Catholic views

[clambake]

Everybody seems to quote the bible and interpret some scripture that best supports their argument or belief.

I have been all through this damn bible, and I can't find the scripture that tells religious leaders to protect their priests that molest children.

Can we just agree that the catholic religion is full of extravigant wealth and hipocracy?

[smeagol]

Smeagol,

I had answered all your questions point by point... but lost it all before I could submit it... I've been having trouble with my browser at home ever since I switched to the new Yahoo Beta mail toolbar... Anyways, I don't know if I have the will or the time to argue endlessly over something so personal that no matter what I say -- neither you or anyone else will budge from their current way of thinking...

Six years ago I was an atheist, you were born a Catholic, who knows what the future may bring . . .

You do what you must to feel you are right with GOD.... I will do what I must.

Good mantra.

One thing though. You mentioned the RCC does not blur the message of Jesus. I believe it does, remember I was born into a Catholic household before my parents converted. I was baptized as an infant into the Catholic Church (in fact my Godfather is the brother of the Governor from the state of Nuevo Leon in Mexico). Anyhow, both my parents know hundreds upon hundreds of people from our city back in Mexico who claim to be fervent Catholics and know not the message of Christ.

I'm sure there are hundreds of Evangelicals that, after claiming Jesus as their savior, lead a fervently un-Christian life because they don't know the message of Christ. This does not mean the Evangelical message is blurred.

That is what happens when 'Man' supercedes the WORD of GOD with their traditions.

. . . traditions practiced by the first Christians. There lies the problem. Christians who knew Christ, or who knew the Apostles, left us writings. Doesn't it make sense that these writings hold teachings of the Lord that complement what is in the Bible? St John himself says that the Gospels do not tell us of all the doings and teachings of the Lord.

In approx. 100 AC, St Ignatius wrote about the Real Prescence. St. Ignatius heard St John preach. You believe what St John wrote in his Gospel but you outright dismiss what a disciple of St John wrote when addressing other Chuches on his way to martyrdom. And there are dozens of these examples.

That is what happens when someone is held to a status of infallibility when sometimes even they get it wrong.

When did a Pope get it wrong when dictating in matters of morals and doctrine?

For example, in this instance, even though celibacy isn't a doctrine as you stated (I heard you the first time around) the concepts of papal infallability and the celibate vow weren't all mixed up as you claim.

Yes they were.

Does not the Pope dictate on matters of tradition and policy also? Do Popes not confer with the Vatican Council on these matters?

Yes, but the Pope's infallibility applies only in matters of Doctrine. Therefore it does not apply when ruling about celibacy.

If by suggesting that the RCC has been too strict with regards to the celibacy requirement were tantamount to admitting an error, wouldn't that suggest that some Pope, somewhere down the line messed up?

No. Vatican II changed the whole way the mass if offered. Does hat mean mass prior to 1962 was a misatke or it was offered incorrectly? No.

But they don't mess up on matters of interpretation do they?

Interpretation of certain customs or traditions can change. I would not call it a "mess up".

Again, the dilemma doesn't allow for the church to weed out these problems without indirectly admitting to have made an error in judgement in the first place... an error that suppossedly Popes don't make.

H, celibacy is not a problem if you really understand it.

Back on point, that is not to say that celibacy should be abolished... simply that they allow it to be an option.

Actually, after some further research, I found out that in the Catholic Eastern Rite, celibacy is an option.

That is what happens when followers seek 'heavenly' guidance from other en ies, such as Mary, and inherently devalue the importance of our direct access to the Father that Christ died to provide. Go straight to the source.

Again we go back to the traditions handed down by the Apostles through the ages. And praying to Mary to intercede for me does not deminish my relationshp with Jesus, it enhances it.

That is what happens when emphasis is placed on ins utional rites, rather than on a personal relationship with the LORD.

If you ever actually read what the Fathers of the Church say about these "rites" you mention, you would be surprised at how many of them were already practiced in the first 70 years after the last Apostle died. I would much rather trust what St Igantius, St Polycarp or St Ireaneus (the Catholic Church) have to say about Mary, celibacy, the sacrifice of the mass, the real presence, etc, people who new the Apostles, rather than what Calvin, Luther Wycliff and others have to say about theology, given that they lived 1,400 years after the llast Apostle, St John, died.

This is what happens when an ins ution gets so caught up with tradition that they begin to deviate from the foundation and the source.

This is not true.

The RCC is essentially saying that only they have been given the power of the Holy Spirit. That through them, only they have the power to save.

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals say that Catholicism is a cult and that all Catholics go to . Unfortunately, this is what happens with religion when the Truth is one.

Much like what happened with the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin after hundreds of years of practicing the Hebrew/Jewish faith.

Low blow equating the Church with the group of people Christ antagonized the most when he walked among us.

Whereas biblically, the Holy Spirit is personally endowed on those that profess their faith in Christ as their LORD..... hmmm, think about that phrase... 'CHRIST is my LORD' ...

Christ is my Lord too. And the Church is his bride.

doesn't that imply that He alone is our spiritual leader via the guidance of the Holy Spirit... not any man, or ins ution?

No it doesn't.

I know you're going to get 'enfuriated' with my comments above but frankly it's a matter of choice... and I have made mine. There are numerous Catholics out there who have given JESUS His rightful place in their heart. I applaud their decision and their ability to seek out the truth, despite the detractions posed by their ins ution. Granted this is my opinion... but hey, this is a forum afterall.

I'm not enfuriated. Not in the least.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me.

Beuatiful phrase which does not descredit the Church Christ founded.

No. 2) Objective studies linking celibacy and pedophilia would be hard to come by.... think about it. Who would want to willingly get associated with pedophilia? No one. And those that were 'clean', would more than likely be the willing volunteers... but this self serving tendency will always skew the results - always. Most importantly, I never claimed that celibacy was the sole cause behind pedophile priests... I've continually hinted that celibacy is only a factor. That is a big difference, considering the clause is not as linear as you made it out to be.

Linking celibacy with pedophilia is like linking celibacy with excesive drinking.

