PDA

View Full Version : Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries



Jolie Rouge
04-20-2007, 08:59 PM
Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries
By Philip Pullella
Fri Apr 20, 2:21 PM ET[/b]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the place where centuries of tradition and teaching held that babies who die without baptism went. In a long-awaited document, the Church's International Theological Commission said limbo reflected an "unduly restrictive view of salvation."

The 41-page document was published on Friday by Origins, the documentary service of the U.S.-based Catholic News Service, which is part of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Pope Benedict, himself a top theologian who before his election in 2005 expressed doubts about limbo, authorized the publication of the document, called "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised."

The verdict that limbo could now rest in peace had been expected for years. The document was seen as most likely the final word since limbo was never part of Church doctrine, even though it was taught to Catholics well into the 20th century. "The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in revelation," it said. "There are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible (to baptize them)."

The Church teaches that baptism removes original sin which stains all souls since the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.

"NO NEGATION OF BAPTISM"

The document stressed that its conclusions should not be interpreted as questioning original sin or "used to negate the necessity of baptism or delay the conferral of the sacrament."

Limbo, which comes from the Latin word meaning "border" or "edge," was considered by medieval theologians to be a state or place reserved for the unbaptized dead, including good people who lived before the coming of Christ.

"People find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian," the document said.

It said the study was made all the more pressing because "the number of nonbaptised infants has grown considerably, and therefore the reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become urgent."

The commission's conclusions had been widely expected.

In writings before his election as Pope in 2005, the then

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made it clear he believed the concept of limbo should be abandoned because it was "only a theological hypothesis" and "never a defined truth of faith."

In the Divine Comedy, Dante placed virtuous pagans and great classical philosophers, including Plato and Socrates, in limbo. The Catholic Church's official catechism, issued in 1992 after decades of work, dropped the mention of limbo.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070420/ts_nm/pope_limbo_dc;_ylt=Apae5rZme6zYviFI.mRlt5is0NUE

Pope approves report on teaching limbo[i]
By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer
Fri Apr 20, 5:48 PM ET

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday that says there were "serious" grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven.

Theologians said the move was highly significant — both for what it says about Benedict's willingness to buck a long-standing tenet of Catholic belief and for what it means theologically about the Church's views on heaven, hell and original sin — the sin that the faithful believe all children are born with.

Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the Church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians, however, have long taught that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God. "If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame. "Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church," he said in an e-mailed response.

Benedict approved the findings of the International Theological Commission, a Vatican advisory panel, which said it was reassessing traditional teaching on limbo in light of "pressing" pastoral needs — primarily the growing number of abortions and infants born to non-believers who die without being baptized.

While the report does not carry the authority of a papal encyclical or even the weight of a formal document from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it was approved by the pope on Jan. 19 and was published on the Internet — an indication that it was intended to be widely read by the faithful. "We can say we have many reasons to hope that there is salvation for these babies," the Rev. Luis Ladaria, a Jesuit who is the commission's secretary-general, told The Associated Press. He stressed that there was no certainty, just hope.

The Commission posted its document Friday on Origins, the documentary service of Catholic News Service, the news agency of the American Bishop's Conference.

The document traces centuries of Church views on the fate of unbaptized infants, paying particular attention to the writings of St. Augustine — the 4th century bishop who is particularly dear to Benedict. Augustine wrote that such infants do go to hell, but they suffer only the "mildest condemnation."

In the document, the commission said such views are now out of date and there were "serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision."

It stressed, however, that "these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge."

No one can know for certain what becomes of unbaptized babies since Scripture is largely silent on the matter, the report said.

It stressed that none of its findings should be taken as diminishing the need for parents to baptize infants. "Rather ... they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the church."

Vatican watchers hailed the decision as both a sensitive and significant move by Benedict. "Parents who are mourning the death of their child are no longer going to be burdened with the added guilt of not having gotten their child baptized," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.

He said the document also had implications for non-Christians, since it could be seen as suggesting that non-baptized adults could go to heaven if they led a good life. "I think it shows that Benedict is trying to balance his view of Jesus as being central as the savior of the world ... but at the same time not saying what the Evangelicals say, that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus is going to hell," he said in a phone interview.

The International Theological Commission is a body of Vatican-appointed theologians who advise the pope and the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Benedict headed the Congregation for two decades before becoming pope in 2005.

___

On the Web: Document is at http://www.originsonline.com

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_limbo;_ylt=AvzZRpvUyCwuPjoj3VZ.0g.s0NUE

pepperpot
04-20-2007, 09:03 PM
I just don't understand the Catholic church on some things lately.....:rolleyes:

MistyWolf
04-20-2007, 11:26 PM
Me neither Pepperpot .. too many changes always being made.

In my opinion, unbaptised babies that die go to Heaven. We were raised with the whole "limbo" thing, but I personally don't buy it.

Ravenamore
04-21-2007, 10:20 AM
OK, this might help explain things a little...

There is a difference between dogma, which are the eternal truths of the Church, and theological opinion. The fact that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day is dogma. It is never going to change, so don't worry about that.

Now, there are also theological opinions that become popular for awhile, but are not definitively taught as eternal truths of the Church. Limbo is one of those. It was really popular up until the 2nd Vatican Council, but is no longer popular, because we understand, a little bit better, about how God works.

I'm a convert to the Church, and, when I was preparing for baptism, learned about two other "types" of baptism that get people into heaven, though it doesn't come up a lot. There's baptism of blood, which is if you're martyred for the faith before yuo can be baptised. Then there's baptism of desire, which can be explicit or implicit. Explicit baptism of desire would be what would happen if, after I declared that I, at Easter Vigil, was going to be baptized, but before I showed up at church that night, got run over and killed by a car, God would know that I fully intended to be baptized and treat the wish as the fact.

Implicit baptism of desire is what the person who, say, lives their whole life without having the gospel message explained to them clearly and compassionately. If the person,say, sees all the Christians around them acting badly, that person is going to get the wrong idea about the faith, and, through no fault of his own, will not join the church and become baptized. God does not hold something that is truly not your fault against you.

This also applied to babies who die unbaptized. The parents presumably either planned to have the child baptized, had he or she lived, or did not know about the importance of the sacrament of baptism to have had it done. It is not the child's fault in any way shape or form, so the child is not penalized.

Again, it's a matter of intent here. If you give food to the poor because you know it's commanded of us by God, God will be happy with your actions, because he can see into your heart and mind. If you give food to the poor because you think people will think you're good and treat you well, God knows what your intent is. You might fool people but you can't fool God.

Does this help any?

Ravenamore

jeffstwin
04-30-2007, 08:15 PM
Just a few points to ponder...
If we use the Bible as the standard for our beliefs, upon what basis in the Bible is there any reference to

1. Infant baptism?
2. Limbo?
3. Purgatory?
4. The Pope?

If the Catholic church changes its stance on limbo, then there has to be a problem with the teachings of the church since limbo and other things listed are not even mentioned in the Bible.

Please enlighten me

Jolie Rouge
04-30-2007, 09:13 PM
Just a few points to ponder...
If we use the Bible as the standard for our beliefs, upon what basis in the Bible is there any reference to Infant baptism?

Please enlighten me

This one is tricky, but you're right - there is no direct mention of baptizing infants coming from Scripture. It's a matter of tradition, especially concerning the medieval church and its belief in how baptism worked toward salvation. I could write about this a long time, and go into more detail than most people want and take more time than I have, so I'll try to shorten it.

In the apostolic and patristic eras of the church, adult baptisms were performed as a matter of ritual purity and symbolic joining the path of God, something close to the Essenes' practice. Baptism wasn't an entrance rite of the church until at least the second century that we know of, but it was still a believer's baptism - infants and children might have been baptized up to that point, but probably only in the context of an entire household being baptized, and that had more to do with the patronage system than piety.

Over time, the church (Holy Roman, mind you) developed the belief that the act of baptism was necessary for heavenly salvation. Mind you, there was a high rate of infant mortality in Western civilzation at that point (and still is in the world in many places - but that's another thread), and folks started asking if infants would go to hell if not baptized. As the theology developed that answered "yes" to that question, more folks wanted their babies baptized - and by the time of the Reformation, midwives were doing most of the baptisms, as they were there when the child was born, and no one wanted to take any chances. It became a matter of practice, and while the sacrament of baptism was seen as "valid" for the infant, the baptism did not become "efficacious" until the child learned the ways of the Christian tradition and became confirmed, rather like a waterless second baptism, or at least a sealing of the previous act. After the Reformation, not many people saw any reason to change the practice and it has stuck. Not all Christian denominations (including my own) practice infant baptism, but ecumenical dialogue, especially the WCC and their document "Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry" have come forth with a common theology that water by baptism is a visible sign of God's invisible grace, and all forms of Christian baptism mark the person as God's own.

I guess that's not such a short answer, but really the short answer is - tradition that formed over time and was regularly practiced by the 13th century by the Catholic Church and variations broke out after the Reformation, especially in 19th century American frontier denominations.

John 3 is used to support infant Baptism: "Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

I hope this helps.


http://www.Beliefnet.com is a site you may find helpfull.

Ravenamore
04-30-2007, 09:14 PM
The Bible itself mentions that there are things that lead to salvation outside of itself. St. Paul states in one of his epistles to the churches in other lands to hold fast to the traditions they have been taught. He also quotes, in another epistle, a saying of Christ that is not found in any of the four gospels. Also, as the Bible we know and love today wasn't compiled for a few centuries after Christ's ascension, what was the church doing before then? Twiddling their thumbs? History tells us that's not what happened.

Actually, there is mention in the Bible on the topics you've brought up. Let's take a look at them.

1. Infant baptism. You're going to say, "Well, it's not mentioned in the Bible!" Neither is the word "Trinity"...at least, not explicitly. There are several mentions, in the book of Acts, of entire families becoming baptized. We have no reason to doubt that, when they mean "entire" they mean everyone, from babes in arms on up. When Jesus says we must be born again of the water and the Spirit, He meant that.

In the very early Church, it was common for people to delay baptism almost until they were at death's door, because people knew that baptism in the name of Jesus removed their sin and put them in the state of grace. Also, most people used it as an excuse to do what they liked, because they knew that baptism was the sign of joining the Church, and they would be held accountable for unacceptable behavior. Baptism earlier in a person's life would make that person accountable as they grew up, and, because they would have their childhood to develop and perfect their holiness, they would be a much stronger Christian.

Also, keep in mind that up until recently, and even in many places in the world today, infant mortality was very high. People want to make sure that their children would get the best start in life, spiritually as well as physically.

2. Purgatory: I'm not sure why you tossed this one in here, as it has nothing to do with the teaching of limbo. I would guess that you did so because you're using this idea of limbo as a springboard to try and poke holes in Catholicism and show us Catholics how silly we are in our beliefs.

Again, purgatory is not mentioned explicitly in the Bible, but it is implicit in several places. Several places in the New Testatment mention a person's works being tried as gold in a furnace. St. Paul states that some people will be saved by passing through the fire. Now, we know that's not hellfire he's talking about, because once you're in hellfire, that's it. Look at Dives the rich man in hell seeing Abraham and Lazarus in heaven, and being told that they could do nothing for him.

There is also mention that we will not go out until we have paid the last farthing, the smallest sin. Purgatory is a state where we will be going to heaven. The souls in purgatory did not clear up all of their attachment to sin while they were alive. We're not talking about sins like adultlery, what we Catholics call mortal sin. We're talking about something small and habitual. Maybe the person in question spends their money on frivolous things that would be better spent on something to help another. If we die with this attachment, we would not find heaven appealing, because we are still tied to this world. Purgatory is the place where our souls are purified in the burning love of God, who loves us so much that He wishes that none would perish.

In the 2nd book of Maccabes (one of the books of the Old Testament that was a fully accepted part of Christian canon for around 1500 years until the Protestant reformation, interestingly enough), there is mention of two Jewish soldiers who have fallen in battle. Their compatriots, in laying out the bodies, were horrified to see that they had carried pagan amulets on their person. The soldiers pray for the souls of their deceased brethren. Now, if they've died, there's only a few places they could go. Finding the amulets means that they're probably not in heaven. Well, if they're in hell, praying isn't going to do them a bit of good.

Early Christians believed in the existence of purgatory. Vibia Perpetua, a young Roman woman in North Africa who was martryed in the early years of the Church, left writings and her tale of her imprisonment, where she had many beautiful visions. In one of those, she saw her brother who died young, trying to drink some water where he was, but he was unable to. When she awoke, she prayed for her brother's soul, and, the next night, saw her brother able to quench his thirst because of the aid of her prayers.

3. The Pope: Again, I can see that you're using this discussion on Limbo to bring up other uniquely Catholic things in order to attack them. Again, no, the word "pope" isn't in the Bible. However, every time a list of the apostles is made, Peter's name is always first. Jesus named Simon "Peter" because he is the "rock on which I will build My church."

But wait, I hear you say! In Greek, the word used for rock is a different word than the one used for Peter, one meaning a small pebble, and the other meaning a rock. That's true. However, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the words, in Aramaic, are the same.

It is Peter who speaks to the crowd in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. It is Peter who, through prayer to Jesus, raises Tabitha/Dorcas from the dead. It is Peter who Paul speaks to after his conversion, and thus is personally vetted as trustworthy to the other Christian. Peter is rather important here.

Through historical evidence, we know that Peter went from Antioch to Rome. Some early letters show that, from the very beginning, primacy was given to the bishop of Rome(which is what the pope is)in matters of doctrine. One letter from a church in Asia Minor about a doctrinal dispute, is sent to Peter for mediation, even though another apostle, I think one of the James's, was closer.

We can trace the line of popes from Peter all the way to our current Pope Benedict XVI. We do not believe that the pope is without sin, or inpeccable. Popes can sin just like the rest of us believers, and some have done so rather spectacularly. While it looks like the pope has this immense power, it's actually a huge burden that he shares with Christ. He is the embodiment of servant leadership, and that's actually one of his titles, "servant of the servants of God". He must be able to trust the Holy Spirit to guide him through prayer and through other Christians in order to be that living link between the early Church and into the future, to show "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

As for limbo...if you'll read what I wrote before, I explained this. Limbo was a theological theory that had been widespread in the Church, but there has never been an official pronouncement from the Vatican or an ex-cathedra statement from the Pope that said that limbo was a real place, and that, definitively, that's where unbaptized babies go. I looked. It was a popular theory, just like how the idea of illness being caused by imbalances in bodily humors was popular, until we developed germ theory. As we grow, our understanding grows too.

