrium]

I'm Catholic, and there are things about my religion I don't agree with. But, I won't switch religions because I won't agree 100% with ANY religion.

May as well be Cathlolic. We are the coolest and love beer. :smokin

[Useruser666]

how can you take a church's doctrine for how to live your life seriously when they cover up for their own priests who molest children?

So because a few people did something wrong you condem the whole?


I think it's very simple to be Catholic. Be a good Catholic for yourself and not others.

[Bandit2981]

So because a few people did something wrong you condem the whole?
Please read my other post. Cover-ups came from the highest levels.

[Spurminator]

Not every Catholic is at a high level. I disagree with the elders of my church in some situations, but I wouldn't necessarily leave the church over those disagreements.


We're not talking about law or the legality in stopping someone from marrying a same-sex partner or from ripping an unborn child from a womb.

We're talking about the Church's condemnation of the practices of abortion and same-sex unions, Manny.

I don't see any inconsistency with being pro-choice and pro-gay marriage but practicing a faith that considers them to be immoral. It IS a legality discussion, because being pro-choice or pro-gay marriage is strictly a position on whether those practices should be legal.

I think the people you are really meaning to ask these questions to are the ones who have been directly INVOLVED in gay marriages and abortions.

[The Ressurrected One]

Personally, in light of the Catholic Church's response to the pedophilia of even 1% of its priests and the practice of protecting financial assets at the expense of Christian principles, I think the Catholic Church long ago lost its moral authority and any serious and intelligent believer in Jesus Christ would have, by now, sought another community of faith with which to worship.

But, that's just me.

Anyway, I was more interested in how a true, believing Catholic who also condones abortion (under the guise of 'pro-choicedom') and supports gay-marriage, could remain in the faith when the Church's stance on the sanctity of life -- which, in Doctrine begins at conception -- and the sanctity of marriage -- which, in Doctrine is between a man and a woman.

You can leave the Church's moral lapses and corruption up to another thread.

[Bandit2981]

Not every Catholic is at a high level.
But the Pope is, no? Ratzinger was involved in making the molestation allegations go away for Father Marcial Maciel

When Cardinal Ratzinger was asked about the accusations he brushed the questions aside. On one occasion he literally slapped the wrist of an American television reporter, Brian Ross, who had the temerity to raise the issue. On another occasion Cardinal Ratzinger said: "One can't put on trial such a close friend of the Pope's as Marcial Maciel."

[Spurminator]

Sure the Pope is, but Catholics don't worship the Pope.

[The Ressurrected One]

Not every Catholic is at a high level. I disagree with the elders of my church in some situations, but I wouldn't necessarily leave the church over those disagreements.

I don't see any inconsistency with being pro-choice and pro-gay marriage but practicing a faith that considers them to be immoral. It IS a legality discussion, because being pro-choice or pro-gay marriage is strictly a position on whether those practices should be legal.

I think the people you are really meaning to ask these questions to are the ones who have been directly INVOLVED in gay marriages and abortions.
Actually, if you are a Catholic, I suspect you've been confirmed. And, during the confirmation process, you learn and agree to adhere to the Catholic catechism, right?

I'll bet if you go back and re-read your faith's affirmations, contained in the catechisms and other creeds, you'll find that to be in good standing, indeed, to be considered Catholic at all, you must adhere to all of the Church's Doctrine. They don't allow cherry-picking in the Catholic church. Nope. Not likely.

[The Ressurrected One]

Sure the Pope is, but Catholics don't worship the Pope.
But, doctrine considers the Pope infallible and a holy intercessor, no?

It's the whole reason Martin Luther left the church and plunged Christian religion into the crisis that left many dead but emerged reformed...and bifurcated.

[Spurminator]

I'm not Catholic. But I would assume the catechism does not require that a practicing Catholic hold a certain ideology when it comes to those issues.

[Spurminator]

But, doctrine considers the Pope infallible and a holy intercessor, no?

I can't speak for how the Pope is regarded by Catholics, but unless he's actually molesting children himself, I'm not sure that's a case of falliability. Full public disclosure is not an absolute Christian or Catholic virtue, as far as I know.

[Useruser666]

But the Pope is, no? Ratzinger was involved in making the molestation allegations go away for Father Marcial Maciel

Did Jesus try and cover up the allegations? Then STFU! Quite frankly, I don't care what anyone else says about any faiths I may or may not have. Sometimes that is especially true for people who claim to be of the same faith.

[The Ressurrected One]

I'm not Catholic. But I would assume the catechism does not require that a practicing Catholic hold a certain ideology when it comes to those issues.

Thought you'd never ask:


Catholic Catechism:


On Homosexuality

#2357Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex... Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained...tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.


On Abortion

#2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognised as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

#2271 Since the first century the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the new-born to perish...

#2272 Formal co-operation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life... the Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

#2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: 'The inalienable rights of the person must be recognised and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death... When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined... As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights.

#2275 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

[Spurminator]

#2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: 'The inalienable rights of the person must be recognised and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death... When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined... As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights.

Interesting, I've got nothing for that... I suppose I would need to hear from a Catholic on how permanent (and pertinent) certain sections of the catechism are.

As far as homosexuality, I'm still not sure that section requires that a Catholic hold an anti-gay marriage position, given that one can disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle while still believing that the government should be left out of it... but given the church/state implications of the previous section, I'm not positive that wasn't the intent.

[The Ressurrected One]

.
Well said.

[spurster]

Making all sins illegal is a position that can be shared with Islamicists.

[The Ressurrected One]

Making all sins illegal is a position that can be shared with Islamicists.
Okay, take a deep breath and re-read the original post in this thread.

We're not talking about making abortion or same-sex marriages illegal. We're talking about how a pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage Catholic squares their position with the church.

That's it. Period.

[Spurminator]

Well said.

I read fast and spoke too soon. See above.

[SPARKY]

So the doctrine of the Catholic Church is never wrong?

[The Ressurrected One]

So the doctrine of the Catholic Church is never wrong?
If you believe it is, you're obligated to work to change the doctrine or to leave the faith...not just ignore certain parts with which you don't agree.

Frankly, I believe the Catholic Doctrine is wrong on many, many, many things...it's why I'm not Catholic. Because, if it weren't for doctrine, I'd be one. They have the best churches!

[Duff McCartney]

Mom, can we go Catholic so we can get communion wafers and booze?

[scott]

Could it be the Catholics are smart enough to know that a one-size-fits-all approach to faith is retarded?


If you believe it is, you're obligated to work to change the doctrine or to leave the faith...not just ignore certain parts with which you don't agree.

Frankly, I believe the Catholic Doctrine is wrong on many, many, many things...it's why I'm not Catholic. Because, if it weren't for doctrine, I'd be one. They have the best churches!

Sounds like you have a misunderstanding of the Catholic church. There is no "adhere or leave" ultimatum. Maybe you are confusing being Catholic with being Republican.

[Guru of Nothing]

I think the Catholic Church long ago lost its moral authority and any serious and intelligent believer in Jesus Christ would have, by now, sought another community of faith with which to worship.


Can you list, explicitly, "communities of faith" (ironic, you speak with a Jesse Jackson-esque tongue here) which posess moral authority? Where can a serious, intelligent believer in Jesus Christ turn to?

Don't shrivel up on us.

[Gatita]

Could it be the Catholics are smart enough to know that a one-size-fits-all approach to faith is retarded?



Sounds like you have a misunderstanding of the Catholic church. There is no "adhere or leave" ultimatum. Maybe you are confusing being Catholic with being Republican.

:lol No shit.

[The Ressurrected One]

Sounds like you have a misunderstanding of the Catholic church. There is no "adhere or leave" ultimatum. Maybe you are confusing being Catholic with being Republican.
Last time I heard, you could be excommunicated (adhere or leave) from the Catholic Church but not the Republican Party (i.e. Log Cabin Republicans).

Seriously scott, get an MRI, you've gotten plain stupid lately...I fear for you health.

[IcemanCometh]

are you gonna start posting funny pictures of the pope again?

[The Ressurrected One]

are you gonna start posting funny pictures of the pope again?
Not me.

[Guru of Nothing]

Can you list, explicitly, "communities of faith" (ironic, you speak with a Jesse Jackson-esque tongue here) which posess moral authority? Where can a serious, intelligent believer in Jesus Christ turn to?

Don't shrivel up on us.

Jiminy Yonivores!

[The Ressurrected One]

Jiminy Yonivores!
I don't believe I've ever been compared to Jesse Jackson...however, you'll find that most Reformed Protestant faiths adhere to the Apostles Creed, having it's origins in the 1st Century and that much of the doctrine places all members on equal footing, pastors are not elevated above members and member are allowed to act on their conscience - as informed by scripture - when deciding matters of polity...even if it differs with the National organization.