No. 3) With regards to the Trinity... Although never explicitly coined as such, the Bible is inundated with the concept from Genesis to Revelations. It's all there... GOD the Father, JESUS (GOD the Son), and the Holy Ghost (GOD Spirit) are all facets of the same GOD.

The doctrine of the Trinity says that Father, Son and Holy Gost are one: none is greater than the other one, right? Well, if you read the Bible closely (and I know you do), you will find concepts such as:

"The Father is greater than I" - John 14:28

"Why do you call me good? . . . no one is good but God alone" - Mark 10:18

"You are my Son; today I have become your Father" - Heb 1:5

These phrases seem to indicate some hierarchy between the Father and the SOn. This is precisely what Arianism did in the III and IV centuries. If all you have to fight Arianism is the Bible, you are not going to win the battle.

No. 4) I'll politely ask that you not use my first name (unless it's a PM)... you can use a cap al 'H' if you like... , I've been trying to keep a low profile from lurkers at work.... That is also why I changed my username...

Sorry

BTW... we're still cool, I just don't like the RCC's claim that they own the Church.... We are the Church, the bride of Christ... But it seems like we will forever disagree on that one.

We were never anything but cool

Yeah, I know our posts are getting too long and we are probably the only ones who read them

[Guru of Nothing]

Christians have taught me, disagreement is the essence of God.

[Phenomanul]

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals say that Catholicism is a cult and that all Catholics go to . Unfortunately, this is what happens with religion when the Truth is one.

I'll just comment on this...

That is not what we think... whomever told you that did not know what they were talking about.

Another erroneous claim is that Fundamentalists = Evangelicals... They are not one and the same.

[Guru of Nothing]

I'll just comment on this...

That is not what we think... whomever told you that did not know what they were talking about.

Another erroneous claim is that Fundamentalists = Evangelicals... They are not one and the same.

Nested quotes are are a challenge ...


Who, is WE?

[Samurai Jane]

I'll just comment on this...

That is not what we think... whomever told you that did not know what they were talking about.

Another erroneous claim is that Fundamentalists = Evangelicals... They are not one and the same.

I'm considered Evangelical and I don't believe that at all and I have never heard anyone that goes to my church say that either. Misconceptions about in every direction...

[Nbadan]

Colbert Debates The Existence of God

[travis2]

True, minor point.

Not really minor. First, infant baptism in the Protestant churches is a mixed bag. The older "high" churches, like Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodist, continue infant baptism. The more fundamentalist churches do not, and will not accept them as valid from anyone else.

Further, all one can say is that infants are not explicitly baptised in the Bible. But there is much implicit evidence for it. Anyone who says they can use the Bible to "prove" infant baptism did not exist does not know their Bible.

So you have Faith that God guided the Church in putting together an infallible Bible. But then you don’t have faith that God guides this Church when it comes to other doctrinal issues, and further more, you don’t trust that Church in helping you interpret the Bible you admit was put together by that same Church.

Actually, they don't. Remember, as you posted earlier, Luther threw out a slew of books (and portions of others) because he didn't like them...putting his own judgement against that of the Church which (through the Holy Spirit) established the Bible.

Plus, as you say, Luther didn't like James too terribly much...and much of the Protestant outlook maintains that disdain. Many like the idea of being able to sit in their recliner in a wife-beater T-shirt, beer in hand, empties on the floor, watching TBN and yelling "Praise Jesus"...and that's all they need to get to heaven. (And DAMNIT get me another beer, woman!)

I would ask you to do your research on this one. Also, research on all the other opinions Luther held. It’s very enlightening.

Luther was definitely a different character...

How can we share a history when the writings of the Church Fathers show they believed all the doctrinal points Protestants don’t believe? (see my post #166 of this thread). If we share a history, then Protestants prior to the year 1,500 AD believed in the Real Presence, the Papacy, the Virginity of Mary, praying to the dead etc, etc.

Many will try to mis-quote or quote out of context to "disprove" these statements. Fortunately, the population of misquotes is pretty much known...every argument against the above (and more) has been refuted multiple times.

Breaking from a “corrupt” Church would make sense (if Reformers would have left it at that). But this is not what the Reformers did. They broke away from Catholicism, inventing a new theology in the process. A new theology that had not been practiced (at least by the majority of Christianity) up until then.

The corruption of the time (which unfortunately was real) was merely the entering wedge for Luther. He wanted that "easy" theology...but he couldn't get the Church to to along.

Different interpretations of the Bible have led to 20,000 protestant denominations.

Who do you trust more: your own personal interpretation of the Bible or the interpretation of the en y that Christ founded, which put together the Bible, which bases its teachings on what Christ, his apostles and the Christians who met the apostles or lived a few years after the apostles died?

That is a point that no one has ever seemed to have an answer to...other than "well, my interpretation is obviously correct, so..."

[101A]

Phenomanu and I have both been Catholic, and in this debate have cited our own PERSONAL observations and esperiences as Catholics to make points.

Travis and Smeagol continuously post extreme, or even non-existent, Protestant positions, ascribe them to us, then knock them down. It is a frustrating dialogue, unfortunately also exacerbated by the fact that we are not on line at the same time.

Smeagol, I apoligize for accusing you of redirecting web information to suit you purpose.

Finally, I don't believe that it is in my best interest to interpret the bible ALONE, and that my interpretation is absolutely correct in all cases; far from it. I now understand far more about what the bible says than I ever did as a Catholic, because, as a Protestant I am encouraged TO READ IT; and encourage my children to do the same. I then regularly get together with other Christians and discuss The Book; even going so far as to get the opinion of religious scholars (I live in a college town in PA); , a JEWISH RABBI was present during our last 8 week series, and offered his opinion of both the Old AND New Testaments we were studying.

Show me in the bible where Jesus suggests this kind of study and quest for a deeper understanding of my faith is wrong, or unwarranted. You certainly have a disgust and disdain for it, apparently.

Also, there are several posters on the board who were Catholic but are now Protestant. Are there any who WERE Protestant and are now Catholic? Your opinions could be valuable.

[johnsmith]

Phenomanu and I have both been Catholic, and in this debate have cited our own PERSONAL observations and esperiences as Catholics to make points.