Hope this helped and that you will read my responses, and not just write them off because of my faith.

Ravenamore

jeffstwin
05-01-2007, 02:52 PM
"Attack" is a harsh word I wouldn't use, more like "expose" is along the lines.

Some folks may say that the Bible is outdated for its purpose today. I would beg to differ and greatly. I appreciate the information that ones that replied gave me. I have some knowledge of the Catholic church and its teachings but am unfamiliar to the history and tradition that it follows.

Let me add a little bit in regards to baptism and how it has no relevance in the 'infant baptism' angle. Infants are born in the most innocent of circumstances.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

In regards to baptism...Jesus himself said after his resurrection and before his acension into Heaven in Mark 16:16, HE that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned." It is impossible for babies to 'believe' when all they know is hunger and bowel movements. :-)
It is an act of putting to death the 'old man' of the ways of the world the sinner lives and putting on the 'new man' and living the life dedicated to Christ. As for whole households being baptized....that is a huge stretch to say that encompassed babies based on speculation rather than fact. Just because the word household is mentioned, doesn't mean that these homes all didn't have family members that were of age to understand, comprehend the message and then believe the gospel. The Phillipian jailor and Crispus (leader of the synagogue) "Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. ACTS 18:8... You see that believing and hearing are instrumental in the development of faith. That would exclude babies and being baptized for the remission of their sins.

Romans 10:17 says

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. That's what causes us to believe and to act.

As for Peter being "pope"...again the Catholic church bans Popes from being married and we read of Peter having a mother-in-law. Behind every great man is a greater woman!!!!

Just some things to consider....thanks for reading.

MistyWolf
05-02-2007, 06:32 AM
Just a few points to ponder...
If we use the Bible as the standard for our beliefs, upon what basis in the Bible is there any reference to

1. Infant baptism?
2. Limbo?
3. Purgatory?
4. The Pope?

If the Catholic church changes its stance on limbo, then there has to be a problem with the teachings of the church since limbo and other things listed are not even mentioned in the Bible.

Please enlighten me

You have to be Catholic to be enlightened :D

Ravenamore
05-02-2007, 10:00 AM
Oh my gosh, how could I have been so silly? Your "exposure" has totally changed my life. Who would have thought that we should actually READ the Bible? I'm running out of the Church, post-haste!

...what, that wasn't what you were actually expecting here, were you?

You see, what you're doing here isn't changing my mind, because I've heard it before. Many, many times before. It's nothing new. We don't read the Bible, tradition doesn't matter, the pope's the antichrist (I have actually heard that one, believe it or not). It all boils down to, I'm going to hell because my faith is not exactly like yours.

I don't think there's a Catholic alive that would dare to say that the Bible is outdated and doesn't matter in this day and age. We believe it's the Word of God, just as you do. We read the Bible at three different points during our Sunday services, Old Testament, New Testament (usually an epistle of Paul) and a portion of the gospels.

The first few hundred years after Christ's ascension into heaven, there was a lot of writing done by the apostles and in the name of the apostles. Some were obviously inspired. Some were outright forgeries to push a particular spiritual agenda (the so called "Gospel of Thomas" has, not Christ, but either Judas or Simon of Cyrene die on the cross, with Jesus laughing at the stupid Jews who fell for it. The "Gospel of Mary Magdalen" has Christ say Mary's going to be the head of the Church, and Mary complains that Peter hates women, and he stole it from her.)There was also some work right up the middle, inspiring but not inspired. These dealt with things like the birth of the Virgin Mary, what happened to the apostles over the first century.

So what did the Church do for those few centuries while it was worked out what was the inspired Word of God and what wasn't? They listened to the early Church fathers, Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, and many others. These were the men who had received the Gospel message from the ones who were there with Christ, the heirs of the apostles, who passed the message on down through the ages.

While a lot of people have sung the praises of Tyndale for "giving the Bible back to the people", it seems most people have forgotten that for a large part of history, the vast majority of people were illiterate. Doesn't do any good to have a Bible if you can't tell what's in it. It's also nonsense that no one had access to the Bible before him, either.

Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the missionaries to the Slavic peoples in the early centuries of the Church, were the creators of the Cyrillic alphabet, still used for languages like Russian. They developed the Cyrillic alphabet so the new Slavic priests could read and write in their own language. Missionaries to the British Isles did the exact same thing with Irish. If, like many people accuss us of, the Church used Latin Bibles to stop people from learning "the truth", they wouldn't have bothered with that.

Oh, and your "proof" against the pope being that Peter was married...yes, believe it or not, we Catholics know he was married. Clerical celibacy was not mandated until around the 11th century. In fact, there were several popes that were direct descendants from earlier ones. We've never said that didn't happen. The reason that, in the Western church, we have celibate clergy is that it caused a lot less problems. Celibate clergy can give their all to God without having to worry about their family. St. Paul even points that out as an advantage, because a married man has to be able to look out for his family, and a single man can stay focused on the Lord. In the Uniate (eastern Church)Rite Catholics, who have different liturgies and customs than the Western, or Roman, rite, priests can be married or they can be single. They have to be married before they become a priest, but they do have married priests. However, it's more common in the Eastern Rite churches for priests to be celibate.

Also, guess what? There are some married priests in the Roman Catholic Church today. They're men who converted to Catholicism who had been Anglican or Lutheran priests, which allow marriage. It's not really common, but it does happen, and, with permission, these men can continue their ministry.

I mentioned in an earlier post that the discipline of celibate clergy has never been, and will never be, infalliably taught. That means that, theoretically, the Western rite church might one day allow married priests. I don't see it happening, though. We've had about a 1000 years of celibate priests, and that does seem to work out well. Also, in a world where society seems to esteem lots of sex all over the place, having people who are just fine without it, and, in fact, grow in sole intimacy of God, is a good thing. It is a sign of contradiction, just like Jesus was.

For about 1500 years, Christians had no trouble at all with ideas of a celibate clergy, the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, infant baptism, and other things that people see as soley Catholic (or Orthodox, they believe the same thing, but no one gives them crap about it. I wonder why...). For 1500 years, no one had a problem with it. So was the Church in error for 1500 years? What happened to "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?"

And if they were, it's not like the Reformation restored people to the "ancient Church". There is no one Protestant faith. 10 new Protestant denominations appear roughly every week, adding to the thousands, yes, thousands that are already here. All say that they have the true word of God. They are the ones that interpreted the Bible correctly, even though apparently they're the only ones to do it in nearly 2000 years. People read the Bible, people interpret it how they want, and if they don't agree with their pastor, they pick up and go down the street to another church, or make their own church based on their interpretation. How can that be what God intended for His church?

MistyWolf
05-02-2007, 10:16 AM
As I have said before I am Catholic, and my opinion of the bible is that is has been rewritten and reinterpreted for us to understand too many times. How do we really know that the way it was rewritten or reinerpreted is the way it was originally meant to be?... We don't.

I wouldn't say the Bible is outdated but it's not original .. it's accuracy can be questioned.

Ravenamore
05-03-2007, 10:18 AM
Misty and Jeff, I'm sorry if I was snotty in my last message. I was out of line there, I know. I can use apologetics without resorting to biting sarcasm, which doesn't exactly allow for serious questions.

Misty...actually, we have more historical evidence about the Bible not having changed, than we have historical evidence on the existence of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.

The number of extant manuscripts from the very early Church show that there isn't any changes worth mentioning, ususally just punctuation differences at some points and minor spelling changes that do not change the meaning of words. No one doubts that we can get the meaning of, say, "Plato's Republic" in English, and we have more contemporary mss. of the Bible than contemporary mss. of Plato. No one doubts the veracity of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and they were around well before the entire Christian Bible was put together. Why doubt the accuracy of the Bible but not Plato?

As for translations...English is rather well known in the world for being able to verbalize most any other thought from another language. Sometimes it's not real elegant, but English is very versitile. That's part of the reason it's a pain for other people to learn.

The first Latin Bible, the Vulgate (called that because the Latin it uses isn't the really formal, but what the common, or "vulgar" people used)was translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek. The vernacular versions the Catholic church uses, most prominent the Douay-Reims Bible, was used as a basis for the King James Bible for English Protestants.

In the USA, there's been an explosion of different translations. Most are not direct translations from the original Vulgate; instead, they're rewordings of later Bibles, most commonly, the King James Bible. Sometimes other translations give rewarding insight into Bible passages. The Amplified Bible, a good Protestant Bible, is really good for that. So is the Ignatius Bible, which is a Catholic one.

One of the things that has helped modern scholars to know that the Bible is mostly the same from the 1st century onward was the mss. of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These were probably from an Essene community (rather Gnostic Christians), and include not only books we have in our Bibles, but other books that give history but are not inspired canon. The mss. are nearly identical to the ones we have now, with the exception of punctuation and minor spelling errors.

MistyWolf
05-03-2007, 10:30 AM
I am not and was not taking you as being snotty so don't worry about it.

As for the bible not being changed, I don't buy it, but that is my opinion and opinions are like a$$holes .. everyone has one :D

jeffstwin
05-03-2007, 08:02 PM
I agree that the Bible and its translation has not changed since its origin of writing. I'm sure God's Providence has helped in that greatly. Now, with that being said, there are different translations that man has put out there that greatly exaggerate or even change the meaning of some words or passages. The New International Version is one of those that I do not care for in that regard. Your knowledge (Raven) of the history and tradition of the Catholic church is very impressive. I know that once religion is an open book and out there for open discussion, people become very passionate about their beliefs and emotions sometimes can get in the way of clear expression of words and can come across as sharp or bitter. In no way was I offended and completely understand. I sometimes can come across that way. Now, that being said...if I could just appeal to your intellect to keep an open mind in regards to what the Bible says vs. what man today might say or what 1500 years of tradition the Catholic church has done and look into some of the biblical examples of the early church to see if the Catholic church abides in the doctrine of the apostles and Christ. I know that is a horrible run on sentence. Forgive me. Think about the 500 hundred years between the time the church was established on the day of Pentecost til the time the Catholic church was founded. What was the true church of God and Christ like? What liberties has 'mankind' done to insert into worship now that isn't authorized today that the early church observed? Just some things to think about. If you want to take a different direction...we could talk about Bible Authority in regards to the church. Thanks to Misty as well for her input as well. Keep searching the scriptures. Don't take my word for it...take God's word for it.

jeffstwin
05-03-2007, 08:09 PM
One additional thing about the "priests" and "Pope" not marrying...I agree that Paul said he wished that all would be like him, unmarried. He states that in I Corinthians chapters 5-7. Of course, those without family don't have the extra burden of taking care of the wife, the children etc. and would have more time to devote their life to serving God. Think about the time when Paul was writing that. Why did he write that? You'll see that persecution of christians was very pressing at that time...also the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was very close when Paul was writing these epistles. The uproar that was going to cause would've been very turbulent for those with families to try and protect them as well as self-preservation and that served for the reason Paul said for them to remain unmarried at that present time. Just something else to chew on.

janelle
05-04-2007, 01:28 AM
Yes, the early Christians believed the end was near so that makes sense that St, Paul would say do not marry. But as Jesus said no one knows the time, only the Father.

When the end did not happen the church still thought celibacy was a good idea for the religious (priests). They can do a better job when single. Missionaries go into a community and the people are suspicious of his intentions. First they see he doesn't want any of their money so they like that, then they see he does not want any of their women so they trust the priest is only there to help them spiritually and many are converted.

I also like the fact that celibacy is held in high esteem by some people now because it seems like our whole society is sex addicted. And the celibate priest can say to the homosexual "stay celibate" and the homosexual cannot say back, you don't have to stay celibate so why do I?

The church is not against homosexuals but the ACT of homosexuality. There are many celibate homosexuals. It is hard but it can be done. The good priests are examples of it. The priests who have gone astray give it a bad name but then they are human as well and they can repent or they can leave. It is up to them.

Ravenamore, you are very articulate and informed on the church. Keep up the good work. You can each us all a thing or two. I get the feeling you are writing your own words and not C&P anything.

DtroitPunk
05-21-2007, 06:38 PM
Hi, I am new to this discussion. I am a fundamentalist Christian. I know that any one can be saved even those who attend Catholic churches, but there are some very confusing traditions and teachings that actually run counter to the Bible, (repetitious prayer, men forgiving sins, idolatry through intercession, calling the priest father.) and my favorite. Commanding to abstain from marriages which according to 1Timothy4:3 is a doctrine of devils. And it is part of the reason why there has been so much homosexual abuse in the church. Please check out this link for some really good info from Dr John R Rice. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/dear_catholic_friend_john_rice.htm

And I actually know a young man who converted to catholicism recently because he liked the idea of being able to ask forgiveness for sin and the facts that the church doesnt emphasize biblical seperation and purity. He actually told me that he wanted a religion where he didnt have to feel bad for not living according to the bible. He wants a church that accepts gays and doesnt tell kids who are gay and bi that they MUST repent and acknowledge the wrong in theyre lives to receive salvation. A person can be saved and be a Christian while attending the Catholic church, but when you know that most of the teachings are predicated on the teachings of man not God, why would you want to? And what about the pope being infallible? So now we deify man? I dont mean to be overly critical. My goal is to encourage hones reading and believing of the Word of God.

janelle
05-21-2007, 09:11 PM
Well I think your friend is going to have a rude awakening if he joined the Catholic church to live a gay lifestyle. The Catholic church is among the forefront of those against the homosexial lifestyle.

Go to www.ewtn.com to have a lot of your qustions answered. Seems like you have a lot of misinformation about the church.

DtroitPunk
05-22-2007, 08:03 AM
No I am from a latin catholic background and I understand all about Catholicicsm. he is not gay he has friends and family that want to be told it is ok for them to be gay. And he feels more comfortable lying to them when he knows he can go to the priest for forgiveness.

DtroitPunk
05-22-2007, 08:07 AM
And also I must say that I do not agree that you can be a homosexual as long as you stay celibate. If we do it in our minds we have done it in spirit. You must repent of the sin and walk away from that life. You may always have an impure attraction but you must die to yourself every day and live for Christ, just staying celibate isnt enough if there is Lust pride or Haughtinness.

Ravenamore
05-22-2007, 08:36 AM
Um, no, you don't understand anything about Catholicism. I love your little post, really I do. You know that Catholics can be saved, but then give a list of all the things that Catholics do wrong. Charming.