Therefore, each church is free to worship Christ in its fashion as its member interpret the scripture -- guided by accepted creeds and doctrine.

[Guru of Nothing]

Apparently I'm on TROll's ignore list.

[The Ressurrected One]

Apparently I'm on TROll's ignore list.
No, I just overlooked your post before...nice play on the name.

[Guru of Nothing]

I don't believe I've ever been compared to Jesse Jackson...however, you'll find that most Reformed Protestant faiths adhere to the Apostles Creed, having it's origins in the 1st Century and that much of the doctrine places all members on equal footing, pastors are not elevated above members and member are allowed to act on their conscience - as informed by scripture - when deciding matters of polity...even if it differs with the National organization.

Therefore, each church is free to worship Christ in its fashion as its member interpret the scripture -- guided by accepted creeds and doctrine.

I'll ask again. Where can I turn to?

[Eric]

Last time I heard, you could be excommunicated (adhere or leave) from the Catholic Church but not the Republican Party (i.e. Log Cabin Republicans).

The comparison to the GOP is not unwarranted. Few, if any, are excommunicated from the RC church anymore. Like the GOP and it's LC Republicans, they prefer to take your money, while continuing to marginalize you and deny you any real place in the heirarchy. I think that LC Republicans are insane, anyway. There is no more fiscal restraint in the party, and the fundys would throw them into camps with pink triangles on if they thought they could get away with it.

[The Ressurrected One]

I'll ask again. Where can I turn to?
I'm sorry, last I checked I wasn't your spiritual advisor...

[The Ressurrected One]

The comparison to the GOP is not unwarranted. Few, if any, are excommunicated from the RC church anymore. Like the GOP and it's LC Republicans, they prefer to take your money, while continuing to marginalize you and deny you any real place in the heirarchy. I think that LC Republicans are insane, anyway. There is no more fiscal restraint in the party, and the fundys would throw them into camps with pink triangles on if they thought they could get away with it.
You act as though these people don't have a choice.

[NeoConIV]

I think perhaps a crash course in Catholicism is in order.

For a better understanding of the papacy and the role of the Pope in the Catholic Church, carefully look over the 11 docs here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

And for a serious discussion with some very knowledgable Catholics, here is a fantastic forum which welcomes people from all faiths and encourages good lively discussion over Catholic and non-Catholic apologetics:
http://forums.catholic.com/

[travis2]

I originally thought this was a serious question about the Catholic faith and how it interacts with the issues of the day.

Now I see it's just another expression of anti-Catholic bigotry.

How disappointing.

[SWC Bonfire]

This thread is a witch hunt. I admire and respect the catholics I know, as well as the clergy I know, they are good people.

[Guru of Nothing]

I'm sorry, last I checked I wasn't your spiritual advisor...

You are missing the point, on purpose I suspect.

You've done nothing here but wrap yourself in a smug sense of superiority with your religious beliefs, as they differ from the Catholic church.

Why don't you tell us a little about your church, so as to lend some credibility to your belief that Catholics not serious, intelligent believers in Jesus Christ .... unless you were not being serious.

[GopherSA]

As a strong, weekly Mass-attending, Confession-going, KofC member Catholic, I fully agree with the Church teachings on "gay matrimony" and abortion. As a Catholic, I also recognize that I'm a member of the original Christian church -- founded by Christ and given to St. Peter to lead in around 33AD.

As for other groups within the Christian family...

THE ORIGIN OF YOUR CHURCH

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded in Germany, by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Roman Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you are a Mennonite, your church began in Switzerland, by Grebel, Mantz, and Blaurock, in the year 1525.

If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in 1534, because the Pope could not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox, in Scotland, in the year 1560.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown, in Holland, in 1583.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam, in 1606.

If you are a Unitarian, your religion was founded in London, by John Biddle, in 1645.

If you are an Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England, founded by Samuel Seabury in the American Colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Quaker, your religion was founded by George Fox, in England, in 1647.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley, in England, in 1739.

If you are a Universalist, John Murray founded your religion in New Jersey, in 1770.

If you are an Evangelical, you owe the founding of your religion to Jacob Albright,in Pennsylvania, in 1803.

If you are a Mormon, a "Latter Day Saint," then Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New York, in 1829.

If you are a Seventh Day Adventist, your religion originated in New York, by William Miller in 1831. ,

If you worship with the Salvation Army sect, then you acknowledge William Booth in London as your originator, in 1865.

If you are a Jehovah Witness, then your church was founded by Charles Taze Russell, in 1872, as the "Millennial Dawnists." In 1931, Judge Rutherford, his successor, decided that henceforth they would be called, Witnesses of Jehovah, or Jehovah Witness.

If you are a Christian Scientist, then Mary Baker Eddy founded your religion in Massachusetts, in 1879.

If you belong to the Assembly of God religion, then a General Assembly in Arkansas started it in 1914.

If you claim the Church of the Nazarene as your religion, then Union at General Assembly launched it in 1919.

If you are an Evangelical Reformed, then Union at General Assembly created it in 1934.

If you belong to "Pentecostal Gospel," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men in the last 100 years.

If you are a Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Our Lord Jesus Christ; the One True Faith, ". . . outside of which no one at all can be saved."

[The Ressurrected One]

You are missing the point, on purpose I suspect.

You've done nothing here but wrap yourself in a smug sense of superiority with your religious beliefs, as they differ from the Catholic church.

Why don't you tell us a little about your church, so as to lend some credibility to your belief that Catholics not serious, intelligent believers in Jesus Christ .... unless you were not being serious.
Jeeze, I just asked a simple question of Catholics...

[hunter-thereckoning]

the ressurected one always gets owned in the political forum, at least thats what i see from lurking 20 hrs a day

[mookie2001]

the ressurected one always gets owned in the political forum, at least thats what i see from lurking 20 hrs a day

again

[The Ressurrected One]

As a strong, weekly Mass-attending, Confession-going, KofC member Catholic, I fully agree with the Church teachings on "gay matrimony" and abortion.
Good for you.


As a Catholic, I also recognize that I'm a member of the original Christian church -- founded by Christ and given to St. Peter to lead in around 33AD.
This is no different than any other Christian religion...none of them have cut the books of Acts or any of the Gospels from the Bible.

The Roman Catholic Church, however, has taken liberties with the scripture that cannot be supported by history or content.

The one point that irrevocably sets the Catholic Church apart from all other versions of Christianity is the issue of the papacy. Catholics believe that the pope is the direct successor to Peter, a concept known as the apostolic succession, which vests the papacy with a mandate to lead Catholicism which supposedly dates back to Jesus himself.

In its modern form, the most meaningful part of this mandate is known as infallibility. The doctrine of papal infallibility teaches that the pope is incapable of making an error when it comes to matters of religious teaching. In recent years, this concept has been sharply limited in its application and includes only specific kinds of papal proclamations.

The need for such a limitation became clear pretty early in Church history. By the close of Christianity's first millennium, the papacy had been occupied by some truly mindblowing hedonists and degenerates.

The phrase "died while committing adultery" appears surprisingly often when you review the annals of the Vatican. The list of popes includes such distinguished figures as John XII, who had sex with his mother and sisters; John VIII, who may have been a female transvestite masquerading as a man; Clement V, who unleashed the terrors of the Inquisition against the Knights Templar in a naked grab for the society's valuable real estate; and Sergius III, who reportedly fathered an illegitimate child through incest and then installed that child as Pope John XI.

Many non-Catholics have trouble understanding how this extremely uneven track record can possibly reflect the divine mandate implied by the doctrine of the apostolic succession. The confusion deepens when you see just how spotty the actual succession can be.

For the first 100 years after the birth of Christ, there exists only a bare approximation of a historical record to vindicate the notion that the papacy goes all the way back to Peter. If you can get past that rather significant point, you then find that there is no particular indication that the early Christians gave any special or universal rank to the pope, who was then known simply as the bishop of Rome.

The most powerful early Christian bishoprics included Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, but many other bishops were well-represented and politically powerful.

When Constantine wanted to unify the church, he didn't rely on Sylvester, the Bishop of Rome at that time. He called in all 250-plus bishops from around Christendom, all of whom had their own special ideas of what constituted a Church. Pope Sylvester I was barely a footnote to the proceedings.

Then there's the "unbroken succession" issue. For most of the Catholic Church's history, the selection of popes has been a haphazard affair. Sometimes popes were elected, at other times they were appointed. Some popes chose their own successors. On several occasions, popes were installed or deposed by the military might of Roman emperors and Italian kings.

Sometimes there were two claimants to the papacy at once, or even three. Such "antipopes" began to appear with alarming regularity as early as the third century of the Church. There were at least 30 before the election of popes was standardized in the 16th century.