Travis and Smeagol continuously post extreme, or even non-existent, Protestant positions, ascribe them to us, then knock them down. It is a frustrating dialogue, unfortunately also exacerbated by the fact that we are not on line at the same time.

Smeagol, I apoligize for accusing you of redirecting web information to suit you purpose.

Finally, I don't believe that it is in my best interest to interpret the bible ALONE, and that my interpretation is absolutely correct in all cases; far from it. I now understand far more about what the bible says than I ever did as a Catholic, because, as a Protestant I am encouraged TO READ IT; and encourage my children to do the same. I then regularly get together with other Christians and discuss The Book; even going so far as to get the opinion of religious scholars (I live in a college town in PA); , a JEWISH RABBI was present during our last 8 week series, and offered his opinion of both the Old AND New Testaments we were studying.

Show me in the bible where Jesus suggests this kind of study and quest for a deeper understanding of my faith is wrong, or unwarranted. You certainly have a disgust and disdain for it, apparently.

Also, there are several posters on the board who were Catholic but are now Protestant. Are there any who WERE Protestant and are now Catholic? Your opinions could be valuable.

I've done the same thing and I'm Catholic and always have been. You'd be surprised the difference in opinion among Catholic Priest to Catholic Priest. My current priest here in San Antonio has encouraged me to attend bible study sessions taught by every denomination I could think of, and I've attended such. Having said that, the priest I had in Colorado probably would have cut my throat if I even suggested such thing. People are too narrow minded when it comes to religion.........I think anyway.

[travis2]

Phenomanu and I have both been Catholic, and in this debate have cited our own PERSONAL observations and esperiences as Catholics to make points.

Travis and Smeagol continuously post extreme, or even non-existent, Protestant positions, ascribe them to us, then knock them down. It is a frustrating dialogue, unfortunately also exacerbated by the fact that we are not on line at the same time.

Smeagol, I apoligize for accusing you of redirecting web information to suit you purpose.

Finally, I don't believe that it is in my best interest to interpret the bible ALONE, and that my interpretation is absolutely correct in all cases; far from it. I now understand far more about what the bible says than I ever did as a Catholic, because, as a Protestant I am encouraged TO READ IT; and encourage my children to do the same. I then regularly get together with other Christians and discuss The Book; even going so far as to get the opinion of religious scholars (I live in a college town in PA); , a JEWISH RABBI was present during our last 8 week series, and offered his opinion of both the Old AND New Testaments we were studying.

Show me in the bible where Jesus suggests this kind of study and quest for a deeper understanding of my faith is wrong, or unwarranted. You certainly have a disgust and disdain for it, apparently.

Also, there are several posters on the board who were Catholic but are now Protestant. Are there any who WERE Protestant and are now Catholic? Your opinions could be valuable.

Please post where I ascribed a position to you and then knocked it down.

Also, please post any "non-existent or extreme" Protestant positions I have stated.

I see much of that with you, BTW. Just because you were once Catholic doesn't mean you know anything about it. Did you actually study your faith? Many don't...and then when they have a crisis, they don't know why their faith is weak. Meanwhile, they believe the half-truths and outright lies being bandied about concerning the Catholic Church and accept them as truth. So before you start throwing stones at me or smeagol for things we may or may not have done...you'd better make sure your hands are clean. And saying "I was once Catholic" doesn't cut it.

Personal revelation...read 2 Peter for starters.

[101A]

Please post where I ascribed a position to you and then knocked it down.

Also, please post any "non-existent or extreme" Protestant positions I have stated.

On perusing the thread for evidence, what I have found was written by Smeagol - specifically regarding baptism and his infatuation with what Luther did, and did not, want included in the bible. Luther, ultimately, was just another person who had a profound effect on Christianity, but was no more infallible than any Pope.

I see much of that with you, BTW. Just because you were once Catholic doesn't mean you know anything about it. Did you actually study your faith? Many don't...and then when they have a crisis, they don't know why their faith is weak.

I see this as a serious failing of the Catholic Church, frankly. It is often indifferent, or completely oblivious to what it's members know about its teachings. Catholic churches (the ones I attended for 30+ years) don't encourage people to learn more, study the bible or Catholic Doctrine. This isn't some stereotype I'm citing: this is my experience in the Catholic Church. Maybe your experience has been different, you obviously have learned more about what Catholics believe and why they believe it then I did. Trust me, it wasn't for a lack of exposure. I went to mass every Sunday, even through college. My wife converted to Catholicism, even though she was an active, practicing Baptist, because I refused to accept any other form or Christianity as valid, or true. How could they be: right? They've only been around for a few centuries, and ultimately only exist because some King wanted a divorce!

Then we attended a Protestant Church, and I found that Jesus, and not the Church, was the central theme; his sermons, his miracles, the reason he was sent in the first place! It was enlightening. In a few months as a Protestant I leaned more about the teachings of Christ than I did after being Catholic for years. I was Catholic, and a "good" person; a strong argument could be made, however, that I was not Christian. Even my children, who I sent to a Catholic school after I was no longer Catholic, learned A WHOLE LOT about being Catholic, but not much about Jesus Christ. To me, the priorities seem out of whack. Again, if it works for you, great.

Meanwhile, they believe the half-truths and outright lies being bandied about concerning the Catholic Church and accept them as truth. So before you start throwing stones at me or smeagol for things we may or may not have done...you'd better make sure your hands are clean. And saying "I was once Catholic" doesn't cut it.

Nothing I have claimed about the Catholic Church has been a half-truth or outright lie, because every single reference I have made has been a relation of mine about my own experience. The way I was treated and my experiences are what they are.
[/QUOTE]

[leemajors]

the catholic churches i attended always made an effort to reach out to parishoners - plenty of classes about catholicism and reaching out to offer more knowledge - it wasn't their fault 99% of the parishoners were only interested in paying their dues by sitting in mass once a week. for some reason 101A's post reminds me of sarah silverman's movie le "Jesus is Magic!" i don't see a problem with the catholic church focusing on the holy trinity more than jesus alone - they are three sides of the same en y and that should not be forgotten. then again that's my personal opinion.