I'm a convert to the Catholic faith. Either 1. your friend spouted off to you to mess with your head or 2. you made that stuff up completely. If you are actually from a Catholic background, or if you're not, check out a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It can be a little dry, but it's the best way to actually learn what the Church teaches, as opposed to reading what anti-Catholics say the Church teaches. It's cross-indexed with the Bible and the teachings of the early Church fathers. You know, the people who were passing the faith along BEFORE there was a Bible that we would recognize as such.

When I converted, no one told me I could do whatever I wanted just as long as I confessed. BTW, as Jesus said to the apostles right after He rose from the dead, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven. Whose sins you hold bound, they are held bound." Guess Jesus didn't know that was men's teaching, not God's...oh, wait, Jesus IS God!

Here's another little thing you might not know. If you just show up to confession, confess your sin to the priest, and you've made it clear that you're not sorry in the slightest, the priest won't absolve the sin. Period. You're not forgiven if you're not saying in your heart that you will never do that sin again. Now, in weakness, we fall. But we don't show up to the confessional, tell the priest that we've slept with x number of people, and bop right out again, ready to sin for the next week.

I'm sure you, as a fundamentalist, don't do that when you pray, just like we Catholics don't do that when we pray.

If you would like a free tape of what Confession is about, go to http://www.catholicity.com. Actually, you can order free tapes on several different aspects of the Catholic Church.

You see, unlike the caricature of Catholicism you mentioned, we do take sin seriously. Very seriously. We know it is God forgiving us. Just like-and this might shock you-we read the Bible!

That's how we know things like St. Paul said that he wished that all men were as himself, AKA single, but that if you did not have that calling, it was better to marry. Nice attempt to blame the priest sex abuse scandal on that "teaching of man", really. Of course, if you looked up the statistics and saw that the rate of sexual abuse is equal in both the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations (roughly 3 percent or so), that might cause some problems. Oh, yeah, and that, if you're looking at who sexually abuses children the most, that would be married men.

The sex abuse problems in the Catholic Church were a combination of 1. pedophilia and 2. homosexuality. Some men joined the priesthood that had no business there in the first place. Some of them apparently thought like your little friend it was OK.

Your friend, if he indeed told you that it's OK to be involved in the gay lifestyle and be Catholic, might have been mistaken, or you might have been mistaken, on something that the Church says. We draw a distinction between homosexual feelings and homosexual actions. We are aware that there are people, usually for a variety of reasons, that have mostly sexual thoughts and feelings about the same sex, just like how most people have sexual thoughts and feelings about the opposite sex.

That doesn't seem to be something that can be changed by simply repressing it or pretending it doesn't exist. Some people, for whom their homosexual feelings are due to problems growing up, have been able to recover from this and go on to marry and have children. Some people apparently can't.

However, there is a difference between thought and activity. Homosexual behavior is, very, very, clearly taught, both in the Bible and in sacred tradition, is disordered. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

When I converted, it was made extremely clear that we should, as Christians, be separated from the world, especially when it comes to sex.

Janelle said it beautifully that this world needs people to show that you can live without sex. It's possible, and isn't unhealthy. However, it's rather clear that some people are gifted by God with celibacy, while most of us are not.

I think that what you were implying that the Church teaches that we should abstain from marriage was a misreading of one of St. Paul's letters. Actually, he's pretty clear that that would be stupid. He even says that married couples shouldn't deprive themselves of sexual intercourse unless they both agree for short amounts of time. Thousands of Catholic couples do this when they use Natural Family Planning to space the births of their children.

I really don't expect anything I've said to change your mind. You seem to have it pretty well made up. I would like it if you stopped and thought a little about what I've said, but, unlike what you tried to say, you ARE being critical. I responded to gross misrepresentations of the faith that you think are true.

Here's a term you might want to know, BTW. It's called triumphalism. It means shoving in people's faces that your beliefs are the only true ones, and everyone else is in error. It includes things like implicitly or explicitly crowing about how you're saved and anyone else who doesn't believe exactly like you are going to hell.

Bubblescc
05-22-2007, 10:05 AM
Janelle said it beautifully that this world needs people to show that you can live without sex. It's possible, and isn't unhealthy. However, it's rather clear that some people are gifted by God with celibacy, while most of us are not.


So who is showing that you can live without sex? Surely your not speaking of the priests? How many children have been abused andhave never come forward? Scary thought indeed....Unfortunately you do not know which ones truely are living without sex, so who really knows how possible it is?

DtroitPunk
05-22-2007, 10:18 AM
Um, no, you don't understand anything about Catholicism. I love your little post, really I do. You know that Catholics can be saved, but then give a list of all the things that Catholics do wrong. Charming.

Wow nice sarcasm, Lady. I do have a pretty good grasp on the tenets of the Catholic faith for someone who wasnt raised in the Church. And instead of lecturing me about reading the cathechism did you even happen to read the letter from Dr Rice? I am only trying to encourage ALL of us to seek the truth as it is laid out in the bible. And yes Paul did counsel that it would be good if all men could be like him, but he never commanded it or made it a prerequisite for service to the lord and 1Tim4:3 says to command to abstain from meats or marriage is a doctrine of DEVILS. I love how you ignored that. And you totally misread my statement (perhaps purposely) The point I am making is that Priests and nuns as a condition of the Vocation must be Celibate. This is a recipe for disaster and should be as Paul pointed out a personal choice. And the abuse we know of in the Church is just the tip of the iceberg because there are MANY MANY other church officials who KNEW about abuse and reports of abuse and helped to cover it up, thereby making it possible nay probable that it would happen again. From the start with prayers for the dead and special dispensations the Catholic church has been a corrupt institution a Business if you will. This has been known Since the reformation what do you think all the noise over Martin Luther was about. I dont mean to sound hateful, and this is my opinion led by the KJV for what its worth and if I offend please ignore my posts. It is not my goal to cause strife but enlightenment.

janelle
05-22-2007, 10:53 PM
Nothing in this life is perfect. Only when we get to heaven will we find perfection. The church was never perfect and most will say so, the first being the pope. Did you not see Pope John Paul ask for forgiveness for all the ills the church has done throughout the centuries. That being said all other churches need to do the same thing. None is without sin.

As for priests' sexual abuses. The mental health community use to tell us that pedophilia was curable. We now know it is not and those afflected need to stay away from children. The church was going by the knowledge the psychiatrists told them at the time and tried to work with these men to "get well".

They now know better and are doing better just as the Protestant churches who have the same problems with pedophilia ministers in their demominations.
They are not to be trusted around children.


As for the other problems you have about the teachings of the church I pointed you to a web site that would make it clearer why we have those teachings and what they mean. If you do not want to make use of the knowledge there then you will not know what it means to us. You will only go by what others say and if they are not affiliated with the church they will be giving you false information.

As far as your friend, I hope he finds out soon that making a bad confession is worse then making no confession at all. Not only does he have the sin he had going in to confession, he now has added insult to injury and has the sin of making a false confession with the knowledge it was false. Two sins.

The priest will not know this unless he confesses it the next time he goes to confession. Priests cannot read minds but God knows all, so who does he think he is fooling?

janelle
05-22-2007, 11:11 PM
And also I must say that I do not agree that you can be a homosexual as long as you stay celibate. If we do it in our minds we have done it in spirit. You must repent of the sin and walk away from that life. You may always have an impure attraction but you must die to yourself every day and live for Christ, just staying celibate isnt enough if there is Lust pride or Haughtinness.

Why can't you be homosexual if you remain celebate? One can be heterosexual while remaining celebate. Just how many years do you think a person is sexual in their lifetime? Most of us are celebate until our twenties---well it was so in our parents time---more so not now but there are still many single people who do not engage in sex. The when one gets older and loses a spouse or the spouse becomes sick, the partner becomes celebate. Even married people live celebate lives at some point when they get old and feeble. But I would say they are still heterosexual.

And as far a dying to oneself, that is precisely what the homosexual does each day they live celebate and do not engage in homosexual sex. They are repenting of that sin and walking away from that life. In fact they may be closer to God than the rest of us. They are fighting the good fight each day to follow God.

DtroitPunk
05-23-2007, 12:41 PM
I actually know someone who works in the office of a Catholic church, And I can tell you that about 8 years ago she knew of priest abuse and knew when they moved him to another parrish and she also knows that there was NO attempt to get him professional help. All the bills come through the office and all they did was move the guy. I cant speak to all protestant churches but I can tell you in any Baptist Fundamentalist church if a preacher molested a kid the church would not pay for any help, they would immediately strip him of his credentials and he would NEVER be allowed to preach in a fundamentalist church again. Even if a church was inclined to try and restore a minister/priest etc they should NOT put them around children unsupervised ever again. This is the worst kind of negligence.

DtroitPunk
05-23-2007, 12:45 PM
As to why you cant be homosexual in the church. What I mean is this MOST homosexuals even if celibate have a hard time admitting that they are wrong. They want to believe they are not responsible for the urges they have. God made me this way, or life made me this way I cant help it. As long as they subscribe to this thinking they cant be earnest when they repent. And if they insist on imagining things of a Homosexual nature, they are still not being celibate. If they are willing to die to tehyre desires daily and not give in to fantasy or sexual congress then of course they could participate in church and be saved, I believe I already said that.

DtroitPunk
05-23-2007, 01:04 PM
And I must say, that on any other subject I would evaluate both sides of an issue. But when I know already that there is a list of ways that the CHURCH ignores the word of god, I know that I dont need to understand the justifications. I mean what justification can there be for taking money from someone to pray for your dead mom for example? In the early days of the church the MAJORITY of the people couldnt read and they believed whatever they were told by the priest. The church took advantage of this PLAIN and SIMPLE. The bible teaches that when we die we instantly go to our reward or condemnation. No purgatori, no limbo no second chance. This is just 1 of the horrible frauds perpetrated on the followers of the catholic church. And making apologies for the sins of the past is great, but what about all the repetitious prayer, idolatry and false teaching that is still prevalent in the church? My number one problem with the CHURCH is that they dont preach the plan of salvation. I cant even number how many times I have asked a catholic if they know for sure that they are going to heaven, only to be told that no man can know for sure? Its clearly taught to us in the Bible that we can know for sure that we are going to heaven. In any Christian church the number 1 job should be the Winning of Souls for Christ. Everything else is secondary. What good does it do if I feed a hungry mans belly and not his soul? All I am saying is that many people yourself included know that there are problems with the teachings of the Catholic Church. And yet many people keep going becauce they take comfort in the tradition. I dont believe that any one Denomination has the answer but I only attend churches that use the KJV and teach and believe the WHOLE bible.

janelle
05-23-2007, 07:51 PM
Well that is just the problem. We do not use the King James Version of the bible we use the Catholic bible. Some books were thrown out during the Reformation. The church kept those books and use them today. That is the books you have never read so you say it isn't in the bible when you should say it isn't in the bible you use.

It seems like you use hearsay for your beliefs. A friend of someone and all that. It would be better not to believe everthing you are told second hand.

St. Paul said he didn't know if he had salvation so if he didn't, I sure don't know if I have it or if you have it. Only on the day of judgment will any one of us be certain.

DtroitPunk
05-24-2007, 02:25 PM
You also are using hearsay. Although you dont give the scripture to support your contention that Paul was uncertain of his salvation I assume you mean Phillipians 3:11-14. But when read through to the end of the chapter it is clear that Paul is exhorting his listeners/readers to a holy life. In Phil 3:15 he says "Let us thereforeas many as be perfectbe thus minded..." and in 17 he says "brethren be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for example." If paul was so uncertain of his own salvatrion, why would he call himself perfect and set himself as an example for other believers? In fact we see that in 18-20 Paul is attempting to keep the reader working after the faith so they not become hypocrites, unprofitable or worse "enemies of the cross." Paul also had a deep belief that he would not have fully attained til a righteous death. I may say for example that I would never renounce the name of Christ but until I die for his name I dont know for sure. This doesnt mean I do not have salvation. However if I fall into apostasy or deny christ then I can lose my salvation. We have assurance of salvation in the bible. In Eph 2:8 we see that salvation is a gift of God, and in Romans 8:38-39 Paul tells us NOTHING can remove us from the love of god. We must be very careful about taking bits out of the bible, for example if one reads john 3:16 and or Acts 2:21 "whomsoever calls upon the name of the lord shall be saved." Might think that this was all that was required for salvation. But in Matt 7:21 we see that Jesus said not all who call upon me will be saved. And in James 2:19 we see that even demons believe in Christ but they wont be in heaven. With thorough examination we find wemust believe, confess sins, repent of them, AND keep gods commandments TO THE END. When someone says they can not KNOW they are saved, they obviously havent read the bible, what about II Timothy 3:15 where we are told that the scriptures can teach us how to be saved? I see you landed on one idea you thought would show weakness in my arguments, by the grace of God I have shown you the way and hope you will now move on to ANY of my objections to the Catholic faith.

janelle
05-24-2007, 10:04 PM
Dear DtroitPunk, it appears that you and Janelle (my wife) are in agreement. You do a good job of showing how the scriptures demonstrate that salvation is through Jesus Christ. This has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church. Janelle was actually in reference to 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 where Paul writes "...Thus I do not run aimlessly: I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing. No I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified." If Paul was so certain of his salvation, that he could not lose it, he would never have said that he was afraid that he "....should be disqualified." We must approach our salvation with great humilty. We did not earn it. We cannot earn it. Salvation is a free gift of God. However, we can lose it. You said yourself that if you denied Christ or fell into apostasy that you would not have salvation. This is the same teaching of the Catholic Church.

Now, as to Dr. Rice's letter. I am sorry but his letter is very misleading and full of misinformation. To listen to anything Dr. Rice is saying in that letter about the Catholic Church is to listen to hearsay. That's the definition of hearsay, "to tesify to what others say they obsevered or would testify to." It is really a form of gossip. Let's not debate what Dr. Rice has to say about the Catholic Church as we are only debating about hearsay.

As to the so called teaching of limbo, this has never been the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It was a proposition by some theologians that gained a fairly widespread following. But the Church never sanctied this teaching and has recently felt that it needed to clarify that such a theological perspective is not the teaching of the Church. There has been NO change in the teaching of the Church, only calrification that this was NOT the teaching of the Church.