The leading status of the Bishop of Rome was, at first, a secular political consideration. Rome was the heart of the Roman Empire, which became Christian in the wake of Constantine I. Naturally, the Bishop of Rome was in a position to represent himself effectively.

Up until the fourth century, the word "pope" wasn't even specific to Rome and applied to any bishop. Etymologically speaking, the beginning of the papacy can be traced to Pope Siricus — the 38th bishop of Rome installed at the end of the fourth century, according to the list used by the church, who ruled on various doctrinal matters as if his opinion was the one that mattered. The actual stated doctrine of infallibility evolved slowly over the centuries that followed, but it wasn't precisely codified until the end of the 19th century.

The nature of the papacy has also varied wildly throughout the years. From the eighth century through medieval times, popes frequently took an active role in global politics, even going so far as to launch wars from time to time. In contrast, the 21st century papacy is politically impotent, ruling a few square miles of Vatican City.

I know, I'm a heretic by Catholic standards and, were it not for progresses in civilization, I would be hunted down by the Vatican Army and made to answer for my heresy!

That's what they tried to do to Martin Luther in the 1500's after he posted his 95 Theses to the door of the Catholic church in Vittenburg, Germany in 1519. But, after Martin Luther made a convincing argument that Catholic "indulgences" (buying yourself and/or a dead loved one out of pergutory) in a trial held, thankfully, in Germany instead of Rome (where the church would have surely burned him at the stake), public opinion was forever changed.

Combined with the recent invention of the printing press, Christians -- all of whom, to that point, were Catholics were exposed to the written scriptures and to Luther's findings of Catholicisms shortcomings. This led to a bloody revolution in the church which resulted in...

Lutheranism...

This is reformation movement keyed on removing centuries of Catholic dogma and canonical nonsense that had accumulated over the preceding 15 centuries of Papal nonsense and Governmental intrusion (the most significant of which was probably the co-opting of the church be the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 300's).

As has been stated, within the Reformation Movement, Reformed Churches are always reforming and that has led to the many other Reformed denomination splintering off the Lutheran Church.

A lot of the other "churches" mentioned by Gopher, which are not a direct offshoot of the Catholic or Reformed Churches were, generally, invented by a person or group of people who couldn't abide some of the specific doctrine upon which most Reformed and Catholic church agree.

The big ones are the Nicene Creed, followed by the Apostles Creed... Both similar in construct and both adhered to by most churches that consider themselves extensions of those first apostles, that band of 12, who moved out and spread the Good News!

[travis2]

*sigh*

So we know you've read Boettner. How nice.

[NeoConIV]

The one point that irrevocably sets the Catholic Church apart from all other versions of Christianity is the issue of the papacy.

Actually, I would deem the Holy Eucharist as the one point that irrevocably sets the Catholic Church apart from all other denominations. This is THE reason Catholics attend Mass every Sunday, or at least it should be.

The Catholic Church through the ages have had many well documented trials and tribulations. I don't think any Catholic would be doing well to cover these up. They are there, period. But does anyone really believe that when Christ handed over the keys of the Church to a bunch of ordinary men with Peter at the helm, that everything would go flawlessly through the centuries? Because the Catholic Church is the Church Christ handed down, this does not mean that the human caretakers are automatically given the gift of perfection to lead the Church. It was and is going to get bumpy at times. To suggest otherwise is just crazy I tell ya.

Hey Resurrected One, I do encourage you to float some of your propositions at the Catholic Answers forum, you will get very informed responses. If you got the time and inclination that is.

[The Ressurrected One]

Actually, I would deem the Holy Eucharist as the one point that irrevocably sets the Catholic Church apart from all other denominations. This is THE reason Catholics attend Mass every Sunday, or at least it should be.

The Catholic Church through the ages have had many well documented trials and tribulations. I don't think any Catholic would be doing well to cover these up. They are there, period. But does anyone really believe that when Christ handed over the keys of the Church to a bunch of ordinary men with Peter at the helm, that everything would go flawlessly through the centuries? Because the Catholic Church is the Church Christ handed down, this does not mean that the human caretakers are automatically given the gift of perfection to lead the Church. It was and is going to get bumpy at times. To suggest otherwise is just crazy I tell ya.

Hey Resurrected One, I do encourage you to float some of your propositions at the Catholic Answers forum, you will get very informed responses. If you got the time and inclination that is.

Thanks NeoCon.

Reformed faiths celebrate the Eucharist as a sacrament. We just don't believe in the transubstantiation of the elements. We also cannot find scriptural support for much more than the sacraments of eucharist and baptism; albeit, some reformed faiths hold marriage to be sacramental. Catholics, on the other hand, have managed to arrive at 9, over the centuries...including Baptism, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction (Last Rites).

Also, while I grant that no religion is without its flaws, as you suggested, the Roman Catholic Church and the modern Church of Christ are the only two who claim to have a direct lineage from the apostles; the rest of us are satisfied to claim that we adhere to Christ's teachings as informed by divine scripture through the Gospels, epistles, and Old Testament accounts.

So, even though the Roman Catholic Church has committed great sins throughout its known history, its greatest may be that it continues to claim to trace its roots from one person to another all the way back to Peter himself. When, in fact, it is well established that much of the papal history between 67 A.D. and about 310 A.D., with official coopting of the faith by the Roman Government, much has been made up out of whole cloth with little appreciation of the facts or absence thereof.

The term Pope is never mentioned in the Bible and the only time you see Holy Father is when Christ Himself is addressing His Father, God. The first "Pope," Peter, never behaved as modern Popes do. He was deferential and even counted himself as equal to his peers. No one bowed or kissed his ring...if, even, he owned a ring.

[NeoConIV]

Reformed faiths celebrate the Eucharist as a sacrament. We just don't believe in the transubstantiation of the elements.
This difference is EVERYTHING.

[The Ressurrected One]

This difference is EVERYTHING.
There no scriptural support for the transubstantiation of the elements...sorry.

We'll just have to disagree.

[GopherSA]

Uh, umm..."Ressurrected"...there is.

John, Chapter 6:

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

[scott]

Last time I heard, you could be excommunicated (adhere or leave) from the Catholic Church but not the Republican Party (i.e. Log Cabin Republicans).

Seriously scott, get an MRI, you've gotten plain stupid lately...I fear for you health.

Are the puritans still burning witches in Town Square too?

Pope or President Quiz: Who Said It?

"You are either with us or against us."

[Guru of Nothing]

You are missing the point, on purpose I suspect.

You've done nothing here but wrap yourself in a smug sense of superiority with your religious beliefs, as they differ from the Catholic church.

Why don't you tell us a little about your church, so as to lend some credibility to your belief that Catholics not serious, intelligent believers in Jesus Christ .... unless you were not being serious.


Jeeze, I just asked a simple question of Catholics...

Your reticence exceeds even Jesse Jackson's.

Game over.

[smeagol]

WOW TRO, you really hate Catholics.

And to drive your point home, you quote Boettner, a bigot who has spent more than 50 years publishing hate-books about Catholicism.

Thanks for helping unify the Christian denominations with your posts. Very ecumenical.

[Guru of Nothing]

Thanks for helping unify the Christian denominations with your posts.

Unification?! Haha.

Christians will always be divided.

Human nature (emphasis on nature) trumps God!

[Guru of Nothing]

Unification!!

http://www.ggrw.org/RNCCarrie_DonKing2.jpg

I'm with you fellers.
http://image.pathfinder.com/ew/features/001222/bestof2000/img/brother.jpg

[The Ressurrected One]

WOW TRO, you really hate Catholics.
Not at all. I just don't think they are who they claim to be.


And to drive your point home, you quote Boettner, a bigot who has spent more than 50 years publishing hate-books about Catholicism.

So, refute the points.


Thanks for helping unify the Christian denominations with your posts. Very ecumenical.
Any time...

[GopherSA]

Wait, wait...I'm sure I can ID TRO's next source for information on my Church...

JACK CHICK.

Or will you choose some other flaky bigot to quote?

[The Ressurrected One]

Wait, wait...I'm sure I can ID TRO's next source for information on my Church...

JACK CHICK.

Or will you choose some other flaky bigot to quote?

Okay, give me the documentation that shows a direct link between Benedict and Peter.

Show me where the Church responded to Luther's 95 Theses. Yeah, 500 years later they claim to have responded but, alas, nothing in writing...

How long was it before the Catholic Church allowed parishoners to read the actual Bible? And, what happened when Luther provided one in their native tongue?

[Guru of Nothing]

Show me where the Church responded to Luther's 95 Theses.

Show me your denomination.

Is your first name Noel?

[GopherSA]

Early Christians recognized Peter as the rock on which Jesus declared he would build his Church; that this gave Peter a special primacy; and that Peter traveled to Rome, where he was martyred. In this tract we will show that the Fathers also recognized that the bishop of Rome—the pope—continued to serve in Peter’s role in subsequent generations of the Church.