[Samurai Jane]

Then we attended a Protestant Church, and I found that Jesus, and not the Church, was the central theme; his sermons, his miracles, the reason he was sent in the first place! It was enlightening. In a few months as a Protestant I leaned more about the teachings of Christ than I did after being Catholic for years. I was Catholic, and a "good" person; a strong argument could be made, however, that I was not Christian. Even my children, who I sent to a Catholic school after I was no longer Catholic, learned A WHOLE LOT about being Catholic, but not much about Jesus Christ. To me, the priorities seem out of whack. Again, if it works for you, great.

I've heard this testimony from several converted Protestants over the years. In fact, two of my very good friends were devout Catholics all their lives (20+ years of adulthood, plus childhood), raised by devout Catholic families and shared this same testimony with us, even making their Catholic parents angry when they became "Protestants".

[sickdsm]

I do. Do you know how to read?

Clambake said the Pope was covering up for pedophile priests and I asked him for a link.

What you quoted gives no evidence that JP II was covering up this scandal.

I figured you'd say that.


Funny, when that pedophile senator from Florida's story broke the PTB above him are starting to get the heat. Pope's call the shots and they make the rules. You think some two bit deacon is doing all the covering up years and years against the Pope'(s) wishes?


Next thing i suppose you'll say Bush, Cheney and Rummy are not liable for what happans bc those soldiers should have moved a couple feet to the left every time one gets shot or steps in the path of a bomb?

[sickdsm]

No one is discouraging you they are just pointing out that through six pages of rhetoric your thoughts and biased opinion on Catholic priests doesn't look like it has been swayed even the tiniest bit, nor does it seem like you have any intention of even considering what many people have very eloquently posted throughout this thread.

Nope, no intentions whatsoever.

, even most catholics while denying that its a high rate admit that the Church covers up all those molesters.


I've already told Mary that i do NOT want alot of one on one alone time with our future sons because of this.


When you deny a basic animal instinct, your asking for problems. By denying the priests sex, they are asking for the problems.


I like the comparisons though between religions though, it is helping me to keep an open mind.

[johnsmith]

Nope, no intentions whatsoever.

You've proven me wrong via actual evidence and sarcasm. Well played sickdsm, well played.

[smeagol]

I'll just comment on this...

That is not what we think... whomever told you that did not know what they were talking about .

I have read a number of books and have visited many protestant sites where the make this characterization.

I’m happy to learn you don’t consider Catholicism a cult

Another erroneous claim is that Fundamentalists = Evangelicals... They are not one and the same.

I know they are not the same. But they do overlap in many of their beliefs

[Phenomanul]

I'm sure there are hundreds of Evangelicals that, after claiming Jesus as their savior, lead a fervently un-Christian life because they don't know the message of Christ. This does not mean the Evangelical message is blurred.

I know there are... although it's not my place to judge them for it. The only difference is that the message can't be blurred when JESUS is the the central focus. It is inherently blurred when He is not. Simple concept really.

. . . traditions practiced by the first Christians. There lies the problem. Christians who knew Christ, or who knew the Apostles, left us writings. Doesn't it make sense that these writings hold teachings of the Lord that complement what is in the Bible? St John himself says that the Gospels do not tell us of all the doings and teachings of the Lord.

So why were all those writings not included in the original biblical canons? If they were that important, and enhanced our Spiritual understanding of GOD in that they revealed more of GOD's message to the church, why were they left off? This decision was carried out by the Catholic Church no less, and with the seal of Papal authority... which again is supposed to be a seat that is doctrinally infallible. Either those writings are inspired works or they are not... If they aren't you can't claim that the traditions found in said writings supercede the teachings found in the inspired works. That is a logical conundrum.

So either all Doctrine is found in the WORD or some of it is missing -- in which case you would have to wonder why portions of it would be left off... to be passed on only as tradition. The WORD, Jesus Christ, is more important than tradition.

In approx. 100 AC, St Ignatius wrote about the Real Prescence. St. Ignatius heard St John preach. You believe what St John wrote in his Gospel but you outright dismiss what a disciple of St John wrote when addressing other Chuches on his way to martyrdom. And there are dozens of these examples.

I believe in what JESUS said. If something else deviates from his views I will defer to JESUS's teachings. Simple as that. Again though, it was the Catholic Church who decided not to include St. Ignatius' teachings in the Bible.... not Luther, not Calvin etc... who by the way I never claimed as being free of interpretative error.

When did a Pope get it wrong when dictating in matters of morals and doctrine?

Could a Pope that allowed the merciless bloodshed of thousands during the inquisition be spiritually connected with GOD? Is that link possible? Could that same Pope then turn around and stipulate moral policy and doctrinal interpretation free of human error, as something ordained and sanctioned by GOD? Would GOD even allow the 'papal lineage' to be tarnished by such actions?

Human imperfection aside, and if you follow Biblical history, GOD's servants screwed up on many occasions (Abraham, Israel, Samson, David, Peter, etc...) note however that they could not be used by Him if they had not yet repented of their actions. For example, Saul's Kingdom was stripped away from him on account of direct disobedience, futhermore Saul's reaction was one of disbelief not repentance. David on the other hand, upon realizing the gravity of his own sin when confronted by Nathan, plead for repentance, and cried bitterly... GOD still punished him severely, but David remained as King and remained 'close' with GOD.

With that in mind, the inquisition spanned how many Popes? How on earth can someone claim moral supremacy without committing a sin as they made said claim? Granted, I know that doctrinal infallibility does not imply that Popes were sinless. The point remains:

Luke 18:14 Everyone who exalts himself will be abased, but He who humbles himself will be exalted.

Did any of the prophets ever claim superiority over their peers? Look at the life of Samuel, Nathan, Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist... When did they use their connection with GOD as a way of improving their financial interests, their political influence? Either way, the doctrinal exclusivity that is claimed by the papal seat, along with its 'air of superiority,' (i.e. proclaiming to be 'Holy Roman Emperors'), does not conform to the biblical relationship pattern that describes how GOD interacts with His people or with His stewards.

Furthermore, since we will never agree on the meaning of Jesus' statement to Peter, it is not likely that I would agree to the concept that one man and his ins ution can alone hold the keys to Heaven. Does not Jesus refer to himself as the Conerstone? It couldn't possibly be that Jesus built the church upon 'himself', could it? His Church.