You can say what you want about members of the Catholic Church and you will find examples of people who represent whatever position you select. After all there are some 60 million Catholics in the Untied States and over one billion worldwide. It is the single largest Christian demoniation in the United States and the world. But, to simply use those people as examples of what the Church teaches is no different than my finding fundamentalist that follow some extreme point of view that is not taught by any mainstream fundamentalist church. Let's go back to the source of the teaching and try to understand the real teaching before we attack a teaching as false.

Posted by Janelle's husband

DtroitPunk
05-25-2007, 07:31 AM
Hello hubby of Janelle, this is a very well thought out reasoned reply to my posting. I will agree that I dont know the total truth of the Catholic churches teaching, but if you read my other posts you will find several other issues I have found with the Catholic church. I feel that some of the practices of the Church are totally indefensible, and not supported by the Bible. Just to name 2 catholic servants of the church not being allowed to be married (see 1 Tim 4:3) and the church not allowing people to use contraception. I feel that this practice puts limits on god. If you are using a condom for example and God wishes you to conceive the condom will fail. I agree that anything like the day after pill etc is wrong because technically the spark of life is already there. But attempting to prevent pregnancy should not be wrong. In addition whether the practices are sanctioned by the church or not there is a LOT of Idolatry in the form of prayers to the saints and the Virgin Mary in addition to all the statues etc etc. 1 Timothy 2:5 there is one mediator between God and man. Jesus is all the intercession we require and to tech or practice otherwise is false religion. I am sure we could debate these issues forever, and I have no wish to try to shake anyones Faith (at least not in God) but I wasnt born into any religious tradition I discovered Christianity through an earnest search of nearly all The worlds religious beliefs and practices. I found that Christ and The Bible were the only God and religious text that actually was real historically, prophetically, erchaeologically etc etc. after that I had to search out the Churches that stayed closest to the teaching of the bible. Any Christian religion that violates the Word of God ir makes its own traditions I have to take issue with. Matt 15:9 In vain they worship me having as doctrines the teachings of men.

DtroitPunk
05-25-2007, 07:33 AM
Oh and for Janelle, when I was telling you of the Lady I know who works in a Catholic church office. This isnt third party gossip, this is actually my sister-in-law and she has no real strong feelings about religion in general and has no reason to malign her employers. Just thought you should Know.

tngirl
05-25-2007, 05:42 PM
Okay guys and girls...I think it is hilarious that me, a non-never been Catholic understand more about the church that some of the folks that come in here and profess to be former Catholics or have a Catholic "friend". There is a lot that I do not know or understand about the Church, but I have to disagree with the lot of them that say that Catholics are going to hell for their beliefs and practices.

The Catholic Faith is alot about traditions. A lot of those I do understand, don't necessarily agree...but, understand. I just think it is sad when people want to bash something that they have no understanding of. Back when my husband walked out on me and my two children when the rent was due and the electric was about to be turned off, it was the Catholic Church that helped me. The churches of my own faith would not lift a finger, they said there was nothing they could do. But, even though I was not of the Catholic faith, the Church helped me and paid my electric bill and even offered more...food and clothes, things I did not ask for.

The problems that you find in the Catholic Church are problems that are found in Protestant churches also. They just aren't covered like the tiniest bit of scandal in the Catholic Church.

DtroitPunk
05-25-2007, 06:05 PM
Wow TN girl have you even read my posts? I am not out to bash anybody, I am speaking the truth as I know it straight from the Bible. I NEVER said that Catholics were going to hell, and I NEVER said there was no good in the Catholic church. Charity IS IS IS a cornerstone of any real faith, but it is NOT the capstone. Just because someone helps you in a time of need, this means that they can do no wrong? I have been on these forums in the past but forgot all my info and started over with my new PC. And if you read my posts you will see that I have MORE than a passing understanding of MANY religions as I searched out the truth for myself. I may not understand all of the practices of the Catholic church, but I do know that there are some things that they do that are directly contrary to the teaching of the Bible. Certainly problems occur in many churches, but NO church had the resources the Catholic did to protect. This is part of the reason for the cover-up. But for you to say the same thing goes on in protestant churches. I already addressed this I said I cant speak for all PROT churches but in any Fundamentalist Baptist church you would be run out and your license revoked. These churches dont have the financial resources to cover it up even if they were inclined to. And I certainly cant answer to why the churches of your faith couldnt help you, but maybe they really couldnt. In many churches that I have attended the budgets were literally figured on a week by week case by case basis. If there isnt enough money to pay the churches electric bill for example they cant help you as much as they would like to. The catholic church has a LOT of members so more donations so deeper pockets. And it seems to me that you are the one jumping in with both feet and no brain, since you claim I understand nothing without reading my posts. I have been having a quite calm reasoned dialoque with several people here. Just because we dont agree on all things doesnt mean we dont agree on teh most important Salvation through Christ alone. Instruction in the word has long been accepted and there is much precedent in the word for it. If I have a faulty understanding of the Bible , I welcome instruction as any Christian should. If I say something against any Christian religion and it is ONLY my opinion, by all means ignore me. But if I back up my ojections with the Bible and you cannot argue it away, why am I wrong? What I think, what you think doesnt matter points of faith shall be settled by "What does God say"

tngirl
05-25-2007, 08:10 PM
Uh oh, no brain? That is good one. As for the Protestant churches covering up their scandals...they don't have the need to do so...the media does the job for them. As for the time I needed help, ever heard of Bellevue Baptist Church? But, that is neither here nor there. And I did not say that someone doing good can do no wrong. And I do not need anyone to explain christianity to me and I understand the concept of grace and works. I was just stating an opinion.

I have read what you have posted so do not make assumptions. You say that the Catholic Church goes against the Lord's teachings in some of their traditions. So do Protestant churches. Why do we have Easter Egg hunts at our churches? Where is that in the Lord's teachings? Is this not a pagan tradition? What is important in the Catholic and Protestant faith is the goal that we have set. Sometimes it takes something different for some people to be led to God. Not everything works and the Lord does work in mysterious ways, especially when it comes to touching the heart and soul of some individuals.

janelle
05-25-2007, 10:10 PM
DtroitPunk, I am a bit surprised by the position you are taking. It is almost scandalous to criticize a person for a personal vow that they have taken before God. I don't think you would criticize a person for being true to their marriage vows, which they took before God. Please don't criticize people for taking vows to be true to their status in life (the vow of celibacy) before God. We are all called to be celibate to our status in life. If married than to our spouse, if single then to our self-control.

Truth be known, there are married priest in the Roman Catholic Church. But the Roman Church doesn't Carte Blanc allow this to occur. The same is true in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Church (which are both part of and in full fellowship with the Roman Church). However, in the Eastern and Orthodox Church their rules are that if a person is to be a married priest they must marry before they are ordained into the priesthood. You can quote all the scriptures you want but I don't think you will find any scriptures that allow us to criticize the personal vows one takes before God.

As for the issue of artificial contraception, all forms of artificial contraception are inherently evil because they interfere with the natural act that God has given to married persons. To accept them is to say "I give myself to you as my spouse, but not fully". Married persons are called to give of themselves fully to their spouse. As such, all forms of artificial contraception are inherently evil because they are all forms of withholding oneself from one's spouse.

These are not positions contrary to the scriptures you quote; rather they are in full communion with those scriptures and complement a fuller understanding of those scriptures. Let’s remember Jesus’ admonition to the Apostles when the Apostles discovered others teaching about Jesus but were not part of Jesus’ inner circle; those who are for us are not against us. We are all for Christ, we are not against each other. The Roman Catholic Church is only one of many denominations for Jesus Christ.

Posted by Janelle's husband

DtroitPunk
05-26-2007, 12:02 PM
TNGIRL anyone reading your post would assume that you had either not read my posts or certainly not comprehended them. That is why I said you had jumped im with no thought. And your reference to easter eggs is LAUGHABLE. I am sorry but most everyone knows it is a pagan concept and it is NOT taught as a doctrine and church memebership doesnt require that you partake or believe in easter egg hunts. Perhaps it could be argued that a christian church shouldnt have any association with pagan imagery, but then we would have to get rid of the christmas tree, any image or reference to santa claus ete etc ad infinitum... The point is the catholic church has Things that ARE a part of worship that do not jibe with the word of God and sadly it seems that noone is willing to defend them WITH THE WORD. If you can show me where in the bible it says that to be a woman in full time religious serrvice to the Lord you MUST remain unmarried and celibate....I will eat my words. Most every point I make I am getting specious opinionated answers to. You all might as well say I am catholic and I will defend the Catholic Churches traditions NO MATTER WHAT. At least then I would KNOW this conversation was pointless. And The media would NEVER protect ANY church!!! The media is mostly Liberal and they HATE churches especially Fundamentalist and Baptist churches. Baptist churches are on the forefront of the fight against homosexual behavior being accepted and normalized and will not ordain women to preach. Even though they are doing what is right according to the Bible the Media calls them misogynists and homophobes, THEY WOULD LOVE TO EXPOSE A CHURCH!! And with the baptist take on homosexuality if JUST ONE baptist preacher was even accused of homosexual pedophilia the media would jump on the hypocrisy of the entire Baptist convention for ONE accusation. And if convicted holy cow the church would probably never recover. Please think before you make these statements, I understand passion in debate/arguing a point but you must use a reasoned balance approach and at least try to see both sides. If you are going t say that the protestant church has the same problems prove it. Give me some verifiable statistics or website links. Your opinion doesnt = truth. I am certainly not saying that a baptist church has no hypocrisy or problems because every organization (and yes a church is one) has them.

DtroitPunk
05-26-2007, 12:35 PM
To Janelles hubby. Firstly I NEVER said that I doubted or questioned a persons vow before the Lord. I think they were misled. And I understand based on your post the churches teaching on contraception, my point is this how dare anyone suppose to know the mind of God on subjects of which he has not spoken. There are NO scriptures on contraception so therefore you are obeying the teachings and commandments of men wholly unsupported by the word of God. And to run down someone for knowing and using the word is pretty lame. I use scripture to enhance understanding and to show that this is not my OPINION but FACT based on the teachings of the bible. I always make a distinction between what I think or believe and what I KNOW. It seems that many on this forum are incapabale of doing this as they cant even read my posts and repond to them without misinterpretation or ignoring several points and attempting to discredit one. And as far as saying that all Christian churches are basically united by belief in christ and using scripture to support.....Smart enough to start with, but the truth is that if the people they found were performing miracles in Christ's name & had different core beliefs or poison religion and were attempting to use the name of Christ to chase out demons They would have been devoured by the demons. We judge a tree by its fruit and since it was obvious that they were bearing fruit for the Lord they were good trees. The truth is this the Catholic church has been woefully inept at leading its people to Salvation as they have historically been afraid to give real peace and assurance to its people they used to rely on fear and doubt..They could bank on it. No man can serve 2 masters and the Cathoilc church has shown throughout its history that MONEY is the master. As the bible teaches us to judge a tree by its fruit, we can see by the withered decayed fruit of the Catholic church that it is not a good tree. The legacy of damaged children, money and the crusades alone should show us the Fruit of the catholic church. Since NO ONE on this post can actually answer me using the bible which seems odd since we are all suposed to be Christians I am done with this conversation. Blindly follow whatever tradition pleases you and dont allow little things like the truth to sway you. I wish you peace and enlightenment. I dont think people have to go to my church to be right with God, but I know they at least had better believe the bible. here is a link to a synopsis of a documentary about Priest abuse with the real priest and dome of the abused. http://movies.aol.com/movie/deliver-us-from-evil/26840/synopsis

janelle
05-27-2007, 03:17 PM
It's clear you are judging a whole church by a minority of members.

You sling allegations around as though they are the truth and you have no proof. I wish you would come back with sound proof of what you are accusing a whole group of people of believing and doing that is wrong.

We all know of the problem of abusive priests but that does not mean all priests are abusive.

Since I am Catholic I can tell you I have no fear and doubt in my religion. But I doubt you will believe this. You have read and believe things you read about the church that is very negative and I don't think you will change so whatever I say to you will be ignored.

You say YOU have studied and made up your mind on what is right and wrong. I guess you can do that but most people need guidance from others, from our parents to teachers to others in our life. It seems to me you are in a bubble and want to stay there. I give you places to go and read but you won't do it. Is it because it will not agree with your conclusions?:confused:

janelle
05-27-2007, 04:16 PM
DrtroitPunk, I am sorry but unfortunately you do not known what you think you know. You have scriptures to support your position about the truth and the reason no one counters those is that we also believe those same scriptures. The problem is that you are applying those scriptures to situations that you claim to be true about the Catholic Church. You simple are wrong about what you believe to be true about the Church. We do, in fact, believe in salvation through Jesus Christ. We always have. We do, in fact, believe in Jesus as a personal savior. We always have. When you make claims to the contrary, you only demonstration of your lack of knowledge about the Catholic Church.

The book we call the bible today was compiled about 390~400 A.D. For 1,100 years ALL Christians used that bible. However, Martin Luther came along about 1500 A.D. and decided to translate the scriptures into German. Except, he left out 7 books from the Old Testament. It is this new bible, as translated by Martin Luther, that most Protestant Churches use today, including KJV. However, the Catholics, even those churches that are not Roman Catholic, e.g. Greek Orthodox, Coptic, Eastern, etc., but are still part of the Catholic tradition still use the bible compiled at about 390~400 A.D. In fact, if it were not for the Catholic Church compiling those scriptures you would not even have the scriptures you use today.

What troubles me most is that you do not recognize how the Holy Spirit works differently in different people. You say you have the truth and yes we have the truth. But it is arrogant and sinful for me to say that the way I practice my faith is superior to the way you practice your faith. We practice our faith as lead by the Holy Spirit. It is only sinful or wrong if we deny the Holy Spirit.

You say we follow the doctrines of men. Why so? Have you fully explored the teachings? Have you read Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humane Vitae? The late Pope John Paul II mostly drafted it when he was a Cardinal. In that encyclical, Pope Paul VI explains the scriptural and traditional reasons behind the prohibition of artificial contraception. He also was prophetic in that encyclical. He warned against many dangers for society that he said would come about as a result of the practice of artificial contraception. Those warnings have come to fruition. Humane Vitae is a very interesting encyclical. It is difficult to read because it is very academic in its presentation but very interesting. You have to read it like a judge, slow and methodical.

You say it (contraception) is not in the bible, do you believe in the Trinity? The Trinity is not in the bible either. However, from our study of the scriptures and tradition we are able to conclude that the Trinity truly is a mystery that describes one aspect of God. Similar, is the case of the Church’s teachings on artificial contraception. Read Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humane Vitae. It will explain this in ways that are far beyond my ability to explain things.