Irenaeus

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).


Tertullian

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).


The Little Labyrinth

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).


Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).


Pope Julius I

"[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).


Council of Sardica

"[I]f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).


Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

[GopherSA]

What about the Bible?

The Catholic Church was the first Christian denomination to commission a mass printing of the Bible by asking Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, to do so in 1447.

Non-Catholic Christians may accuse the Catholic Church of not allowing the common people to read the Bible before the Reformation, but what good would it have done for the Catholic Church to widely distribute the Bible to the masses when over 90% of the common people were illiterate and couldn't read anyway?

The Catholic Mass has always included Scriptural readings from both the Old and New Testaments and Catholic priests have always "preached" the Word of God to the common people throughout history.

[GopherSA]

I'll address the Martin Luther issue later. You see, this Catholic was raised Lutheran.

But this Catholic also has to go to work in the morning.

[travis2]

Lies to Refute I -- The Real Presence

I wrote this essay a while back to get my thoughts down on paper as to why I believe the Real Presence. I've drawn from a few sources, but my main source of information was www.catholic.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------

John 6:51-58 says "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

In many places in the Gospels, Jesus repeated Himself whenever he wanted to drive home a point. This is one of those places. When questioned about what He said, He did not change His words, He did not try to "soften the blow"...He said what He meant and He meant what he said.
This is further emphasized when the Apostles questioned Him about it. Verses 60-69 say: Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

Again, He didn't try to explain, He didn't reword it. He said what he meant and he meant what he said.

Luke 22:19: Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." Jesus did NOT say "This is in place of my body". Nor did He say "This is a symbol of my body". Nor any other circumlocution. He said "This is my body".

Paul accepts the Real Presence in his own letters. In 1 Cor 11:23-29, he writes: "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. "

He is not speaking figuratively here; he is speaking of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, something the early Church already knew to be true. And note one particular phrase in there..."will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord". In Paul's day, this phrase meant to be guilty of homicide. How can you be guilty of homicide if all you are doing is eating a piece of bread? No...the only thing that makes sense is that you truly are eating the body and blood of Christ...and to do so unworthily is to call judgement upon yourself.

The early Church fathers also recognized the Real Presence. Around the year 110, Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of John) wrote the following in a letter to the Smyrnaeans:

"...they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again."

Another early Church father, Justin Martyr, wrote in his "First Apology" (about 40 years after the above quote)...

"Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

These are but 2 of many writings on the Eucharist by men who had reason to know the early truth...these were men removed from witnessing Jesus' ministry by only a few generations. The teachings of Jesus, as spread by Paul and the Apostles, were still fresh and new...and even then the Real Presence of Christ was recognized as a central truth.


Lie refuted

[travis2]

Lies to Refute II -- The Church Didn't Allow Parishioners to Read the Bible

This lie is often perpetrated by those who take Boettner at his word in his work "Roman Catholicism". In here, he claims the Bible was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia in 1229.

Several problems arise. From www.catholic.com:

"...Boettner has his history completely wrong. The first thing to note is that the Index of Forbidden Books was established in 1559, so a council held in 1229 could hardly have listed a book on it.

The second point is that there apparently has never been any Church council in Valencia, Spain. If there had been one, it could not have taken place in 1229 because Muslim Moors then controlled the city. It is inconceivable that Muslims, who were at war with Spanish Christians, and had been off and on for five centuries, would allow Catholic bishops to hold a council in one of their cities. The Christian armies did not liberate Valencia from Moorish rule until nine years later, 1238. So Valencia is out.

But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation..."

Another point to make...In some places you will read that Bibles were kept under chain, lock and key in churches. This is absolutely true. But why? To keep the unwashed and unworthy from reading it? Hardly. As is usual with lies fomented and advanced in bigotry, the truth is easily explained and rather boring.

Before the invention of the printing press, Bibles were (of course) hand-crafted and very expensive. There was only one Bible to a church...if that church was lucky. If a church lost its Bible, it could be years before they could get it replaced...assuming they could. So...they were treated as any reasonable person would treat an item of high value...they were usually chained to a platform in church where it could be accessed, but not removed.

Lie refuted.

This leads to the third lie to refute...

[travis2]

Lies to Refute III -- The Church Didn't Allow Bibles in Vernacular Languages

An oft-repeated lie is that the Protestant churches were the first to produce a Bible in the native tongue of the people who would read it. Once again, the truth is easily obtained.

At least portions of the Bible were available in Old English as far back as the 7th century. In the 9th century the Bible was available in Old Slavonic. There were also French and German translations, at least in part.

Once again, one problem was that Bibles were hand-copied, not printed. To produce a vernacular version, first the translation from Latin had to occur. As is proven prima facie by the approved existence of non-Latin Bibles, approval of a translation was possible. However, it was very inconvenient.

You may hear the names Wycliff and Tyndale associated with a supposed ban on English Bibles. The truth is not very favorable towards these gentlemen (which explains why you might not have heard it). John Wycliff produced an English Bible that was, yes, condemned by the Catholic Church. Because it was in English? No...because Wycliff was a heretic. Most notably, he denied the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Tyndale, you might hear, was executed by the Church for producing an English Bible. Once again, not true. His translation was also full of errors and heresies, so it (like the Wycliff Bible) was condemned. Further, the Church did not execute him...the Holy Roman Emperor did.

A brief story of Tyndale for www.catholic.com:

"...It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, "Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff"). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

Which, as it turns out, is just what William Tyndale did. Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.

Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.

Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the "father of the English Bible." But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people."

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609)..."

Lie refuted

[The Ressurrected One]

Uh, umm..."Ressurrected"...there is.

John, Chapter 6:

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”
This saying, or something similar to it, is given in three of the four gospels and in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. In all accounts, Jesus is quoted as saying, "this is My body" referring to the unleavened bread and "this is My blood of the covenant" referring to the cup. However, it is obvious (to most) that from the situation that these words were not meant to be taken literally. How could Jesus, still present in His own body, say that bread and wine were His body and blood? Jesus told them to commemorate His sacrifice and New Covenant by using the bread and wine as symbols of His body and blood.

The primary passages cited to support the doctrine of transubstantiation, as provided by GopherSA:


Jesus therefore said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.”
But, if that is literal, why do we have darkness? After all, in John 8:12 Jesus said,


When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
Where is the gate in the Catholic Church?


Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. … I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.”
And, when is it, in our spiritual life, and what form does the sacrament take that we drink the “living water” offered to the Samaritan woman?


Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."
Does this mean that we should institute a church ordinance in which water is given to people in order to be saved? This is the most obvious example that Jesus was talking about the same thing in John 4 as John 6. In both instances, He used the term "living." Jesus is the "living bread" and the "living water." Neither example was referring to a physical reality, but to spiritual truth. Like the Jews in John 6, this Samaritan woman had no clue about what Jesus was talking about. As bread is required for physical life, so water is also required for physical life. Jesus provides the living (spiritual) water that is required for eternal life:


Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."
Jesus used many different physical, earthly examples of physical life in order to convey the reality of how to achieve spiritual (eternal) life. The bread, given in John 6, is just one of those examples of using an earthly example to convey spiritual truth. Jesus Himself defined His terms quite clearly as symbolic spiritual truth.

Reading John 6:53-56 out of context makes it look like Roman Catholics have a good point that Jesus indicated that you must eat His body and blood. However, you will find a different meaning when we examine the entire chapter in the context of what Jesus was saying. So, get out your Bible and follow along as we look at John 6 to determine if it really is literal or symbolic.

The chapter begins with the feeding of the 5,000 with bread and fish. It is not coincidence that this event, which takes place at the beginning of the chapter is referenced again at the point that Jesus declares Himself to be the bread of life. The crowd that had been fed real bread at the beginning of the chapter were back to get another free handout:


Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. “


The crowd then asked Jesus, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
You will notice that He did not mention anything about eating, but only about believing.

If we interpret the verses that you must literally eat Jesus' body and blood, we run into some obvious problems. First, the verses claim that you must eat His body and drink His blood to have eternal life. Over and over again in this chapter, Jesus made it clear that eternal life came from believing in Him. We "eat" Jesus only in a spiritual sense. Eating is not a spiritual act - only believing. The thief on the cross did not eat Jesus' body or drink His blood, so Jesus lied when He told him that He would be with Him in heaven that very day. Of course Jesus did not lie! The man believed in Jesus and was given eternal life without eating His body and drinking His blood. In John chapter 6, Jesus was illustrating spiritual truths with earthly examples. Eternal life comes from belief, not eating the Eucharist.

The second problem is that if one were to interpret the entire discourse in terms of the Eucharist, Jesus would have been talking utter nonsense to the Jews. Why would Jesus be telling the unsaved Jews about the Eucharist, which was to be given to the church, but had not even been instituted yet? He wasn't! Jesus was trying to make them understand that belief in Him (the bread from heaven) was the only way gain eternal (spiritual) life.