Yes, but the Pope's infallibility applies only in matters of Doctrine. Therefore it does not apply when ruling about celibacy.

Is celibacy a moral tradition? Or is it only a job requisite of sorts? Does this policy not stipulate that breaking the vow of celibacy would be considered a sin? If the RCC is decreeing that this action cons utes a sin... isn't celibacy more than just a policy?

And if celibacy were just an administrative policy, then in the event of non-compliance, the offending priest would just be stripped of their priesthood - defrocked as punishment. But no, breaking the vow is considered a sin; celibacy is a moral policy that inherently defines a particular sin.

But since when does man have the authority to decree and define a sin unless it comes directly from GOD? And unless the RCC is contending that Popes are like prophets, this is not possible. Jesus clearly stated that John the Baptist was the last of the prophets (a clause not liked by Islam). We are to receive 'conviction' of our sins through the work of the Holy Spirit... not a list of rules, or because an ins ution has decreed it so...

Hence, due to the very nature of celibacy we find that the practice is very much a matter of morals and not just administrative policy alone -- it falls into an area that is supposedly infallible on interpretation.

No. Vatican II changed the whole way the mass if offered. Does hat mean mass prior to 1962 was a misatke or it was offered incorrectly? No.

Strictly a policy change... much like saying that water bottles will now be placed outside every other office at work. A policy which has no bearing on morals or sin.

Interpretation of certain customs or traditions can change. I would not call it a "mess up".

If the practice defines a sin... ummm GOD isn't the one that will change, He doesn't change...

Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Why then would GOD 'confuse' the pope into thinking that celibacy was required, and be upheld as a moral policy if the practice weren't meant to be a requirement at all? If this is a practice that can in fact be changed, then no moral cons uency should have been involved from the get-go. But because disobedience of said vow involves moral ramifications could it possibly be that the infallibility of the Pope really does not exist? Whoa whoa... why that jump? One blip alone would render the Pope's authority on such matters fallible... just one... and one instance of fallibility would render the concept of infallibility null. You may or may not agree with the application of the concept to celibacy or how that vow was handled... but the statement is valid nonetheless.

So either celibacy was stipulated without divine authority or it was... And if it was divinely mandated I don't believe it wouldn't engender the sorts of problems we see today...

H, celibacy is not a problem if you really understand it.

Oh I personally understand it.... I'm what, 26 years old... and have remained completely chaste to date (not married yet). So although I understand that celibacy and chas y are two different things... they are still very much intertwined. I know about the mental struggles. Eitherway... the lifestyle is not for everyone.

A bigger problem is sexuality amidst Catholic seminaries... Does priesthood, in fact, attract a disproportionate number of men with a sexual orientation? It is obvious that these perverts are NOT and never had any intention of being celibate. Their inability to live up to their vows should not besmirch those men who have been able to do so. At the same time the RCC should do everything in its power to discourage admission of sexual priests into its ranks.

I don't know why sexual pedos are attracted to the priesthood in the first place. I'm sure that, in most cases, they are committed Catholics who wish to live by the catechism, but are nevertheless urged to molest children due to their mental condition (a factor completely independent from the church), and because their position provides the cover. They probably see the priesthood as a place of shelter precisely because it insists that all sexual desires be repressed.

Unfortunately, however, when they suc b to their urges, the molestations occur. Sexual urge, in many people, is as powerful as hunger. I'm also sure that there are plenty of priests who also suc b to sexual temptation of the normal, legal heterosexual variety. Whether in their mind or not; no one is perfect. We just don't hear about those cases, of course, because no laws are broken.

Actually, after some further research, I found out that in the Catholic Eastern Rite, celibacy is an option.

They get it... some of the other 'rites' get it.....

There are 22 rites (i.e. churches) in the Catholic world that are in formal union with the Pope. The Latin Rite (what I think of when someone says "the Catholic Church") is the only ONE that has decreed a vow of celibacy for its priesthood. Virtually every other rite (Maronite, Melkite, Byzantine, Ukrainian, etc.) allow the ordination of married men. As you mentioned above, the Orthodox Christians (who separated from Rome in the early 11th century) have 'always' allowed the ordination of married men - so they were doing it back when they were Catholic!

This discipline can change within the Latin Rite. Ironically though, the Latin Rite already incorporates married priests in its ranks; some Episcopal priests who converted to Latin Rite Catholicism and became ordained as Catholic priests brought their wives with them. I have even heard of Lutheran pastors getting ordained as RC priests and keeping their wives. So married priests already exist within the Latin Rite although no formal message from the Pope has addressed or admitted it.

Again we go back to the traditions handed down by the Apostles through the ages. And praying to Mary to intercede for me does not deminish my relationshp with Jesus, it enhances it.

OK this is a simple analogy, so bear with me... Do you get satisfaction from eating a cookie or from having your neighbor relay the taste?

How would anything be enhanced by taking detours? Is going through Mary some sort of scenic venture? Again, go straight to the source. Immerse yourself with GOD's presence. Breathe GOD. Don't be distracted by other heavenly beings. They aren't able to reveal anymore of GOD to you than He Himself can. How can anybody enhance GOD? Would they have to supercede GOD's attributes in order to do so???

If you ever actually read what the Fathers of the Church say about these "rites" you mention, you would be surprised at how many of them were already practiced in the first 70 years after the last Apostle died. I would much rather trust what St Igantius, St Polycarp or St Ireaneus (the Catholic Church) have to say about Mary, celibacy, the sacrifice of the mass, the real presence, etc, people who new the Apostles, rather than what Calvin, Luther Wycliff and others have to say about theology, given that they lived 1,400 years after the llast Apostle, St John, died.

Again, why were their writings not included in the biblical canon then?

Christ is my Lord too. And the Church is his bride.

Good.

Beautiful phrase which does not descredit the Church Christ founded.

I did not quote John 14:6 to discredit the RCC... simply to show that the focus of the Gospel, 'the good news', is Christ-centered.

Linking celibacy with pedophilia is like linking celibacy with excesive drinking.

That analogy is 100 times more distant than the link between celibacy and pedophilia actually is...

Have you read a book on the topic by Michael Rose? I can't remember the name.