You see the Catholic Church has such a wealth and depth in the scriptures and theology that few can begin to approach the understanding of the scriptures in the way that the Catholic Church understands the scriptures. It is this same Church that was establish by Christ and protected by Christ for the past 2,000 years. The promise of the scriptures is that the Church will be protected until Christ comes again.

May the good Lord bless you as you work to learn more about His Church. For today we see dimly but then we will see clearly, 1 Cor 13.

Posted by Janelle's husband

Willow
05-29-2007, 10:34 AM
Here's another little thing you might not know. If you just show up to confession, confess your sin to the priest, and you've made it clear that you're not sorry in the slightest, the priest won't absolve the sin. Period. You're not forgiven if you're not saying in your heart that you will never do that sin again.

This is one of the problems I have with Catholicism. I don't feel that we need to go to confession and ask a priest to forgive us and I don't feel that we need to pray to saints. I go right to Jesus if I have a problem. I don't need a middleman to do that for me.

janelle
05-29-2007, 11:29 AM
Than why do so many ask people right here on this board to pray for them? Why don't you have a problem with that? Why not just go to Jesus?

We pray this prayer at Mass. Part of it is. "I ask all the angels and saints and you my brothers and sisters to pray for me to the Lord our God." How powerful is that? Having all the angels and saints and those not yet saints, those here on earth, to pray for you?

Also, it is in the bible that Jesus tells his apostles "the sins you forgive are forgiven those you retain are retained". Jesus idea not man's. And it really helps to tell ones sins out loud to the priest. He is acting in Jesus's place since Jesus went back to heaven and did not stay here on the earth.

Of course, the priest forgives sins that the sinner has no remorse for but God knows, so in the long run we will all be judged.

Also, it has helped me to confess since some sins I THOUGHT were sins, like emotions, were not sins at all. Getting angry is not a sin, what I do with the anger, like hurt others with it is the sin. And other things we do are made more tangent when we say them out loud. We make an act of conscience (think what we may have been doing that is sinful) and that makes us see what wrong we may be doing. It becomes clear in our mind and we make an effort to change.

Then confessing it out loud and having it forgiven out loud and given absolution is a freeing act. I think it was a gift Jesus left us. So many are tied up in guilt but it really helps to say those things out loud and hear "you are forgiven." Many pay a counselor big bucks to hear them say that. The priest will hear what is troubling you and it is free. He will also advise you if you ask. Be someone who listens to you as you figure out how to change. No one can do it alone. Some things we don't want to tell our closest friends. We go to Jesus in confession and the priest gives a voice to what Jesus would say.

Bubblescc
05-29-2007, 02:17 PM
Than why do so many ask people right here on this board to pray for them? Why don't you have a problem with that? Why not just go to Jesus?



I am a little confused, what does this have to do with her statement? asking forgiveness from a man seems completely different to me then asking fellow believers to pray to god.

Mathew 18:19-20 (verse 19 is not quoted sorry)
For where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in midst of them.
I feel there is a strength in numbers, I think knowing that other fellow christians are supporting you makes you stronger.

I think what she and I do not understand is why cant you confess your sins aloud to Jesus, why to a priest. (I ammaking assumptions I am not positive if this is what patchouli is asking)lol
and I am not trying to start a huge debate, just asking a question about something I do not understand.

several versus to support praying for eachother
James 5:16

all through the bible we are told to pray for eachother, I am not sure where it says that we should confess our sins to a man? (not sure please let me know)thanks

Janelle could you please give me the verse that "the sins you forgive are forgiven those you retain are retained". is in, thanks

Willow
05-29-2007, 04:47 PM
If I ask someone from church to pray for me they are praying to Jesus. They aren't praying to a Saint. That is why I feel it's different.

janelle
05-29-2007, 10:42 PM
I am not praying to a saint either, I am asking a saint to pray for me to Jesus. Same thing if I ask you to pray for me. Do you believe in saints? That there is a communion of saints? I believe there are saints, everyone in heaven is a saint and I think my mother and father are among them since they died.

My hubby could give you the verse number in the bible that has the confession verse. Maybe Ravenmore can do it. I don't memorize those numbers myself.

AND we don't confess our sins to a priest but to Jesus in the form of a priest. Jesus told His disciples to do His work when He was gone and they take on the work of Jesus. Course, you need to believe in Jesus being there when the priest does something in His name but that is what Jesus said so I believe. Not hard when I believe God is everywhere and can do everything.

Wispy
06-09-2007, 01:04 AM
I am not praying to a saint either, I am asking a saint to pray for me to Jesus. Same thing if I ask you to pray for me. Do you believe in saints? That there is a communion of saints? I believe there are saints, everyone in heaven is a saint and I think my mother and father are among them since they died.



The Bible definitely does refer to holy ones, or saints, that are in heaven. Jesus Christ is described as “the Holy One [Greek - ha′gi·os] of God” when on earth and as “holy [ha′gi·os]” in heaven. (Mark 1:24; Rev. 3:7,) The angels too are “holy.” (Acts 10:22,) However, the same basic term in the original Greek is applied to a considerable number of persons on earth.

Acts 9:32, 36-41,: “Peter visited one place after another and eventually came to the saints [ha·gi′ous] living down in Lydda.

2Cor. 1:1; 13:12,: “From Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and from Timothy, one of the brothers, to the church of God at Corinth and to all the saints [ha·gi′ois] in the whole of Achaia.” “Greet one another with the holy kiss. All the saints send you greetings.” (All these early Christians who were cleansed by the blood of Christ and set apart for God’s service as prospective joint heirs with Christ were referred to as saints, or holy ones. Recognition of their being saints was obviously not deferred until after they had died.)

Is it Scriptural to ask the “saints” to act as intercessors with God?

Jesus Christ said: “You should pray like this: ‘Our Father in heaven, ... ’” So prayers are to be addressed to the Father. Jesus also said: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you ask for anything in my name, I will do it.” (Matt. 6:9; John 14:6,14,) Thus Jesus ruled out the idea that anyone else could fill the role of intercessor.

The apostle Paul added regarding Christ: “He not only died for us—he rose from the dead, and there at God’s right hand he stands and pleads for us.” “He is living for ever to intercede for all who come to God through him.” (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25, JB) If we truly want our prayers to be heard by God, would it not be wise to approach God in the way that his Word directs?

Eph. 6:18, 19,: “Never get tired of staying awake to pray for all the saints; and pray for me to be given an opportunity to open my mouth and speak without fear and give out the mystery of the gospel.” (Here encouragement is given to pray for the saints but not to them or through them. The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XI, p. 670, acknowledges: “Usually in the N[ew] T[estament], all prayer, private as well as public liturgical prayer, is addressed to God the Father through Christ.”)

Rom. 15:30,: “I beg you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of the Spirit, to help me through my dangers by praying to God for me.” (The apostle Paul, himself a saint, asked fellow Christians who were also saints to pray for him. But notice that Paul did not address his prayers to those fellow saints, nor did their prayers on his behalf replace the personal intimacy that Paul himself enjoyed with the Father by means of prayer. Compare Ephesians 3:11, 12,14.)

Wispy
06-09-2007, 01:38 AM
AND we don't confess our sins to a priest but to Jesus in the form of a priest. Jesus told His disciples to do His work when He was gone and they take on the work of Jesus. Course, you need to believe in Jesus being there when the priest does something in His name but that is what Jesus said so I believe. Not hard when I believe God is everywhere and can do everything.

Is the rite of personal confession into the ear of a priest, as taught by the Catholic Church Scriptural?

The traditional formula, still often used, is: “Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. It has been [length of time] since my last Confession.”—U.S. Catholic magazine, October 1982, p. 6.

Matt. 23:1,9: “Jesus said, ... ‘You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.’”


There is no record in the Bible of a single instance in which an apostle listened to a private confession and then pronounced absolution. However, the requirements for being forgiven by God are set out in the Bible.

Matt. 6:6-12: “When you pray, go into your private room and, after shutting your door, pray to your Father who is in secret ... ‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified ... and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.’”

Ps. 32:5: “My sin I finally confessed to you [God], and my error I did not cover. I said: ‘I shall make confession over my transgressions to God.’ And you yourself pardoned the error of my sins.”

1John 2:1: “If anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one.”

DtroitPunk
06-09-2007, 08:42 AM
Wispy, I had just about given up on trying to read in or post in this thread. It is so good to see someone else in this thread using the Holy Bible to settle debates on points of the faith between Christians. I was basically ridiculed for knowing the Bible earlier on. In addition to the myriads of other problems, the Catholic church actually allowed any priest who wanted to to be married in the past but changed it because when a priest died his belongings went to his family instead of the church. By forbidding to marry they were guaranteeing more income. This is common throughout the history of the "CHURCH" and reminds one of the admonition that no man can serve two masters. Matt 6:24. Long ago the Catholic church chose sides and might as well be called the Unified Church of Mammon. Once again to those I have debated in the past I am not trying to ruin your faith in Christ only to help you to a better understanding of his word and a fuller walk with him. Please anyone who wishes...Look at my post on my condemnation of the Catholic church after having watched Deliver us from evil a powerful testimony to the inner workings of the catholic church.

janelle
06-09-2007, 10:54 PM
Wow, what a dialogue. Wispy, what you say agrees with my wife (Janelle) except you seam to allude to a different conclusion. So, as to confession, here are the scriptural references

Num 5:6 “Tell the Israelites: If a man commits a fault against his fellow man and wrongs him, thus breaking faith with the Lord, he shall confess the wrong he has done, restore his ill-gotten goods in full, and in addition give one fifth of the value to the one he has wronged.” Remember the Israelites had priests (the Levites) so to whom do you think such confession was made?

Matt 3:6 “and were being baptized by him (John the Baptist) in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins.” Confession is a process of acknowledging one’s sins.

Act 19:18 “Many of those who had become believers came forward and openly acknowledged their former practices (sins).”

James 5:16 “Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed.”

Matt 18:18 “Amen, I say to you (the apostles), whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Other than confession and the forgiveness of sins, what other conclusion can we make about such a proclamation by Jesus?

John 20:22-23 “And when he had said this, he breathed on them (the disciples) and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit”. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” I don’t think this could be stated any clearer.

The statement “There is no record in the Bible of a single instance in which an apostle listened to a private confession and then pronounced absolution. However, the requirements for being forgiven by God are set out in the Bible”, is a bit oxymoronic. A confession that would be recorded in the scriptures would no longer be a private confession. So, you cannot have such a record in the scriptures. We agree there is no such record, as looking for such a record is to try to prove a negative. We cannot show any scriptural references to private matters of any type.

It is clear from the historical perspective of the scriptures that we are to confess our sins to one another. To deny this is to deny the scriptures. Jesus further gives the apostles and disciples further specific authority (with the power of the Holy Spirit) over the forgiveness of sins in Matt 18:18 and John 20:22-23. Priest through the bishops have the apostolic succession of the apostles and therefore retain this same specific authority.

You see the bible was not compiled into one book until late in the 4th century, about 390-400 A.D. Prior to this time, Christians had to rely upon tradition and the various books that were available to them. But, God in His infinite wisdom knew that we would need more specific guidance and therefore moved the Church to compile the scriptures. So it is with the scriptures and sacred tradition that we are able to affirm the beliefs as taught by the Catholic Church. It was not until the Protestant reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries that these NEW beliefs were ever introduced to Christianity (i.e., ones that deny the teachings of the Catholic Church). These older beliefs are not just held by the Roman Catholic Church, they are also held by the Eastern Churches; Greek and Russian Orthodox, Coptic, etc. When one denies these teachings, they are denying the teachings of Christianity, over 2,000 years of teachings.

It makes no since to believe that God gave us the scriptures and then make some claim that God did not protect those scriptures and the teachings from those scriptures for all of time since Chirst’s death, resurrection, and ascension. What we are observing from SOME of our Protestant brethren is a denial of God’s protection of the scriptures and the teachings. That is the definition of apostasy.

As to DtroitPunk’s new found movie and such allegations against the Catholic Church, it is laughable that he would even use a movie as evidence of anything factual. Movies are for entertainment. Some are documentaries. But even documentaries have problems because they are the presentation of the perspective of the person(s) making the documentary. They can say anything they want, present it in any light they want. Movies are not factual evidence of anything. At best, they are hearsay. No one is ever given the opportunity to even question the presenters or the people they interview. To believe a movie is to believe in blind faith. By the way this is also true of television and news shows. Are Michael Moore’s movies fair, honest presentation of the facts? Is Al Gore’s move a fair, honest presentation of the facts? Most conclude that both of these gentlemen have an agenda that they want to pursue and that the movies they made are only made to further their agenda’s. The facts are not fairly or completely presented in these documentaries. Being as intelligent as you seem to be I find it very surprising that you would rely on such sources for any meaningful evidence of anything.

It is true the Church, like all other parts of society, did not always properly handle those cases of sexual abuse. We are all sinners and all fall short of the glory of God. However, as we have learned more about sexual abuse, the Church, as did other parts of society, has taken serious steps to correct these problems. Is it perfect? No, because we still have to deal with imperfect humans. You see, in the case of sexual abuses the psychologists told us that these things could be cured, especially pedophilia. The Church does not possess the expertise in these areas and generally relies upon the expertise of others who are more qualified. We know that the sexual abuse is sinful. That has always been known. The problem is what to do about it. In the 1990’s the psychologist began to change their thinking on the curability of such sexually deviate behavior as pedophilia. They now say it is not curable and as such no person who has problems in these areas should have any contact with children. So now, the Catholic Church in America has implemented policies that keep such pedophiles from having that contact. In fact, many pedophiles are now being prosecuted for those crimes. But remember even prosecutors were not pursuing those crimes before the 1990’s. So even if the Church knew about a particular matter and told the prosecutors of it, the prosecutors still did nothing. Again, it was because in those days society held a different view. It is always precarious to make judgment of past practices if you do not keep in mind the standard of care at the time in which such practices occurred. Think about the care after surgery in 1950. In those days, the standard of care was bed rest for weeks while the wounds healed. Today, you are usually up and walking the same day of the surgery. There is almost no surgery where you are not walking within a week of the surgery. The standard of care changes as we learned more about how the body heals. We cannot fault a doctor in 1950 for keeping a person in bed for several weeks when that was the standard of care at the time. The same is true about these pedophiles. Now that we have better knowledge the Church and the rest of society are taken more appropriate actions to combat such behavior.