Jesus ends the discourse by telling them that He was talking about spiritual truths:


The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”
Jesus establishes the metaphor He will use throughout the sermon that coming, believing, eating, drinking - all of these lead to eternal life. They are not different things but the same thing. Jesus is directing those who were seeking merely physical benefits from Him to the fact that He does not promise such things: He promises spiritual nourishment to all who come to Him as their source.

Has the Catholic Church always believed in transubstantiation?

Pope Augustine, in commenting on John 6:53-56 said:


Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but you are in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby you are refreshed, does not fail. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; you will have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, It is the Spirit that gives life, but the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life."
Augustine also indicated that the sacrament was to be commemorated, but not relived:


"Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament.
Then, you have the question of why is Christ only physically present at the Eucharist? Roman Catholics take comfort in the idea that Jesus is with them at communion. However, before He left Earth, Jesus promised to be with us always, until He returns in glory:


”Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Jesus is with each believer at all times, not just when we take communion. I find that very reassuring and trust that it is true.

[travis2]

I took care of your concerns about literal/metaphorical interpretations in my #1 post. I can only assume you didn't read it.

[The Ressurrected One]

I took care of your concerns about literal/metaphorical interpretations in my #1 post. I can only assume you didn't read it.
First, I was responding to Gopher's post from yesterday and second, no you didn't...you just repeated church dogma.

I won't quibble over whether or not the church allowed bibles...I do believe the Inquisitions and the violent response to Luther's theses demonstrate how oppressive, intolerant to dissention, and evil the church was in the 16th century. Not to mention the exploitation of the poor and illiterate by selling indulgences and other such nonsense so the Roman Cardinal could rebuild the Vatican treasure (after he had plundered it) and raise St. Peter's Basillica.

But, I see absolutely no reason to believe there is an unbroken lineage between the current Pope and Peter and, frankly, I think my post to Gopher answers your "lie refuted" post on transubstantiation quite well, thank you.

And, I know this is a question the Catholic Church has struggled with over the centuries.

And, frankly, considering the character and pure debauchery engaged in by many of the Pontiffs over the course of history, I cannot imagine any of them being in a lineage with one of the original apostles.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I think the Catholic Church is a big money corporation that must perpetuate the myths of their origin in order to remain viable.

That's the only thing that would explain why they would abdicate their inherited moral imperative to do right and good and just when faced with costly Priest pedophilia crisis. A true Christian church would have accepted responsibility and lived with the consequences.

[travis2]

First, I was responding to Gopher's post from yesterday and second, no you didn't...you just repeated church dogma.

Uh...no, I didn't.


I won't quibble over whether or not the church allowed bibles...I do believe the Inquisitions and the violent response to Luther's theses demonstrate how oppressive, intolerant to dissention, and evil the church was in the 16th century. Not to mention the exploitation of the poor and illiterate by selling indulgences and other such nonsense so the Roman Cardinal could rebuild the Vatican treasure (after he had plundered it) and raise St. Peter's Basillica.

Uh, nothing such is demonstrated except you merely believe and perpetuate the worst anti-Catholic bigotries. History proves you wrong.


But, I see absolutely no reason to believe there is an unbroken lineage between the current Pope and Peter and, frankly, I think my post to Gopher answers your "lie refuted" post on transubstantiation quite well, thank you.

Ummmmm...you completely ignored much of the Scriptural proof I gave, so I must respectfully disagree.


And, I know this is a question the Catholic Church has struggled with over the centuries.

Define "struggle". If you mean that there have always been those on the anti-transubstantiation side of the fence, you would be correct. If you mean it was ever a major question in the Church, you would be wrong.


And, frankly, considering the character and pure debauchery engaged in by many of the Pontiffs over the course of history, I cannot imagine any of them being in a lineage with one of the original apostles.

Have there been scoundrels? Of course. The Pope is still but a man. However, your "imagining" has nothing to do with reality.


Sorry, I don't buy it. I think the Catholic Church is a big money corporation that must perpetuate the myths of their origin in order to remain viable.

That's the only thing that would explain why they would abdicate their inherited moral imperative to do right and good and just when faced with costly Priest pedophilia crisis. A true Christian church would have accepted responsibility and lived with the consequences.

Please provide your proof (sources please) that the Catholic Church is any worse than any Protestant church in this regard.

And your assertion that it's the "only thing" is hardly logical.

You of course are free to disagree with what the Church teaches. I merely ask that you learn the facts instead of engaging in bigotry and hateful rhetoric. Many non-Catholics disagree with the Church on many issues and don't have to stoop to such things.

[GopherSA]

Believe as you wish, TRO.

It's your call. Just don't spew recycled hatred when you discuss my church. There are many, many things that could be said about protestant sects. I've not brought them up...mainly because you've not identified which group is yours (Lutheran, Baptist, LDS, Witnesses).

Are you not comfortable admitting your affiliation?

It's easy to attack others when you refuse to provide information about yourself. It's the John Kerry playbook. Attack, don't provide information -- and, in doing so, remain immune from people commenting on the weakness of your own history and/or positions you support.

[DrRich]

Not to mention our entire mass is founded in Scripture. TRO, You may want to get some unbiased reading under your belt before you start condemning the entire Catholic Church. No one is disputing the fact that all churches including the Catholic Church has made midstakes. Thank goodness, we accept our fellow protestant brothers and sisters in Christ; too bad its not always reciprocated. Bottom line, we are all Christians and believe that Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of our sins and rose from the dead for our salvation.

[NeoConIV]

Imagine where we would be had the Catholic Church never existed.

Wrap your brain around that! :angel


But I think for better dialogue, it would be nice to know if TRO belongs to a particular denomination.

[travis2]

To be fair, TRO has stated he is a member of one of the Reformed churches. To me, that explains many of his views concerning the history of the Church (Lorraine Boettner was a Reformed cleric).

[GopherSA]

"Reformed" is broadly defined. It could be just about anything from a major movement like Lutheranism to a televangelist group to a bumpkin holding "services" in his garage.

[The Ressurrected One]

Ummmmm...you completely ignored much of the Scriptural proof I gave, so I must respectfully disagree.
I don't think you addressed the Pope's lineage in any of your posts.

Define "struggle". If you mean that there have always been those on the anti-transubstantiation side of the fence, you would be correct. If you mean it was ever a major question in the Church, you would be wrong.
So, Augustine's declaration of it being a "commemoration" isn't a major question in the Church?

Have there been scoundrels? Of course. The Pope is still but a man. However, your "imagining" has nothing to do with reality.
No, the Pope is, according to the Church, God's vicar on Earth. A Holy Father. While not Christ, he is more than just a man.

Saul was just a man. A murderous, contemptable, persecutor of Christ's followers...until God spoke directly to him on the road to Damascus. He became Paul and, to my knowledge, never committed another dispicable act in his life. Did he sin? Probably.

But, Here we have a church that elevates a mortal to Pontiff, declares them infallible, and then -- when he turns out to be just a man after all (and, in many cases, a murderous, contemptable, man) -- they have to change doctrine to account for the disparity.

Please provide your proof (sources please) that the Catholic Church is any worse than any Protestant church in this regard.
Pope Leo X.

But, your question is somewhat unanswerable because there are no Protestant Churches structured like the Catholic Church...and, I would stipulate that those that are probably aren't much different than the Catholics.

In my denomination, all members are peers...some are equipped with certain gifts that allow them to carry out the church's work. Pastor's receive training and are ordained in the Holy Word and Sacraments so the sacraments of baptism and communion will be properly administered -- according to scripture -- however, all other positions and duties in the church can be accomplished by lay people as well as ordained ministers, elders, and deacons.

There is no "head" of the church in Protestantism...Christ is the head of the church.

And your assertion that it's the "only thing" is hardly logical.
Okay, what possible other explanation is there for the settlements with accusers and the stonewalling by the Vatican and the hemhawing by all other church officials?

Was there not one principled Catholic Bishop that would stand up and say, "My God! We have committed an unspeakable act of evil -- forgive us and let us set about making it right!" No. Why? Because to do so would have bankrupted the church.

And, my point was that if you have faith in Christ and your work is Holy, you can endure even that. That the Catholic Church wasn't willing to take that risk shows how void of true faith in Christ they are...

You of course are free to disagree with what the Church teaches. I merely ask that you learn the facts instead of engaging in bigotry and hateful rhetoric. Many non-Catholics disagree with the Church on many issues and don't have to stoop to such things.
This whole thread started with me asking a simple question of how true Catholics (that are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage) can reconcile their faith with their position and still remain Catholic. Because the church condemns both practices and those who support either.