If a celibate priest who inherently struggled with his lifestyle were presented with the opportunity to acquiece his natural desires by using the innocence of a child as an unhindered medium -- where no adults could stop him -- would that automatically suggest that he would sucuumb to temptation? No, he may still be able to contain his urges. Indefinitely even.

Say now that this scenario presented itself 2-5 times per week. The odds that he may end up doing something innapropriate - not necessarily an outright sexual advance - increases... If anything, this frequency gradually desensitizes the priest to the severity of his growing problem, it may also gradually diminish his personal restraint -- and suddenly voila! His desires have turned from being normal to being pedophilic. The objects of his fantasies... his secretive sexual outlet... even if only in his mind, have become children. Does this happen because he intentionally wants to hurt children? Not usually. This happens as a result of the power bond that develops between an entrusting child and the 'more' experienced and manipulative adult.

The celibate lifestyle doesn't always lead to pedophilia, in fact such a statistic would be impossible to measure... but that finality certainly isn't precluded.

The doctrine of the Trinity says that Father, Son and Holy Gost are one: none is greater than the other one, right? Well, if you read the Bible closely (and I know you do), you will find concepts such as:

"The Father is greater than I" - John 14:28

"Why do you call me good? . . . no one is good but God alone" - Mark 10:18

"You are my Son; today I have become your Father" - Heb 1:5

These phrases seem to indicate some hierarchy between the Father and the SOn. This is precisely what Arianism did in the III and IV centuries. If all you have to fight Arianism is the Bible, you are not going to win the battle.

While on earth Jesus was 100% man, and 100% GOD.... Many times he responds as a man. But many times He manifested his full power as GOD (as displayed with his miracles). In an earlier post I commented on why JESUS (as GOD) responds to Mary with the word 'woman' instead of 'mother' (something he would have said if he was responding to her as 'Jesus the man') at the wedding feast in Cana...

I'd saw this list of all places on wikipedia a while back...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarianism

Scriptural texts cited as implicit support for the doctrine of the Trinity
This is a partial list.

Matthew 28:19: "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."

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." together with John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." and John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

John 8:23-24: "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins."

John 8:58 "'I tell you the truth', Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I Am!'"

John 10:38: "But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

John 12:41: "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him." - As the context shows, this implied the Tetragrammaton in Isaiah 6:1 refers to Jesus.

Colossians 2:9: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"

Revelation 1:17-18: "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." This is seen as significant when viewed with Isaiah 44:6: "This is what the LORD says - Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

[smeagol]

H, thanks for taking the time to read my post and give such a detailed response.

I will respond later today. Gotta feed the kids and look after the wife for a while . . .

[smeagol]

I will break this down into more than one post. Sorry to the other posters who find this discussion boring. I’ve already have had one of these with Phenomanul and it got quite long. I personally find these debates enriching.

I know there are... although it's not my place to judge them for it. The only difference is that the message can't be blurred when JESUS is the the central focus. It is inherently blurred when He is not. Simple concept really.

Jesus is the central focus of the Catholic Church and its message too. What I will concede is that the Catholic Theology is not simple. Protestant Theology is much simpler and therefore much more appealing.

So why were all those writings not included in the original biblical cannons? If they were that important, and enhanced our Spiritual understanding of GOD in that they revealed more of GOD's message to the church, why were they left off?

Most of them were not included because they were written too long after Jesus and the Apostles had died (100+ years). Nevertheless, this does not mean that the Church is prohibited from using some of these letters to complement its own Theology, especially when the teachings in these letters harmonize what's in the Bible. Furthermore, these eachings, which were passed on to the authors of these writings, such as the ones I mentioned on another post: Ignatius and Polycarp, both disciples of St John, or Ireaneus, disciple of Polycarp, were passed on by St. John himself. These men had fresh in their minds the teachings of the the Blessed Apostle and put them in writing. These writings have much less importance than the Bible itself, but they are key to interpret some passages in the Holy Book. They are also key to see how the Apostles and his immediate followers interpreted the Bible when Christianity was in its infancy.

This decision was carried out by the Catholic Church no less, and with the seal of Papal authority... which again is supposed to be a seat that is doctrinally infallible.

I see a big contradiction here, and I ask if you can clarify it. On the one hand, you say the Catholic Church, under the Holy Ghost’s guidance, decided which books were inspired and which were not, to produce the definite Canon of the Bible. Canon which was closed in 397 AD (and unfortunately reopened in the XV Century). Therefore, you trust the Catholic Church’s decision in this crucial matter. But you don’t trust the Church’s guidance when it tells its flock that many of its teachings, which can be found in the Bible although sometimes not in a conclusive way, are complemented by many Saints’ writings, some of which written even before the last of the Gospels was completed.

Either those writings are inspired works or they are not...

It’s irrelevant if these writings, such as the letter of Clement to the Corinthians, were or were not inspired. Clement I was written by a man who is believed to have learned the Word of Life from St Peter and St Paul themselves (some believe he is mentioned in one of Paul’s Epistles, I forget which one). How can you outright dismiss what this letter says? This is as close as you will get to Christ outside the Bible. All Christians should rejoice this letter has been preserved. As I mentioned on another post, early churches read this epistle in mass as if it were part of the Gospel.

If they aren't you can't claim that the traditions found in said writings supercede the teachings found in the inspired works. That is a logical conundrum.

I have never ever said this. There is no conundrum. These writings complement what the Bible says, they never supersede it. If these writings had teachings which are the opposite to what the Bible says (and they don’t), then they would be rejected by the Church as the Church has rejected all the spurious gospels that were being written left and right in the II and III centuries (the latest one to surface was the Gospel according to Judas, made famous in the Discovery Channel Special).

Let me be totally clear: these writings (i) complement what the Bible says, because as I said before, the Bible is not meant to be complete (the Sola Scriptura question I have asked on another post but nobody has yet answered), and (ii) tell us about the customs of the early Christians, which not surprisingly are the customs the Catholic Church practices today.

So either all Doctrine is found in the WORD or some of it is missing -- in which case you would have to wonder why portions of it would be left off... to be passed on only as tradition. The WORD, Jesus Christ, is more important than tradition.