Please keep in mind that Jesus said those who are with us are not against us. All Christians are for Christ. We need to try to help each other and we need to be very leery of any effort to pass judgment on others. Read Matt 7:1-5 for what Christ says about this.

I continue to pray for you as you work to learn more about Christ’s church.

Posted by Janelle’s husband

DtroitPunk
06-10-2007, 10:49 PM
John 20:22-23 “And when he had said this, he breathed on them (the disciples) and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit”. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” I don’t think this could be stated any clearer.

The statement “There is no record in the Bible of a single instance in which an apostle listened to a private confession and then pronounced absolution. However, the requirements for being forgiven by God are set out in the Bible”, is a bit oxymoronic. A confession that would be recorded in the scriptures would no longer be a private confession. So, you cannot have such a record in the scriptures. We agree there is no such record, as looking for such a record is to try to prove a negative. We cannot show any scriptural references to private matters of any type.

It is clear from the historical perspective of the scriptures that we are to confess our sins to one another. To deny this is to deny the scriptures. Jesus further gives the apostles and disciples further specific authority (with the power of the Holy Spirit) over the forgiveness of sins in Matt 18:18 and John 20:22-23. Priest through the bishops have the apostolic succession of the apostles and therefore retain this same specific authority.


OK, it seems to me that you are being just a bit disingenuous. I dont know if this is purposeful or due more to faulty teaching and understanding. The bible teaches CLEARLY that NO man can forgive sins. These other verses are talking about forgiving the wrongs done unto us. And the bible could have said that one man came to Paul and confessed all of his sins and that Paul absolved him. Dont argue in circles like a lawyer. The contents of confession are private but that doesnt mean a priest or the bible couldnt say that a certain person made confession on a certain day.To site the verses you did as a sanction for officials of the church to take the place of God and forgive sins is at best a specious argument and at worst a deliberate attempt to justify that which cannot be defended. And talking about confessing our sins to one another...HMMM certainly you dont think that you can forgive me my sins? However a part of a christians duty is to forgive those who have wronged you. This is why we are admonished MANY times to confess our wrongs to each other. If we are not willing to forgive each other why should we expect forgiveness from god?

DtroitPunk
06-10-2007, 11:01 PM
At this time I would like to adress Janelles Hubby on Deliver Us From Evil. You obviously have not watched this film or you wouldnt make these statements. This is a very factual documentary and was not meant as an entertaining diversion for anyone. This film leaves you sick to your stomach. And to compare the film maker of this documentary to a Michael Moore, is weak and sad. Perhaps this woman did have an agenda, but if the agenda was for exapmle to expose a hidden truth and force an accountability of those responsible... how is that wrong? And this film isnt just hear say. They actually have parts of video taped legal depositions and documents and letters from the Church and civil authorities. this isnt just a smear campaign. And to attempt to limit the impact or discredit belief in this film without having actually watched it yourself is a horrible hypocrisy. Perhaps you consider yourself a defender of your faith, but sometimes things dont deserve to be protected. If my son ever killed someone for example, I would not stand up for and defend him unless I knew and I mean KNEW that he was innocent. Just because its your church or son or whatever doesnt mean its right. We must all be willing to look at things with honesty in the full light of day, regardless of our immediate personal feelings and reserve judgement until we have actually evaluated the evidence at our disposal.

janelle
06-11-2007, 07:04 PM
DtroitPunk, I have seen many movies that were unnerving. That doesn’t make them factual. Using a movie by itself as evidence is hearsay because it has no verifiable collaboration. One does not have the opportunity to question what is presented. One does not have the opportunity to present a different perspective on the evidence. Hearsay is the act of presenting evidence to which someone else would testify. That’s the best a movie can do. To interview a person in a movie is, in legal terms, an ex parte interview, one sided. Ex parte hearings in courts of law are rare because they face the problem of no opportunity for a counter argument. That is the best your new found movie can do is present a one sided argument.

No one is defending past wrongs. The sexual abuses were wrong. I said that before and am repeating it again. But you cannot say that the Catholic Church has not taken appropriate steps to correct past wrongs done by some individuals. In our local Diocese, the Diocese of Wichita, there was a priest, Father Larson, who was rumored to be involved in sexual scandals in the 1970s and 1980s. The bishop of the time had these investigated. He then sent the priest for treatment (remember that was the standard of care at the time), after he was treated the priest was assigned to a different parish. This same scenario was repeated, I believe, about 2 more times. Then the Bishop relieved the priest of his duties in the late 1980s. Father Larson then left the state. But never served as a priest again. Later, in the 1990s when the standard for prosecution changed the local District Attorney decide to prosecute Father Larson for his crimes. He is now in prison. The bishop did what was considered appropriate at the time. He reassigned the priest, not to hide the priest, but rather because the psychologist who treated Father Larson thought that he was cured. The standard of care today says that there is no cure for pedophilia. You can research this case yourself through the local newspaper, The Wichita Eagle.

The problem you are having is that you are not sorting out the difference between the sin of sexual abuse, the standard of care (treatment) at the time when such sin was committed or discovered, and the act of knowingly hiding a known sexual abuser (which would be sinful). I am not telling you that there was not some of that hiding of known sexual abusers. However, not every bishop was doing such. Not every bishop thought they should hide these people. Some bishops even thought they should be prosecuted but the prosecutors didn’t think it was appropriate. While some may have engaged in such sinful acts it was not the sanctioning of the Catholic Church.

How could your one sided movie enlighten anyone on this? It would only give the perspective of the movie maker. Maybe not even the perspective of those interviewed because you nor I know what was left on the cutting floor (the editing process). What did those who were interviewed say that the editor left out that would be important to having a more balanced perspective?

I might watch your new found movie if I could see if for free, but only for entertainment. I would be EXTEMELY cautious to use any information from such a movie as factual evidence of anything except the movie maker’s perspective. You see it is just like Michael Moore and Al Gore. There is an agenda and the motives of that agenda are most likely not pure.


Now to your statements about the forgiveness of sins through a priest. Maybe I didn’t state it quite correctly previously. The priest does NOT forgive sins in the confessional. Rather, the priest is the instrument used by God to forgive sins. I assumed you had a great understanding of the scriptures. If you do, then you know that the priest in the old testament were the ones to whom sins and sin offerings were presented. Read Leviticus, especially, Chapter 4 verses 27 trough 35. Here the priest for sins of private persons takes their sin offering “…and the priest shall burn it on the altar for an odor pleasing to the Lord. Thus the priest shall make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.” (verse 31). This theme is repeated over and over in the old testament. It is in this same tradition that the priests of the Catholic Churches (not just the Roman Catholic Church) through the authority granted by Christ Himself in Matt 18:18 use the special authority to act as the instrument through which Christ forgives sins.

This is not a disingenuous position. It is the position and faith of the vast majority of Christians in the world and has been for all of Christianity. You see the Protestant Churches are the ones that are presenting a new theology. One that Christians never believed prior to the 15th century. Surely, you are not claiming that the Christians for the first 1500 years of Christianity do not have salvation in Jesus Christ? Surely, you are not saying that the majority of Christians today that do NOT follow the Protestant positions but rather follow the Catholic traditions do not have salvation in Jesus Christ? The Catholic Church has the depth of faith and tradition to withstand all attacks upon it. It has for over 2,000 years. It has withstood these attacks and scandals (some even self imposed but not all) because this was the promise of Christ. “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it…” Matt 16:18.

I continue to prayer for you as you work to learn more about Christ’s Church.

Posted by Janelle’s husband

DtroitPunk
06-11-2007, 10:56 PM
I am going to point out at this time that just because the Roman Catholic Church has done things a certain way forever doesnt mean it is right. And I am sorry , but most anyone not Catholic is not going to classify Catholicicism as a Christian religion. They do over and over through history teach as doctrines the commandments and rulings of men. And actually the protestant denominations arent teaching any NEW theology. It just so happens that the majority of the "Christian" believers in the past were Catholic, but in the past whatever the priest said was taken at face value. When people opposed the church they did so at their own peril. They could be excommunicated which to most Catholics meant damnation, as Salvation was through the Church. And when People started printing bibles the Church wanted these people dead. They knew that individual believers studying the word for themselves were going to see some glaring inconsistencies. We could go round and round here forever, but the simple truth is that one should always be willing to hear and bear witness to evidence that might not be to kind to our beliefs. The catholic church has a long grand history of branding anything unfavorable to its ideals and goals as blasphemy and trouble makers who make it harder for them to bilk the masses as Arch-heretics. I have here http://www.indiewire.com/people/2006/10/indiewire_inter_31.html a link to an interview with Amy Berg the person behind this documentary. In it she says that under Roger MAhoney in the LA area alone there were over 550 Priests under investigation for sexual abuse. Now certainly I dont believe that every one of these priests were guilty, but wow! If even half of the accusations are genuine this would indicate a HUGE problem and Out of his own mouth Mahoney admits that he knew of the accusations against father O'Grady, and that they moved him over and over to new locations and once after telling local authorities that he would not be allowed to work around children anymore they actually gave him his own rectory and made him pastor over a flock!!! This Mahoney guy was protecting his own political and the churches financial interests. This is UNDENIABLE. Do I believe that the entire leadership of the Catholic Church would willingly put money above the welfare of the children and families in their care? No, I dont. However it seems that this is exactly what they did. And if you get the chance to watch this film, which by the way you can have your local Library order and then you can rent; you will see that there is a Licensed and ordained Catholic Priest who helps the victims and helps authorities deal with offenders in their own areas. He is interviewed several times in this documentary and has some interesting things to say about the Catholic Church. I am sure that you will acknowledge that a Catholic Priest is eminently qualified to speak to the general beliefs and practicies of the Church. And I am quite certain if his statements were doctored or edited to say only what was expedient ala Mr. Moore, he would have come out publicly and stated as much and that hasnt happened. If you start from a position of ultimate knowledge, and are unwilling to review any info to the contrary you will never learn anything new. If you already know the "truth" and are so certain of your beliefs then you have nothing to fear by actually looking into it. I am always willing to hear any logical statements or read books etc that posit arguments on issues of interest to me. I read books on both sides of the Origins of the species all the time. I absolutely know that we were created by God and that all we see is his handiwork. But I am more than willing to debate nonbelievers about the origins of the species and I will read books that explain the other sides reasoning. It is not enough for me personally to accept and obey. I must prove it to my own satisfaction, this enables me to win souls for Christ in a most unusual way. Most people believe that you cannot be an intellectual or educated and believe in a God that created all things. The truth is that there are many fields of study which are beginnig to show that the universe has deeply ingrained evidence of design and order because it was designed and ordered by a creator. This information can be used to bridge the gap to spiritual discussion with people who were previously unwilling to hear. Just an exapmle. It seems to me that you are a good Catholic soldier, a true defender of the faith who wont let little things like the bible and the truth get in the way. If you insist on believeing lies that you cannot defend without resorting to snipping parts of scripture and interpreting them, there is very little that can be done. The bible NEVER says that a servant of the church shouldnt marry, however it does say that MArriage is honourable in all, and rather than that ye burn in lust you should take a wife, and a bishop then should be the husband of but one wife. I could go on forever but I fear it would make no differrence.

DtroitPunk
06-11-2007, 11:10 PM
Also in July 2005 this article was written about homosexuality in the catholic church. It can be found here http://www.gospa.org/pl/pages/articles/editorials.html?ra=1;id=101
and appears to be written by a practicing Catholic, the site also is a Catholic site. You have to wear blinders and earplugs at this point to believe that the Catholic church doesnt have some HUGE problems.

janelle
06-12-2007, 02:00 AM
'What are your biggest creative influences?

I'm a huge fan of muckraking documentarians like Michael Moore. The Dogma 95 neo-neorealism films also had a profound effect on me. I tend to love narrative cineastes that employ a documentary style -- Alejandro Innaritu and Gus Van Sant to name two. I found the work I did as a journalist artistically unsatisfying so I definitely took an aesthetically-conscious approach to "Deliver Us from Evil." Before I even started shooting, I had a very specific idea of how I wanted the film to look. I choose my two cinematographers, Jacob Kusk and Jens Schlosser, because they had a similar style to Rodrigo Prieto ("21 Grams") and Harris Savides ("Elephant").
This is from the article on the woman who did the documentary.


Exactly what my husband said. She loves Michael Moore and his type of documentary. The exaggerated, non-substantiated type of hog wash.

I bet if he did a documentary on gun owners he would make you out to be a lunatic owner of guns. That is why I do not watch anything he does since the first documentary he did. I don't want to support any of his future films or any of his elke types of people who folllow in his footsteps documentaries.


From Janelle, not her husband this time.

janelle
06-12-2007, 10:42 AM
Clergy and Educator Abuse Survivors Empowered! Clergy Sexual Abuse
written by Frances Park

The following article originally appeared in the Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc. Newsletter, July, 1996. Copyright © 1996
Reproduced here with permission from the author.

It is commonly believed that clergy sexual abuse is an exclusively Catholic problem that does not happen in other churches. In a 1983 doctoral thesis by Richard Blackmon, 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner and 38% admitted to other sexualized contact with a parishioner.1 In separate denominational surveys, 48% of United Church of Christ female ministers and 77% of United Methodist female ministers reported having been sexually harassed in church.2 Although the actual extent of the problem is unknown, the significance of clergy sexual abuse is acknowledged by the denominational leaders of all Christian churches.3
The characteristics of clergy who violate sexual boundaries are as diverse as those of persons who sexually abuse or harass and are employed in other occupations. Characteristics more closely associated with the ministerial role are ascribed community trust, charisma, and patriarchal privilege and power. The clergy person is often accepted as God's representative whose authority is not to be questioned. Trustworthiness ascribed to the ministerial role is readily transferred as a character trait to those who fulfill that role. Charisma is a personal attribute that pulls the admiration of the church community as well as those who might serve the minister as sexual partner. The minister who enters into exploitive sexual relationships may do so because of situational circumstances or because he or she (most frequently "he") chronically disregards the welfare of others in order to meet their own needs.4 Frequently, more than one person is targeted for sexualized contact.