That led to a discussion on the moral authority of the church and I merely posited many of the problems I, as a non-Catholic, see with the Church. I didn't realize I was "quoting" Boettner, but I do believe the Catholic church was by and large a totalitary, intolerant, evil, and oppressive force for many centuries and that, because of that, they moved so far away from the principles of Christ's teachings for so long that nothing they claim to directly tie them to the 12 apostles is credible.

As late as WWII, you had Pontiff's complicit with Nazi Germany in selling out the Jews knowing full well what their demise would be. That's pure Evil incarnate.

At least John Paul II, whom I believe to have been a decent and Godly man, apologized for that atrocity...but, yet, he remained silent on the pedophilia. Why? Because it would have spelled financial ruin and probably the end of the papacy as you know it.

So, in direct contradiction of all Christ taught us, the Church perpetuated an evil for self-preservation.

Yes, other churches have done the same...and, I hold them in the same contempt.

[travis2]

"Reformed" is broadly defined. It could be just about anything from a major movement like Lutheranism to a televangelist group to a bumpkin holding "services" in his garage.

True...however, the Reformed "family" is generally (broadly) considered to consist of Reformed, various Presbyterian churches, Congregational, and United Church of Christ.

The common thread is a Calvinist theology.

[The Ressurrected One]

Oh, I'm Presbyterian.

[travis2]

I don't think you addressed the Pope's lineage in any of your posts.

So, Augustine's declaration of it being a "commemoration" isn't a major question in the Church?

No, the Pope is, according to the Church, God's vicar on Earth. A Holy Father. While not Christ, he is more than just a man.

Saul was just a man. A murderous, contemptable, persecutor of Christ's followers...until God spoke directly to him on the road to Damascus. He became Paul and, to my knowledge, never committed another dispicable act in his life. Did he sin? Probably.

But, Here we have a church that elevates a mortal to Pontiff, declares them infallible, and then -- when he turns out to be just a man after all (and, in many cases, a murderous, contemptable, man) -- they have to change doctrine to account for the disparity.

Pope Leo X.

But, your question is somewhat unanswerable because there are no Protestant Churches structured like the Catholic Church...and, I would stipulate that those that are probably aren't much different than the Catholics.

In my denomination, all members are peers...some are equipped with certain gifts that allow them to carry out the church's work. Pastor's receive training and are ordained in the Holy Word and Sacraments so the sacraments of baptism and communion will be properly administered -- according to scripture -- however, all other positions and duties in the church can be accomplished by lay people as well as ordained ministers, elders, and deacons.

There is no "head" of the church in Protestantism...Christ is the head of the church.

Okay, what possible other explanation is there for the settlements with accusers and the stonewalling by the Vatican and the hemhawing by all other church officials?

Was there not one principled Catholic Bishop that would stand up and say, "My God! We have committed an unspeakable act of evil -- forgive us and let us set about making it right!" No. Why? Because to do so would have bankrupted the church.

And, my point was that if you have faith in Christ and your work is Holy, you can endure even that. That the Catholic Church wasn't willing to take that risk shows how void of true faith in Christ they are...

This whole thread started with me asking a simple question of how true Catholics (that are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage) can reconcile their faith with their position and still remain Catholic. Because the church condemns both practices and those who support either.

That led to a discussion on the moral authority of the church and I merely posited many of the problems I, as a non-Catholic, see with the Church. I didn't realize I was "quoting" Boettner, but I do believe the Catholic church was by and large a totalitary, intolerant, evil, and oppressive force for many centuries and that, because of that, they moved so far away from the principles of Christ's teachings for so long that nothing they claim to directly tie them to the 12 apostles is credible.

As late as WWII, you had Pontiff's complicit with Nazi Germany in selling out the Jews knowing full well what their demise would be. That's pure Evil incarnate.

At least John Paul II, whom I believe to have been a decent and Godly man, apologized for that atrocity...but, yet, he remained silent on the pedophilia. Why? Because it would have spelled financial ruin and probably the end of the papacy as you know it.

So, in direct contradiction of all Christ taught us, the Church perpetuated an evil for self-preservation.

Yes, other churches have done the same...and, I hold them in the same contempt.

*sigh*

If you wish to be closed-minded, there is of course nothing I can do about that but bid you farewell. God knows I tried.

[The Ressurrected One]

Thank goodness, we accept our fellow protestant brothers and sisters in Christ; too bad its not always reciprocated. Bottom line, we are all Christians and believe that Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of our sins and rose from the dead for our salvation.
That begs the question though, even if you "accept" protestant religions, do you believe they will receive salvation without engaging in the Catholic rituals?

Because, that is the bottom line. It's not really about the Catholic church...it's about Salvation.

If Catholics are ready to "accept" other Christian religions on the basis that we all, "...believe Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of our sins and rose from the dead for our salvation...," then what's the point to the rest of your doctrine?

Frankly, I think that's true, by the way...we are saved by the Grace of God alone and that if we will just believe in Him, we will have eternal life. Period. it's nothing more complicated than that.

If you believe in Christ, and by virtue of that belief, follow His lessons of Love for God and toward one another -- then, there is nothing else you can do to "earn" salvation.

[The Ressurrected One]

*sigh*

If you wish to be closed-minded, there is of course nothing I can do about that but bid you farewell. God knows I tried.
Okie dokie...

[DrRich]

That begs the question though, even if you "accept" protestant religions, do you believe they will receive salvation without engaging in the Catholic rituals?

Because, that is the bottom line. It's not really about the Catholic church...it's about Salvation.

If Catholics are ready to "accept" other Christian religions on the basis that we all, "...believe Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of our sins and rose from the dead for our salvation...," then what's the point to the rest of your doctrine?

Frankly, I think that's true, by the way...we are saved by the Grace of God alone and that if we will just believe in Him, we will have eternal life. Period. it's nothing more complicated than that.

If you believe in Christ, and by virtue of that belief, follow His lessons of Love for God and toward one another -- then, there is nothing else you can do to "earn" salvation.

But my brother , it is not by faith alone that we obtain salvation. We must have works to go along with that faith.

I don't, and I believe Gopher and Travis would agree with me, have a problem with other denominations; it is they that have a problem with us.

We will all also agree that there have been things in the past that we are all not too proud of, but sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. Eventhough the pope is believed to be infallable, he is still human. BTW, I'm sure your church is not perfect either.

[The Ressurrected One]

Imagine where we would be had the Catholic Church never existed.
God only knows...

The Crusades were engaged for the survival of Christiandom.

The Inquisitions, for the survival of the Church.

The Reformation, for survival.

[travis2]

But my brother , it is not by faith alone that we obtain salvation. We must have works to go along with that faith.

I don't, and I believe Gopher and Travis would agree with me, have a problem with other denominations; it is they that have a problem with us.

We will all also agree that there have been things in the past that we are all not too proud of, but sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. Eventhough the pope is believed to be infallable, he is still human. BTW, I'm sure your church is not perfect either.

You are correct. I don't go out of my way to disagree with non-Catholics. They have to find me and start the fight.

[travis2]

TRO, your hatred truly does you no credit and severely damages your witness. Please accept this in the spirit intended.

[NeoConIV]

God only knows...

The Crusades were engaged for the survival of Christiandom.

The Inquisitions, for the survival of the Church.

The Reformation, for survival.


Ok, now how about the good? :angel

But I don't believe there's enough time in the week to answer to the good...

[NeoConIV]

Actually, that got me thinking. Where can one find some sort of definitive compendium of Catholic achievements through the centuries?

Hmmm, I'll try and see what I can find.

[The Ressurrected One]

But my brother , it is not by faith alone that we obtain salvation. We must have works to go along with that faith.
I disagree and, apparently, so does Paul...

The argument for faith plus works is made difficult by some hard to reconcile Scriptures, my fried. But, this is the central question and disagreement over which the Reformation occurred so, I don't expect that I will change your mind where centuries of more tactful, scholarly, and intelligent theologians have not.

When you compare Romans 3:28, 5:1 and Galatians 3:24 with James 2:24. Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works).

In reality, Paul and James did not disagree at all. The only point of disagreement some people claim is over the relationship between faith and works. Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9) while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works.

This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his life – then he likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).

Paul says the same thing in his writings. The good fruit believers should have in their life is listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Immediately after telling us that we are saved by faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul informs us that we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). Paul expects just as much of a changed life as James does, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17)!

James and Paul do not disagree on their teaching on salvation. They approach the same subject from different perspectives. Paul simply emphasized that justification is by faith alone while James put emphasis on the fact that faith in Christ produces good works.

So, where exactly does the Catholic church draw the conclusion that one is saved through faith and works?


I don't, and I believe Gopher and Travis would agree with me, have a problem with other denominations; it is they that have a problem with us.
No, Catholics are not antagonistic by and large, however, do you disagree that they do doctrinally believe they alone will receive Salvation due to the adherance to their Catholic rituals and sacraments?