Again, where in the Bible does it say that what it is written in it is the complete set of teachings of Jesus? Where in the Bible is it clearly stated that Christianity has to be based only in the Bible? It is not there. What it is there for everyone to see, at the end of John’s Gospel, is precisely the opposite: that his Gospel does not contain all of Christ’s works and teachings.

I believe in what JESUS said. If something else deviates from his views I will defer to JESUS's teachings. Simple as that. Again though, it was the Catholic Church who decided not to include St. Ignatius' teachings in the Bible.... not Luther, not Calvin etc... who by the way I never claimed as being free of interpretative error.

I believe (and this is just a supposition and not a personal attack), that your Evangelical background does not allow you too look at these wonderful writings impartially . . . for what they really are: a complement to the Bible and a rich source of information with respect to how the earliest Christians practiced their religion and interpreted the Holy Scriptures.

Remember, when Ignatius wrote his epistles in 110 AD, many Christians did not have access to the Gospels, much less the Bible, which did not exist and would not exist for hundreds of years. So this man, who new St John, is telling you that Christians as early as 100 AD believed in such Doctrines and principles as: the Church’s divine establishment and the hierarchy of the Church ins uted by Christ; the catholicity and infallibility of the Church; the doctrine of the Eucharist, which word is found for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament; the Incarnation; the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (celibacy once again); the religious character of matrimony; the value of united prayer; the primacy of the See of Rome. Ignatius also denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters of religion (I borrowed this list from a Catholic website).

[leemajors]

you could argue that the word is tradition - oral tradition related through storytelling. you could even argue that what we call the bible today isn't really the word of God - it is man attempting to capture the word of God with crude instruments like language and writing that cannot come close to expressing the true meaning they attempt to. passed first through oral filters and then written ones - translation through at least 3-4 languages in most cases - the word as divine inspiration itself set down in hebrew, then translated through either greek, latin or both, then through another germanic or romantic language, and finally to the english it is most often printed in today. we've all heard the story about a sentence passing through a crowd that has a tacked on ending of purple monkey dishwasher, and there is no reason to assume with how many filters the "word of God" has passed through should be any different. what makes it even more of a mess is separating what was divinely inspired from the vast number of heretic gnostic texts that smeagol has referred to - Gnostics were quite taken with the story of Jesus and wrote numerous "gospels" with wildly varying versions of the story - they're quite entertaining as well. borges, the great argentinian writer, even reiterated an earlier argument in a story of his called "the three versions of judas" - he proves with quite sound logic that Judas was the son of God to debunk strict adherence to accepted versions of the Gospel story. his points expressed through the logician in the story are quite interesting - the Judas kiss is ridiculous, everyone knew who Jesus was - by doing so, Judas was the one sacrificing himself for humanity in the same way Jesus did - Judas subverted his own happiness for God's plan by betraying Jesus: "Judas sought , because the happiness of the Lord was enough for him. He thought that happiness, like morality, is a divine attribute and should not be usurped by humans." he also states it is logically impossible for God to become truly human without sin -God as a pefect human would have to sin, thus Judas betrayed Jesus. anyways, got sidetracked, but faith does make all things possible - if you believe the bible is the word then it is. sorry to deviate from the strict theological arguments being presented -they are great to read while at work, so i'll end with a joke of sorts. the crusaders sure could have used one of those biblical cannons pheno alludes to!

[Phenomanul]

I will break this down into more than one post. Sorry to the other posters who find this discussion boring. I’ve already have had one of these with Phenomanul and it got quite long. I personally find these debates enriching.

I find these discussions enriching as well... but unfortunately other people feel as though we can't agree on GOD... as long as they understand that we believe that the other is en led to his views there should be no problem.

Jesus is the central focus of the Catholic Church and its message too. What I will concede is that the Catholic Theology is not simple. Protestant Theology is much simpler and therefore much more appealing.

That's because the message is simple.

--GOD created the Universe and everything therein.

--GOD created man in His image... "Let us create Him in our image"

--Man 'fell' and sin was introduced into the world. "For all have sinned and have fallen short of the Glory of GOD".

--Man's fate was certain death (both physically and spritually -- an eternity apart from GOD). "For the wages of sin is death...."

--GOD developed a plan to redeem mankind. "There is no remission of sins without the spilling of blood."

--JESUS, fully GOD and fully man, restored our link to GOD by dying for everyone's sins.

--JESUS defeated and conquered death (the causality of sin) upon His ressurrection. "... but the gift of GOD is eternal life through Christ JESUS our LORD."

--Upon leaving, JESUS promised the arrival of the Holy Spirit, one who would guide His followers to Truth.

--Anyone who acknowledges JESUS's redemptive act of love and "believes that GOD has raised Him from the dead" will inherit the 'gift' of eternal life - one where man will be reconnected to an eternal communion with GOD.

--All you have to do is accept JESUS's sacrifice for you. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

--The Holy Spirit will work in the hearts of those that truly want to know GOD, He will convince followers of their sins, seeking out true repentance.

--One day JESUS will return to establish His kingdom on Earth.

--1000 years later, in one decisive battle, sin will forever be purged from the Universe and Satan and his minions will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

--A New Heaven and a New Earth will follow and all the saints (all those who accepted the message of JESUS) will forever live with GOD.


Rites and Rituals won't get us into Heaven... a close personal relationship with GOD will.

Most of them were not included because they were written too long after Jesus and the Apostles had died (100+ years). Nevertheless, this does not mean that the Church is prohibited from using some of these letters to complement its own Theology, especially when the teachings in these letters harmonize what's in the Bible. Furthermore, these eachings, which were passed on to the authors of these writings, such as the ones I mentioned on another post: Ignatius and Polycarp, both disciples of St John, or Ireaneus, disciple of Polycarp, were passed on by St. John himself. These men had fresh in their minds the teachings of the the Blessed Apostle and put them in writing. These writings have much less importance than the Bible itself, but they are key to interpret some passages in the Holy Book. They are also key to see how the Apostles and his immediate followers interpreted the Bible when Christianity was in its infancy.