Most recipients of clergy sexual abuse are thought to be women, although children and men are also affected. They may be counselees, church volunteers or employees, seminarians or church interns. The violations range from verbal harassment to violent rape. Frequently, the individual responds to manipulative sexual advances of the clergy person. Individuals who have been retaliated against for reporting sexual abuse by clergy include people who did not experience sexualized contact but who affiliated themselves with survivors. Retaliation has included death threats.5 The common characteristic between abuse recipients is that they have fewer resources and therefore less power than the clergy person. Adult recipients of clergy sexual abuse are thought to experience the betrayal by God more strongly and to experience more severe adaptive consequences than others who experience sexual abuse during adulthood.6

The power differential between clergy and abuse recipient is determined not only by personal characteristics but also by what is provided to each by the church community. The clergy person has considerable control of the church pulpit and newsletter and may maintain that control even after a report of sexual abuse is received by the church. Denial is a common response by the church community, which contributes its empathetic support to the person accused rather than the identified victim. Responses of churches have included directly contributing to the abuse process. Examples of church abuse include: shunning, victim-blaming for loss of the community leader, and public verbal and physical harassment7. Church denial promotes the community esteem of the clergy person and allows a clergy perpetrator access to large numbers of potential victims.

In her 1992 address at the first national conference sponsored by The Linkup (Victims of Clergy Abuse Linkup), president Jeanne Miller stated that of the 3,000 persons who had contacted The Linkup, virtually everyone had gone to their church first for pastoral support and resolution. Rather than help, they were further punished for breaking silence. Examples of abuse by church hierarchy for reporting clergy sexual abuse have included: requiring people to confess their victimization as sin, excommunication, firing from church employment and threat of slander suits.8 If church has centered the survivor's faith life and sense of spirituality, these actions are especially damaging. While the victim is further punished, the sense of power-over and privilege of access to victims by the offending cleric is again enhanced. The reassignment of offending clergy to a new parish while withholding information about previous complaints of sexual misconduct occurs beyond the Catholic Church.

The compounding of these abuses is crushing to all dimensions of the survivor's integrity. Threats to safety as well as sense of safety are real. The response of the crisis counselor or therapist can contribute either to healing or enhancing the sense of victimization. Helpful responses include: safety instruction, referrals for support resources out of the immediate geographic community, referrals to the clergy abuse survivors' network, affirmation that the reporter's fears and pain are valid and that she or he is believed. It is recommended that initial referrals for pastoral services be located outside the survivor's denomination and with a recommendation from other clergy abuse survivors. Survivors of clergy abuse discourage use of denominational hotlines as a first step in reporting. Responses that add to the survivor's sense of isolations include statements indicating the reporter's story is unbelievable or that assistance is unavailable or that the recipient should forgive and get on with life.

The counselor who is active in church life can be of further support by advocating for local church education and policy development. When confronted with a disclosure, accepting the risk to advocate for the compassionate treatment of those who report can affect the level of the survivor's vulnerability. A demand for accountable action can provide leadership to avoid church abuse and create a spiritual and safe haven for those already oppressed.

janelle
06-12-2007, 10:47 AM
How Many Catholic Priests Convicted?:

Up to the year 2000, 800 US priests have been through the court process; not all convicted, out of 50,000 Catholic priests in America... and some 1300 priests have been treated for psychosexual disorders over the period of the crisis The Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Catholic Church Priests Sexual Abuse
... and, at least, 232 priests removed of their pastoral duties Pedophiles and Priests Survey: 232 Priests removed

The rest of the 50,000 priests are fine, holy priests, who renounced to have their own family to dedicate themselves to serve and praise Jesus and help other people, not for a year or two, but for their entire life.

The ratio is less than the 1 to 12 (the Judas of Jesus time)... actually the ratio is 1 to 62... every 62 priests 1 Judas!... I would not be surprised if there are more on the closed to reach the ratio of Jesus success and failure.

In percentage statistics:
- In Jesus Time: 1 out of 12... 8.3% bad... the rest, 91.7% holy priests.
- Today in USA: Priests accused: 800 out of 50.000... 1.6% accused... the rest, 98.4%, honest, fine priests.

The failure of only one priest would be reason enough for all Catholics to get on their knees and pray for him and for his victims... however, few institutions in the world today can show these superabundant results of holiness and honesty... though the few ones cast a dark shadow of suspicion on the rest of the 98.4% holy priests.

janelle
06-12-2007, 10:51 AM
http://biblia.com/christianity/clergy.htm


AND a very good web site about the whole problem and what is being done about it. YES BEING DONE ABOUT IT NOT IGNORED ANYMORE. Now that they know of the extent of it and what to do.

janelle
06-12-2007, 10:55 AM
"Does the celibacy requirement increase the likelihood that a priest will be a sex offender? Jenkins details how the media accounts of clergy sex abuse emphasized not only "cover up" but the celibacy factor. The view presented repeatedly was that the type of formation around this unrealistic requirement contributed to the supposed widespread sex abuse among priests. However, the difficulty with the argument is that there is no proof the problem is greater among priests than Protestant ministers—or even other service professionals, like teachers or physicians. It is worth noting that while the case involving former priest James Porter received massive media attention, the equally scandalous case of Protestant minister Tony Leyva got only limited coverage." The Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Catholic Church
The opposite is really the truth: In other churches, with no celibacy, the rate of sexual abuse is 12%, while in the Roman Catholic Church is less that 2%... and in the adult population the rate of adultery among marriage people is over 20% as well as the the rate of fornication among non-marriage people. Clergy Sexual Abuse .

DtroitPunk
06-12-2007, 11:59 AM
All of this is very interesting, but as to the statistics...What poll is this from, who ran it? Just because you throw out some numbers that seem to say the problem isnt as big as many people claim, doesnt mean these numbers are accurate. And I have no doubt that Michael Moore would make gun owners look like nuts, but What Amy Berg said was that she had an aesthetic direction and that she was a fan of the Moore genre of films. She didnt say she was going to make the same kinds of films. And I have watched this film, it condemns the people in this particular Diocese out of theyre own mouths. You should see how often they stammer and hem and haw and sometimes outright lie under oath. I haven seen such a great performance from a liar since the Clinton impeachment hearings. And I am really sorry but when Catholics and Catholic organizations are starting to admit that there is a huge homosexuality problem in the church, how can you sit and argue that the Catholic church is just the same as any other church in terms of sexual abuse? The numbers just dont agree with that in reality. If for example the Methodist church or the Southern Baptist Convention had to pay out over 1 Billion dollars in judgements it would have bankrupted them. As a point of fact though, no other church has had as much litigation leveled at them. With all that smoke there has to be a few fires somewhere. And common sense alone should tell you that when you give people no choice but a single life and celibacy there absolutely will be more problems. We all have procreative urges and most of us are sensual beings craving affection and touch. To tell a person that they cannot have any type of sexual contact until marriage is one thing, but to tell them that they must abstain from ALL sexual contact for life if they want to serve the Church. First this is against the bible and second it is an unfair thing to ask of anyone.

janelle
06-12-2007, 12:08 PM
UMMM that is why it is called a sacrifice. I see you have not read any of the info I posted. I'LL READ YOURS IF YOU WILL READ MINE. LOL

And for your information people who sue go after the money. The church has lots of money therefore----- some cases may not even hold water but they are paid to just stop and go away. This is a known fact with any large corporation like Walmart, etc, etc.

You don't think this woman who likes Michael Moore will make films like his? OH PLEASE.

Please quote where in the bible it says we all must marry or go to hell. Single people all over the world will be interested to know this.

Most people do not know who is going to hell or heaven. I am glad you think you do. NOT

Bubblescc
06-12-2007, 01:16 PM
[QUOTE=janelle


Please quote where in the bible it says we all must marry or go to hell. Single people all over the world will be interested to know this.

Most people do not know who is going to hell or heaven. I am glad you think you do. NOT[/QUOTE]



anyone that has taken the lord as thier personal savior is going to heaven, its sad that you dont know if you are or not?????

WHERE does he say that all must marry or go to hell, wow janelle you see and read what you want, not what is actually there....

IT is obvious that you are going to defend catholics no matter what, so this conversation is rather pointless... would you still if something had happened to your child?
Sounds like you have been a catholic for your whole life, am I right?

janelle
06-12-2007, 01:24 PM
So tell me what is exactly there. I guess I don't get it. Single people go to hell???

Yes, I have been a Catholic my whole life so I think I know the inside and those on the outside are telling me what they think they know about my family. Would you put up with this?

LI Mama
06-12-2007, 01:30 PM
All of this is very interesting, but as to the statistics...What poll is this from who ran it? Just because you throw out some numbers that seem to say the problem isnt s big as many people claim, doesnt mean these numbers are accurate. And I have no doubt that Michael Moore would make gun owners look like nuts, but What Amy Berg said was that she had an aesthetic direction and that she was a fan of the Moore genre of films. She didnt say she was going to make the same kinds of films. And I have watched this film, it condemns the people in this particular Diocese out of theyre own mouths. You should see how often they stammer and hem and haw and sometimes outright lie under oath. I haven seen such a great performance from a liar since the Clinton impeachment hearings. And I am really sorry but when Catholics and Catholic organizations are starting to admit that there is a huge homosexuality problem in the church, how can you sit and argue that the Catholic church is just the same as any other church in terms of sexual abuse? The numbers just dont agree with that in reality. If for example the Methodist church or the Southern Baptist Convention had to pay out over 1 Billion dollars in judgements it would have bankrupted them. As a point of fact though, no other church has had as much litigation leveled at them. With all that smoke there has to be a few fires somewhere. And common sense alone should tell you that when you give people no choice but a single life and celibacy there absolutely will be more problems. We all have procreative urges and most of us are sensual beings craving affection and touch. To tell a person that they cannot have any type of sexual contact until marriage is one thing, but to tell them that they must abstain from ALL sexuall contact for life if they want to serve the Church. First this is against the bible and second it is an unfair thing to ask of anyone.


I don't have time to adress everything in this post, but one thing jumped out at me. There are many ways to serve The Church. You don't have to join a religious order to serve. My dh and I both serve our church, all the time.

LI Mama
06-12-2007, 01:31 PM
anyone that has taken the lord as thier personal savior is going to heaven, its sad that you dont know if you are or not?????

WHERE does he say that all must marry or go to hell, wow janelle you see and read what you want, not what is actually there....

IT is obvious that you are going to defend catholics no matter what, so this conversation is rather pointless... would you still if something had happened to your child?
Sounds like you have been a catholic for your whole life, am I right?

Um, could you point me to the post where Janelle defended the priests who victimized children, or the people who covered it up? I must've missed that.

FTR, I'm a cradle Catholic also. :)

Bubblescc
06-12-2007, 01:33 PM
So tell me what is exactly there. I guess I don't get it. Single people go to hell???

Yes, I have been a Catholic my whole life so I think I know the inside and those on the outside are telling me what they think they know about my family. Would you put up with this?


I guess I dont see what your seeing can you please tell me which post he said this in, I have read every post on here and still dont see it...?

Janelle noone said anything about your family, at least I didnt see where they did???? Its a public forum and I never have a popular opinion so as long as I get to voice my opinion I really dont care what people say about it. My view on abortion is that it is unacceptable no matter what, I get flamed for this all the time,lol.... I dont let it get me upset its not worth it, just my opinion...

LI Mama
06-12-2007, 01:34 PM
I beleive Janelle is referring to the church as her family. Many Catholics do. :)

Bubblescc
06-12-2007, 01:37 PM
Um, could you point me to the post where Janelle defended the priests who victimized children, or the people who covered it up? I must've missed that.

FTR, I'm a cradle Catholic also. :)


STOP trying to put words in peoples mouths I said defend catholics, never said defend the priests that molested children, oh my gosh get real!

Janelle knew that is not what I was saying!

LETS TRY READING WHAT IS ACTUALLY SAID???? Now there is an idea..

janelle
06-12-2007, 01:43 PM
"To tell a person that they cannot have any type of sexual contact until marriage is one thing, but to tell them that they must abstain from ALL sexual contact for life if they want to serve the Church. First this is against the bible and second it is an unfair thing to ask of anyone." Quote from DtroitPunk

I asked him to show where it is against the bible. If one is against the bible they are not for it. I wondered where in the bible we are commanded to marry or it will be very bad for us.

janelle
06-12-2007, 01:47 PM
'All of this is very interesting, but as to the statistics...What poll is this from, who ran it? Just because you throw out some numbers that seem to say the problem isnt as big as many people claim, doesnt mean these numbers are
accurate.'


Well ditto on your numbers too. If you go into it and read it you will know where it is from.

DtroitPunk
06-12-2007, 01:53 PM
"YES BEING DONE ABOUT IT NOT IGNORED ANYMORE. Now that they know of the extent of it and what to do."

I will attempt to address some of your comments 1 at a time. I have read this link and found it to be interesting, however this writer doesnt give corrobarative evidence or other writers who agree with his statements. Not only that as a Catholic one might argue that he also has an agenda the protection of the catholic Church. I am not saying this is true, but what if he is an abuse or a homosexual? Wouldnt that give him more motive to downplay the problem? This person has a lot of questionable comments and ideas on his sites and even occult photo galleries? Please see this link for a picture of him
http://biblia.com/dominguez/ I will leave it up to the viewer to make any judgements. And as to the Catholic Church doing everything it can to fix the problems, well they have to now dont they? If they could still cover it up they would. And as far as the extent of the problem, most all medical and mental health professionals agree that a large portion of people who are sexually abused never report it! Please see this site for statistics on child sexual abuse http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/statistics_2.asp

janelle
06-12-2007, 01:55 PM
"anyone that has taken the lord as thier personal savior is going to heaven, its sad that you dont know if you are or not?????'


So from what you say here, all the pedophile priests are going to heaven cause they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

I dont know if this is true, only the Lord knows.

DtroitPunk
06-12-2007, 02:08 PM
Please quote where in the bible it says we all must marry or go to hell. Single people all over the world will be interested to know this.

Most people do not know who is going to hell or heaven. I am glad you think you do. NOT

Wow Janelle! I guess Ad Hominem attacks are the last resort of a desperate person. Since you cant debate me on the facts you wish to twist my words and discredit me so others might ignore me. Thats more than a little sad. You know as well as anyone who has read my posts that I NEVER said single people will go to hell. Now you are just lying to TRY to discredit me. This is the same LAME argument made by people who want to give citizenship to illegal aliens...If you dont want it you must be a racist and a bigot. This doesnt touch on the facts at all, but ill informed persons will believe that they dont have to listen because this person has bsically been discredited. By making up some WILD statement I never said and getting people to focus on that you are attempting to make people forget that you havent argued ANY of my points. And in addition yes I do know I am going to heaven and furthermore I know how to lead others to Christ as well. The link you posted earlier shows that Dr Dominguez also knows that people can go to heaven and KNOW they are going to heaven see http://biblia.com/heaven/greatest.htm
Towards the bottom of the page he says " Do you want to be saved? Salvation: Jesus Saves
It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead... that this man stands before you healed.12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:10-12).
Believe in Jesus Christ, He was crucified and buried, and raised from the dead... and you are saved... that simple... and, of course, if you believe in Jesus, you do what he commands, as you do the commands of your Doctor if you believe in him."