I have a Catholic friend who fretted for months over her daughter's salvation because of an internal family disagreement over when to have the Baptism performed. She was afraid that, should something happen before the Baptism and it never occur, her daughter was damned to Hell. Is that just ignorance on her part or is that the Church's stance?

So, really, "accepting" another's religion while maintaining only those who adhere to your's will be Saved is not "accepting" at all...it's tolerating a nuisance so you don't have to support your position.


We will all also agree that there have been things in the past that we are all not too proud of, but sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. Even though the pope is believed to be infallable, he is still human. BTW, I'm sure your church is not perfect either.
No, my church isn't perfect...but, then, it doesn't claim to be the be all and end all of the way to Salvation.

And, respectfully, I submit to you there is a difference between fallible and evil. Many of the Pontiffs have been evil...

[travis2]

So, where exactly does the Catholic church draw the conclusion that one is saved through faith and works?


It doesn't. The Church says that faith saves, but that there is no faith without works.

[The Ressurrected One]

It doesn't. The Church says that faith saves, but that there is no faith without works.
I can agree with that. Good works naturally flow from a faith in Christ...which, by the way was my point about the Catholic Church (most obviously during the Dark Ages) losing it's faith because of the lack of good works by even it's highest officials.

Apparently, DrRich interprets this differently.

[travis2]

I can agree with that. Good works naturally flow from a faith in Christ...which, by the way was my point about the Catholic Church (most obviously during the Dark Ages) losing it's faith because of the lack of good works by even it's highest officials.

Apparently, DrRich interprets this differently.

I doubt it. The topic is one that is heavily misunderstood on both sides, Catholic and Protestant.

Also, concerning your question about "tolerance"...

From The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Section 818)

"...one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church..."

[The Ressurrected One]

I doubt it. The topic is one that is heavily misunderstood on both sides, Catholic and Protestant.

Also, concerning your question about "tolerance"...

From The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Section 818)

"...one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church..."
So, because I was baptised in a Christian Church, the Catholic church recognizes my salvation?

I'm sorry, the language was tough to follow.

[smeagol]

It's funny how TRO claims to be part of a Christian denomination whose members are tolerant of others who disent, but on the other hand, he has written several posts spewing hate against the Catholic Church, claiming its members should abandon the Faith because "any serious and intelligent believer in Jesus Christ would have, by now, sought another community of faith with which to worship" given that "the Catholic Church long ago lost its moral authority".

Reading posts from other people, I see Catholics that are much more tolerant than yourself, my friend.

Are you MFD in disguise?

[travis2]

So, because I was baptised in a Christian Church, the Catholic church recognizes my salvation?

I'm sorry, the language was tough to follow.

I'm not a Church lawyer. I do know that if you were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then the Catholic Church recognizes your baptism.

[The Ressurrected One]

It's funny how TRO claims to be part of a Christian denomination whose members are tolerant of others who disent, but on the other hand, he has written several posts spewing hate against the Catholic Church, claiming its members should abandon the Faith because "any serious and intelligent believer in Jesus Christ would have, by now, sought another community of faith with which to worship" given that "the Catholic Church long ago lost its moral authority".

Reading posts from other people, I see Catholics that are much more tolerant than yourself, my friend.

Are you MFD in disguise?
You know, hate is such a overused term these days...

I think I have legitimate questions about the Catholic Faith. I also believe I have somewhat well informed, even if ill-formed, ideas about the failings of the Catholic Church.

I don't hate Catholics. I just don't understand a religion, based on the same scriptures we both use, having some of the oppressively heirarchical notions of papal supremacy and infallibility.

I also find suspect a religion that believe you have to have an intercessor such as a Priest, Bishop, or Pope between you and Jesus Christ; particularly when, Christ's life, death, and resurrection were all about establishing a new covenant between God and man where one could have a direct, personal relationship with their Savior.

And, apparently, the one time one of their Monks decided to try and understand the scriptures as well as he thought the Pope did, only to discover the church is perpetrating a sham on the Church's followers, he was branded a heretic and ex-communicated (they wanted to do worse).

Someone point me to the document that addresses the 95 Theses of Martin Luther. I'm sincerely interested in how the Catholic church answered him...and when they answered him.

Why can't someone vehemently disagree or propose that something is vast different that it appears without being accused of hatred?

travis2 is engaging in the best dialogue yet. And, yes, I agree that I don't have the tact or diplomacy to have this conversation in a tone that would not offend many...but, my intent is purely to try and understand.

That was the intent when I asked the initial questions in this thread...I didn't intend to start a debate over the validity of Catholicism...in fact, my questions had nothing to do with my thoughts on the religion at all. I was merely asking how a true Catholic could remain a Catholic if they condoned abortion or same-sex marriage. Period.

If the Catholic Church truly believes that faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, and faith alone, is all that is required for Salvation then, hey, I'm convinced.

Unfortunately, in my mind, their doctrine and actions speak differently. And, such an admission would nullify the papacy.

[The Ressurrected One]

I'm not a Church lawyer. I do know that if you were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then the Catholic Church recognizes your baptism.
Well, at least that's half the question.

Someone want to contribute to the rest of the equation? Am I going to heaven if I'm not Catholic?

And, by the way, Presbyterians recognize all other Christian baptisms as well.

[travis2]

You were doing so well until that last sentence up there...that's an unwarranted stretch.

[The Ressurrected One]

You were doing so well until that last sentence up there...that's an unwarranted stretch.
About the Papacy?

Why? If we are Saved by faith alone, what is the purpose having a Holy Father?


"The veil of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom."

In other words, nothing separated us from Jesus Christ.

[travis2]

"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."


"Receive the Holy Spirit. Who's sins you forgive, they are forgiven. Who's sins you hold bound, they are held bound."

[DrRich]

I can agree with that. Good works naturally flow from a faith in Christ...which, by the way was my point about the Catholic Church (most obviously during the Dark Ages) losing it's faith because of the lack of good works by even it's highest officials.

Apparently, DrRich interprets this differently.

No, You are misinterpreting my statement.

I understand one must have faith in order to have salvation. Our differences lie in "Faith Alone". Faith alone is not good enough if that faith is not accompanied by good deeds. You quote Paul, but what you don't say what he mentions in the rest of his letters....being a servant of God. If Paul believe that Faith Alone was good enough then why would he write in 1 Corinthians 9:27: "No, I drive body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified."

Catholics believe Salvation is an ongoing process. It is not just one moment in time. This is backed up by Jesus in his own words in the books of Matthew and Mark.

[NeoConIV]

On Sola Fides...

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=57764

I recommend sifting through all the replies, but here is an interesting one:

Pastor Robert,

It is nice for a change to hear a Protestant minister say such things. To a Catholic, the more we grow in our faith, and certainly the more we receive Christ through the Eucharist, the more He abides in us. Now if the perfect spirit of Christ comes in contact with the imperfect spirit of a man or woman, then three things may result:

1) No discernable change to either spirit.
2) The imperfect spirit of the man taints or lessens the perfection of Christ.
3) The perfect spirit of Christ ennobles or "improves" the spirit of the man.

I believe in the third scenario as no man can in any way reduce God's perfect essence; nor could it be possible for the communion of the man and God to result in a maintaining of the status quo.

By nature, we are selfish creatures. We are always more concerned with ourselves more than anyone else, so charity is not normal to fallen man's nature. But Jesus is the fountain of all love, and love is to suffer and sacrifice for others. We are to love God first, (suffer and sacrifice for Him) and then act the same way to others, just as Christ suffered His passion and sacrificed His life on the cross for all men. If one is truly in the faith, and if one's faith and devotion to the Lord has been accepted by Him, ( John 2:23-25) then our ennobled spirits, improved by that contact with the Spirit will take on Christ-like qualities; the most evident of which is suffering and sacrificing for others... i.e. good works of charity to others. If we have not charity, or good works, we do not have the Spirit.

Unfortunately, Pastor Robert, Protestantism, a man-made approach to Christianity, does as one would suspect man would do to a sometimes difficult philosophy of self-denial, suffering, and sacrificing. It scrubs it clean of all such notions and makes it a "day off with pay" deal. Examine the more common Protestant practices and beliefs and you will see an obvious attempt to make salvation as easy and inexpensive as possible...

A. The bread and wine are symbolic. (Accept it as the body and blood of Christ and commit to a sacred covenant oath to Him? Too demanding.)
B. Confess one's sins to a minister of the Lord. (Sorry, that would require a bit of humility.)
C. Charity and good works as an integral part of one's faith. (That means spending my time, effort, and even money on someone I don't even know. No thanks.)
D. Penance. (More suffering and sacrificing... doesn't appeal to me.)
E. Purgatory. (Be responsible and accountable for my actions on earth? Burn away my sins (ouch), endure in patient suffering the full reception of sanctifying grace? (There's got to be an easier way!)