I see a big contradiction here, and I ask if you can clarify it. On the one hand, you say the Catholic Church, under the Holy Ghost’s guidance, decided which books were inspired and which were not, to produce the definite Canon of the Bible. Canon which was closed in 397 AD (and unfortunately reopened in the XV Century). Therefore, you trust the Catholic Church’s decision in this crucial matter. But you don’t trust the Church’s guidance when it tells its flock that many of its teachings, which can be found in the Bible although sometimes not in a conclusive way, are complemented by many Saints’ writings, some of which written even before the last of the Gospels was completed.

The answer is simple really.

GOD, and GOD alone, allowed the Bible that exists today to stand the test of time. The texts that didn't make it, were not meant to be included. If GOD had truly wanted their inclusion, GOD would have made it happen. Bara bing bara bang bara boom.

The Holy Spirit did the work it had to in order to weed out the "shaff from the wheat." No one, but GOD deserves credit for this.

If I spread the message of Christ to 20 people and they repent -- I certainly don't deserve the credit. I simply did the job that Christ commissioned us to spread, but the Holy Spirit is the one that actually 'works' in people's hearts so that He can convince them of their need for GOD. The messengers [i.e the stewards, us] have the priviledge of partaking in the process - that is all. In fact, GOD doesn't need us to do His work. HE can move whether or not we do, but we are blessed, however, when we do allow Him to work through us... when we allow Him to use us.

As an undertone you make it sound as if I believe Catholics aren't capable of being true disciples of Christ. Many of them are and many of them were used for GOD's work. I do however believe that the RCC errs when it retroactively claims that the other writings are just as important on matters of doctrine as the current biblical canon, in order to conveniently suit its needs. Again, if those works were truly that important, GOD would have made them 'stick'.

It’s irrelevant if these writings, such as the letter of Clement to the Corinthians, were or were not inspired. Clement I was written by a man who is believed to have learned the Word of Life from St Peter and St Paul themselves (some believe he is mentioned in one of Paul’s Epistles, I forget which one). How can you outright dismiss what this letter says? This is as close as you will get to Christ outside the Bible. All Christians should rejoice this letter has been preserved. As I mentioned on another post, early churches read this epistle in mass as if it were part of the Gospel.

How many counterfeit texts and letters were discovered in the 3rd and 4th centuries alone?

Again, what is found in the current Bible was meant to stand the test of time. GOD wants to reveal Himself to us... He's not trying to confuse us.

I have never ever said this. There is no conundrum. These writings complement what the Bible says, they never supersede it. If these writings had teachings which are the opposite to what the Bible says (and they don’t), then they would be rejected by the Church as the Church has rejected all the spurious gospels that were being written left and right in the II and III centuries (the latest one to surface was the Gospel according to Judas, made famous in the Discovery Channel Special).

Let me be totally clear: these writings (i) complement what the Bible says, because as I said before, the Bible is not meant to be complete (the Sola Scriptura question I have asked on another post but nobody has yet answered), and (ii) tell us about the customs of the early Christians, which not surprisingly are the customs the Catholic Church practices today.

The Bible doesn't claim Mary's perpetual virginity... tradition does.
Nor does it establish a human-led church... the veil tore in half to allow mankind direct access to the Father. No mediator is needed aside from Christ.

Besides, I can't imagine Paul or Peter praying to Mary.

Again, where in the Bible does it say that what it is written in it is the complete set of teachings of Jesus? Where in the Bible is it clearly stated that Christianity has to be based only in the Bible? It is not there. What it is there for everyone to see, at the end of John’s Gospel, is precisely the opposite: that his Gospel does not contain all of Christ’s works and teachings.

No it certainly doesn't... only the teachings GOD wanted to endure were included... nothing more, nothing less.

I believe (and this is just a supposition and not a personal attack), that your Evangelical background does not allow you too look at these wonderful writings impartially . . . for what they really are: a complement to the Bible and a rich source of information with respect to how the earliest Christians practiced their religion and interpreted the Holy Scriptures.

Remember, when Ignatius wrote his epistles in 110 AD, many Christians did not have access to the Gospels, much less the Bible, which did not exist and would not exist for hundreds of years. So this man, who new St John, is telling you that Christians as early as 100 AD believed in such Doctrines and principles as: the Church’s divine establishment and the hierarchy of the Church ins uted by Christ; the catholicity and infallibility of the Church; the doctrine of the Eucharist, which word is found for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament; the Incarnation; the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (celibacy once again); the religious character of matrimony; the value of united prayer; the primacy of the See of Rome. Ignatius also denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters of religion (I borrowed this list from a Catholic website).

Funny how Christ wasn't the one to initiate many of these practices and doctrines.

[leemajors]

GOD, and GOD alone, allowed the Bible that exists today to stand the test of time. The texts that didn't make it, were not meant to be included. If GOD had truly wanted their inclusion, GOD would have made it happen. Bara bing bara bang bara boom.

The Holy Spirit did the work it had to in order to weed out the "shaft from the wheat." No one, but GOD gets credit for this.

man has free will - man chose to fall by eating from the tree of knowledge, so man can easily decide what he thinks is the chaff from the wheat. if God didn't stop man from committing the original sin, why would he swoop down and stop someone from commiting an error in omitting a gospel or teaching from the bible? then again logic and faith are like oil and water. just because something isn't in the bible doesn't mean it isn't divinely inspired or can't help you to be a better christian, or even just a better person.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

man has free will

And this is the problem that sickdsm seems to be confronted with. We do have free will, and in light of that, we shouldn't feel constrained by having to join a particular denomination.
I've been attending and have been active in an AG Church for 17 years. My wife has been a member for many years, but I have never taken the membership class. It's not an act of rebellion on my part, but more of an exercise of the freedom that I have in Christ.
I don't see the significance of having my name put on a membership roll, the important thing being that my name is written in the Lambs Book of Life.

The moment I accepted the teaching of Christ I became a member of the Church, which can be defined as those that have become the Family of Believers in Christ. All of those who followed His teaching before me and after me have become my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, and that's good enough for me. That's not meant in any way to condemn those that have signed on as members of a Church, signed on as members, or not, we're still all part of the same Family.

(Take this FWIW sickdsm. In an oversimplification, I'm just a beggar attempting to give Bread to another beggar).