And then there comes Protestantism. Just have faith, and faith alone, in the Lord's promises and you will be saved and receive eternal bliss and heavenly reward. Tah-Dah!

No suffering, no sacrificing, no enduring, no humility, no inconvenience, no self-denial = no love, no good works, no faith; which equals no salvation.

Thal59

[The Ressurrected One]

No, You are misinterpreting my statement.

I understand one must have faith in order to have salvation. Our differences lie in "Faith Alone". Faith alone is not good enough if that faith is not accompanied by good deeds. You quote Paul, but what you don't say what he mentions in the rest of his letters....being a servant of God. If Paul believe that Faith Alone was good enough then why would he write in 1 Corinthians 9:27: "No, I drive body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified."

Catholics believe Salvation is an ongoing process. It is not just one moment in time. This is backed up by Jesus in his own words in the books of Matthew and Mark.
But the distinction is that good works, in your explanation are engaged to achieve salvation in addition to having faith. From what I understand of Paul's words, good works are a natural output of having faith and, therefore, are inseparable in that when you have absolute faith in Jesus Christ, you will do good works...no additional effort required, it will be your nature.

[scott]

Allow me to briefly point out the irony in any "my belief in an invisible man based on a book is better than your belief in an invisible man based on a book" argument.

[The Ressurrected One]

Allow me to briefly point out the irony in any "my belief in an invisible man based on a book is better than your belief in an invisible man based on a book" argument.
Nah, keep it to yourself, noodles.

[The Ressurrected One]

"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."

"Receive the Holy Spirit. Who's sins you forgive, they are forgiven. Who's sins you hold bound, they are held bound."
That's pretty certain stuff, ain't it...

How 'bout this; We confine the discussion to the legitimacy of this passage as being the installation of Peter as the first Pope and then, if we ever reach agreement -- or impasse -- we move to whether or not the current Catholic Pope is in a direct lineage to Peter the apostle.

Fair enough? Because, I think that's where the true issues are.

Issue #1) The Protestant faith holds that Peter was not elevated above the other apostles to any particular office and there is no scriptural basis for such belief.

Issue #2) The Catholic Church's own history of the papacy is so full of holes, gaps, disputes, and downright craziness that is is impossible for them to make the claim the current Pope is part of an unbroken chain of apostates leading back to Peter the apostle.

How 'bout we settle those two allegations first...or, at the very least, confine our arguments to them.

[DrRich]

But the distinction is that good works, in your explanation are engaged to achieve salvation in addition to having faith. From what I understand of Paul's words, good works are a natural output of having faith and, therefore, are inseparable in that when you have absolute faith in Jesus Christ, you will do good works...no additional effort required, it will be your nature.

That is only one verse in the Bible that states that, there are many more that say we must keep striving to obey the Lord eventhough we have faith.

If your statement is true then and "no additional effort is required" , why does Paul say he continues to drive and train his body? If "no additional effort required" then why did Paul have to write two letters to the Corinthians.

James 2:14 states "What good is it if a man claims to have faith, but has no deeds? and James goes on to say, in verse 17: In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead" This to me and most Christians hold just as much truth as does Pauls writings.

I understand when you say good deeds are your nature when you are a believer, and in some cases that is true. but Satan believes in Jesus Christ. Is he in Heaven? NO. What about Judas?

[smeagol]

One of the reasons why we need a Pope, bishops and priests, people who devote their lives to Christ and to study the Holy Book, is to precisely avoid what happens in Protestantism, where individuals interpret the Bible which ever way it suits them, which usually translates into a new Christian denomination being born whenever a strong willed person finds a new "twist" in Scripture.

That's why there are so many Protestant denominations. Some of them, such as the Anglicans and the Greek Orthodox, are very similar in their believes to the Roman Catholics. Some of them are so far away (Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Johova's Witness, etc) that they can hardly be called Christians.

There is only one Truth, not thousands. And the Truth lies within the Catholic Church, the one Church founded by God (Christ), not founded by a mere human being who was against a particular set of Catholic teachings.

[mookie2001]

smeagol i strongly agree yet totally disagree

you can sum-up all religious arguements with "onegod"


anyway hosana in the highest when the spurs win
dam hosana in the highest

[GopherSA]

God only knows...

The Crusades were engaged for the survival of Christiandom.

The Inquisitions, for the survival of the Church.

The Reformation, for survival.

Which Inquisition, TRO?

The Spanish Inquisition or the Roman Inquisition?

The Spanish Inquisition was an instrument of the Spanish Crown and was as political as it was religious. The Spanish royals believed they were being undermined by Moors and Jews who insincerely converted to the Catholic faith, but were secretly practicing their own religions. As the "New Columbia Encyclopedia" points out, the "popes were never reconciled to the inquisition, which they viewed as usurping the Church's perogative." The tortures and trials of this inquisition were notorious, but we msut remember that most of the accounts of this activity came from the English (mortal enemies of the Spaniards). The Spanish royals really did believe they were defending themselves from enemies and used methods of dealing with this perceived threat consistent with those used at the time.

Don't blame the Church for the abuses started by Ferdinand and Isabella.

The Roman Inquisition came during the Middle Ages and was pretty much localised to southern France against the Albigensians. It was the ultimate application of Mathew 10:28. However, Church sentences were not generally severe, and what abuses there were came from secular rulers. The Church Inquisitors wanted to win back the heretic, not punish him!

Look these Inquisitions up in an objective source of history and attempt to interpret them in light of their times.

Don't take your history from watching Monty Python.

[GopherSA]

I'm not a Church lawyer. I do know that if you were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then the Catholic Church recognizes your baptism.

YES!

The Catholic Church does recognize your baptism if done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You are not beyond saving!

Just sign up for RCIA...you can call St. Marks (my parish) any time tomorrow to begin your process. It takes a few months, but you'll get confirmed and receive your first communion by the time you're done.

[travis2]

That's pretty certain stuff, ain't it...

How 'bout this; We confine the discussion to the legitimacy of this passage as being the installation of Peter as the first Pope and then, if we ever reach agreement -- or impasse -- we move to whether or not the current Catholic Pope is in a direct lineage to Peter the apostle.

Fair enough? Because, I think that's where the true issues are.

Issue #1) The Protestant faith holds that Peter was not elevated above the other apostles to any particular office and there is no scriptural basis for such belief.

Issue #2) The Catholic Church's own history of the papacy is so full of holes, gaps, disputes, and downright craziness that is is impossible for them to make the claim the current Pope is part of an unbroken chain of apostates leading back to Peter the apostle.

How 'bout we settle those two allegations first...or, at the very least, confine our arguments to them.

Ummmm...how about you moderate your language to that of the Christian you claim to be before we do anything.

[JoeChalupa]

Catholic is what I am.

[travis2]

For Protestants who might be a little leery of a Catholic-"biased" site, here is a Protestant-run "ecumenical" site that does a decent job of explaining things. It's not perfect; there are some errors in a few of their explanations, and others while being "technically" correct, suffer from poor semantics.

But it's not bad.

I invite my Catholic brethren to take a gander and give your own reviews as well.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexa.html

[The Ressurrected One]

I've lost the will to continue this argument.

I apologize to the Catholics in this forum for my offensive and abrasive and poorly informed opinions on the origins and legitimacy of your religion.

We are brother and sisters in Christ and I ask your forgiveness and understanding.

I was wrong to criticize your Church in that manner.

[NeoConIV]

I saw it more as lively debate, no apology needed as I see it. But thanks anyway!

[travis2]

I've lost the will to continue this argument.

I apologize to the Catholics in this forum for my offensive and abrasive and poorly informed opinions on the origins and legitimacy of your religion.

We are brother and sisters in Christ and I ask your forgiveness and understanding.

I was wrong to criticize your Church in that manner.

Maybe we can discuss things at a later date, TRO. I have no qualms about that. Seems like it's the religious debates that often get the nastiest. If we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable, then I'm more than happy to explain my side and listen to your side. There are certainly no hard feelings from my side of the fence.

[The Ressurrected One]

Maybe we can discuss things at a later date, TRO. I have no qualms about that. Seems like it's the religious debates that often get the nastiest. If we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable, then I'm more than happy to explain my side and listen to your side. There are certainly no hard feelings from my side of the fence.
Agreed and I appreciate the humility in your response.

[JoeChalupa]

I've lost the will to continue this argument.

I apologize to the Catholics in this forum for my offensive and abrasive and poorly informed opinions on the origins and legitimacy of your religion.

We are brother and sisters in Christ and I ask your forgiveness and understanding.

I was wrong to criticize your Church in that manner.

I have tough Catholic skin but thanks for the post.