Wow a Catholic priest! How do you attack him?

janelle
06-12-2007, 02:10 PM
I don't know where you found the site on the DR. yes Dr. not a priest on the site. I can't find it. He goes into cults and that is where occult pics are. He is against them.

Anyway you are getting way off the subject of sexual abuse.

AND I have an obligation to defend my church so yes I will keep doing it. I have renounced pedofile priests but won't stand around while all priests are put into that catagory. Would you if it was your church.

No one has the obligation to condemn anyone or anything. That is only God's territory so why not tell DtroitPunk that is wrong?

Bubblescc
06-12-2007, 02:14 PM
"anyone that has taken the lord as thier personal savior is going to heaven, its sad that you dont know if you are or not?????'


So from what you say here, all the pedophile priests are going to heaven cause they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

I dont know if this is true, only the Lord knows.

WOW janelle be for real, I really dont think someone that abused children accepted Jesus as thier savior. or if they did they obviously didnt mean it.... oh my gosh how pathetic this conversation has become.....GOD knows the hearts and minds of men..... when you repent you have to mean it and if you continue with the same sin over and over, the person obviously didnt mean it...

janelle
06-12-2007, 02:15 PM
Please quote where in the bible it says we all must marry or go to hell. Single people all over the world will be interested to know this.

Most people do not know who is going to hell or heaven. I am glad you think you do. NOT

Wow Janelle! I guess Ad Hominem attacks are the last resort of a desperate person. Since you cant debate me on the facts you wish to twist my words and discredit me so others might ignore me. Thats more than a little sad. You know as well as anyone who has read my posts that I NEVER said single people will go to hell. Now you are just lying to TRY to discredit me. This is the same LAME argument made by people who want to give citizenship to illegal aliens...If you dont want it you must be a racist and a bigot. This doesnt touch on the facts at all, but ill informed persons will believe that they dont have to listen because this person has bsically been discredited. By making up some WILD statement I never said and getting people to focus on that you are attempting to make people forget that you havent argued ANY of my points. And in addition yes I do know I am going to heaven and furthermore I know how to lead others to Christ as well. The link you posted earlier shows that Dr Dominguez also knows that people can go to heaven and KNOW they are going to heaven see http://biblia.com/heaven/greatest.htm
Towards the bottom of the page he says " Do you want to be saved? Salvation: Jesus Saves
It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead... that this man stands before you healed.12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:10-12).
Believe in Jesus Christ, He was crucified and buried, and raised from the dead... and you are saved... that simple... and, of course, if you believe in Jesus, you do what he commands, as you do the commands of your Doctor if you believe in him."

Wow a Catholic priest! How do you attack him?

He is not a priest, he is a doctor. And by what you are saying pedofile priests are going to heaven.

janelle
06-12-2007, 02:21 PM
WOW janelle be for real, I really dont think someone that abused children accepted Jesus as thier savior. or if they did they obviously didnt mean it.... oh my gosh how pathetic this conversation has become.....GOD knows the hearts and minds of men..... when you repent you have to mean it and if you continue with the same sin over and over, the person obviously didnt mean it...

Exactly what I said earlier in this post about confessions. No, NO one knows who is going to heaven or hell since we do not know what is in people's hearts, only God does.

DtroitPunk
06-12-2007, 02:55 PM
I asked him to show where it is against the bible. If one is against the bible they are not for it. I wondered where in the bible we are commanded to marry or it will be very bad for us. I found this at an apparently Catholic site

l have shown from the bible before! Try 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Where we are shown that the catholic church has given heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils by forbidding to marry. And they have listened to a spirit... Greed
I also found at this apparently Catholic site http://rentapriest.blogspot.com/2007/06/to-marry-or-not-for-catholic-priests.html
"The earliest known rule of mandatory celibacy of the clergy was issued at the Council of Elvira in A.D. 306, when clergy in what is now Spain were ordered to be single under pain of deposition. A similar proposal was made at the universal ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325, but this was rejected and not put into canon law. In 386 Pope Siricus ordered the Roman clergy to be celibate, but the fact that the decree had to be reissued by Pope Innocent I after A.D. 402 suggests that the earlier decree might not have been completely obeyed." There have been many writers who have stated that the Catholic church only made this decree so that they wouldnt have the married priests belongings going to his family and instead would revert to the Church!
And the bible doesnt say, and I NEVER SAID you must marry or burn in hell, and it doesnt say you must remain Celibate to serve the church! In fact we are told in 1 Timothy 3:1-5 That a bishop must be the HUSBAND of but one WIFE and that if a man knows not how to run his own house how can he handle the house of the lord. As you can see the bible tells us over and over that Marriage is a PERSONAL choice!!! But that it is honourable in ALL!!

DtroitPunk
06-12-2007, 03:04 PM
I was really trying to show that the link that YOU provided shows that it is not at all uncommon for people to acknowledge that they are saved and lead others to a similar state. It has long been the purview of "THE CHURCH" in catholicism that you cant know and that is why you must remain in the good graces of the church as if any church body could give out salvation for the faithful like candy! And NOONE who would molest a child could be saved at the time they commit such an atrocity!!! If you did something like that and repented of your sins and came to the lord you COULD be saved if you were sincere. But to think that anyone whether they are a rapist a homosexual or a wife beater can continue in their sin and go to heaven? HAH. if youread the bible you see that this is false in Gal 6:6-8 we are told that we reap what we sow and that if you sow to the flesh you cannot reap of the everlasting spirit! God is not mocked! He knows if we are sincere when we repent of sins.

kate
06-12-2007, 03:06 PM
Ok, that site is not an official Catholic site. If you want information on actual Catholic doctrine it is best to go to a site that actually discusses it in a way that it is backed up with the catechism. I despise when people bring out "supposed" Catholic things because they found them somewhere on the internet.

However, the reasons given in the blog are some of the reasons that the priesthood was made to be celibate. It wasn't the only reason but an overriding one. Most Catholics will admit to issues during the dark days of the church. I don't know any Catholics, personally, that don't frown upon what has happened in the distant past and the near past.

The current reasons for celibacy within the priesthood are valid however.
From our Catechism

1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord," they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1579.htm

kate
06-12-2007, 03:10 PM
I was really trying to show that the link that YOU provided shows that it is not at all uncommon for people to acknowledge that they are saved and lead others to a similar state. It has long been the purview of "THE CHURCH" in catholicism that you cant know and that is why you must remain in the good graces of the church as if any church body could give out salvation for the faithful like candy! And NOONE who would molest a child could be saved at the time they commit such an atrocity!!! If you did something like that and repented of your sins and came to the lord you COULD be saved if you were sincere. But to think that anyone whether they are a rapist a homosexual or a wife beater can continue in their sin and go to heaven? HAH. if youread the bible you see that this is false in Gal 6:6-8 we are told that we reap what we sow and that if you sow to the flesh you cannot reap of the everlasting spirit! God is not mocked! He knows if we are sincere when we repent of sins.

The CHURCH does not operate under the idea that THEY hand out salvation at all. The church does feel that they are the best and most perfect vehicle to salvation on earth due to the dual nature of the "Deposit of Faith." The Deposit of Faith consists of both the sacred scriptures and sacred Tradition that has been handed down through apostolic succession that began with St. Peter. However, being a Catholic does not make it automatic entry into heaven and being in communion with the church guarantees nothing and no good Catholic would say that it provides a guarantee because no human can know exactly what is required.

DtroitPunk
06-12-2007, 03:18 PM
AND I have an obligation to defend my church so yes I will keep doing it

Why? If I was a member of a Church that purported to be a Christian organization and it was pointed out to me that several of the doctrines and positions of my church were actually against the bible, I would find another Church. I am sorry that this is causing you grief, but I NEVER get angry during discussions of religion even when confronted by spiritualists and satanists. Why because I am not blindly following tradition. I researched and became faithful to Christ through my own studies. I am absolutely certain of the ground I stand on as I thoroughly evaluated my choice before I commited to my faith. When you are baptized and christened into faith as a child and then indoctrinated over long years you have no real choice in the matter do you? And by your own admission you dont have a solid foundation of what the Bible says, so you are therefore ill equipped for a Christian spiritual debate. The bible is very clear and in most instances says exactly what it means, so for any council of bishops or a pope or whatever to be making proclamations that are not FULLY supported bythe bible is a horrible abuse of the trust that the people have placed with them. I only wish for people to look at themselves and their faiths openly and honestly not in the darkness of ignorance and tradition. And please realize that I am not singling out any one person or faith, it just so happens that we are discussing Catholicism in this thread. I also am not calling you ignorant, what I am saying is that if we assume that we have been told the truth and dont find out for ourselves we are being willfully ignorant. This applies to any one in any debate who wont even hear arguments against their beliefs.

kate
06-12-2007, 03:25 PM
Why? If I was a member of a Church that purported to be a Christian organization and it was pointed out to me that several of the doctrines and positions of my church were actually against the bible, I would find another Church.

I challenge you to find examples of what is against the Bible in Catholic doctrine. You have to remember that the Bible does not say anywhere that it is the total sum of all answers on God. The Church has doctrine that falls outside of the words in the Bible but NOTHING can or is in contradiction to the Bible. I challenge you to find those things and then LISTEN and carefully READ what is presented as an opposing argument.


I am absolutely certain of the ground I stand on as I thoroughly evaluated my choice before I commited to my faith.

As you are certain of the ground you stand on I can guarantee that Catholics are as certain of the ground they stand on.


When you are baptized and christened into faith as a child and then indoctrinated over long years you have no real choice in the matter do you?

Sure you do. I've taught confirmation classes, I have researched on my own, and I've discussed with many people my ideas, beliefs, and understandings. Those ideas were not created in a vacuum and I've had many opportunities to look outside of my denomination. What I found was the TRUTH was at home the entire time. That doesn't mean that I accepted it the entire time.


This applies to any one in any debate who wont even hear arguments against their beliefs.

I'll hear arguments against my church but I challenge those arguing with me to hear the arguments that I present as well.

DtroitPunk
06-12-2007, 03:29 PM
The CHURCH does not operate under the idea that THEY hand out salvation at all. The church does feel that they are the best and most perfect vehicle to salvation on earth due to the dual nature of the "Deposit of Faith." The Deposit of Faith consists of both the sacred scriptures and sacred Tradition that has been handed down through apostolic succession that began with St. Peter. However, being a Catholic does not make it automatic entry into heaven and being in communion with the church guarantees nothing and no good Catholic would say that it provides a guarantee because no human can know exactly what is required.

Good point Kate! But lets be honest, this sort of means that a person MUST attend church and must make offreings and must follow the traditions set down by the church. This is because if they admit that you can be saved independant of the Church and without attending church they lose alot of money. But in fairness, the bible is quite clear about what needs be done to remain in fellowship with the lord and that we can Know that we are saved please see II Timothy 3-14-18. We can know what god expects of us how to be saved and what we should and shouldnt do in our lives THROUGH his word.

janelle
06-12-2007, 03:56 PM
Well my husband gives you bible quotes and I give you web sites but you still condemn the Catholic Church. I am not the one condemning a whole church for the actions of a few. I won't condemn anyone or anything. That is up to God and if you studied like you say you did you would know this.

Anyone at anytime can walk away from the church, no one is holding them there. Only Jesus and the Holy Spirit is holding them there.

You might be surprised to know my husband walked away for more than ten years but decided to come back when he studied more about it. The church bases all it's teachings on the bible. I know you would argue tradition but if you studied tradition you will find it is based on scriptures and only scriptures.

2,000 years of following Jesus's word so they would not stray away now.

kate
06-12-2007, 04:09 PM
Good point Kate! But lets be honest, this sort of means that a person MUST attend church and must make offreings and must follow the traditions set down by the church. This is because if they admit that you can be saved independant of the Church and without attending church they lose alot of money. But in fairness, the bible is quite clear about what needs be done to remain in fellowship with the lord and that we can Know that we are saved please see II Timothy 3-14-18. We can know what god expects of us how to be saved and what we should and shouldnt do in our lives THROUGH his word.

Ok, let me take a stab at this.


14You, however, (AO)continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

15and that (AP)from childhood you have known (AQ)the sacred writings which are able to (AR)give you the wisdom that leads to (AS)salvation through faith which is in (AT)Christ Jesus.

16(AU)All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

17so that (AV)the man of God may be adequate, (AW)equipped for every good work.



These passages don't discuss the requirements for salvation at all. And it is referring to sacred writings of the time. Sacred writings at that time aren't going to have been anything that is today considered the New Testament. This is referring to the Hebrew Scriptures as at that time there were no sacred texts that were in existence other than the Hebrew Scriptures.

It also doesn't say that scripture is the ONLY tool needed. It mentions scriptures as a tool but it does not explicitly state that it is the only one.

Where it says that all scripture is inspired by God that, to me, means that while God is the principal author he had a human collaborator and thus are in human language and is not necessarily the exact words that God would use although it does convey the message God wanted us to have.

I also want to add, in regards to verses 16 and 17 that while God's word in the scriptures are his divine authority, that authority is exercised through those who are ministers of the word. And as a Catholic that can be extrapolated out to include all those who have taught the Tradition of Christ and not solely the words of Christ.

DtroitPunk
06-12-2007, 04:31 PM
I'll hear arguments against my church but I challenge those arguing with me to hear the arguments that I present as well.

Well said Kate. I will hear any argument that is supported by the word of god. What you believe or what I believe is irrelevant, what does God have to say on the matter. And I think ANY religion that doesnt rely on only the word of God is doomed. Jehovas witnesses, Mormons, Catholics its all the same. Gods word provides what we need. When a group of bishops get together or whatever and say that contraception is evil I just cant take that seriously. How dare anyone of any Christian religion think that they speak as God on subjects on which he has not spoken. Even the Pope is still just a man and as such he also is guilty of original sin at the very least. And I can provide verse after verse against some of the practices of the Church, but most are not even going to hear them, Matt 23:9 call no man on earth thy father. The bible shows that most of the Apostles were married as well see, Matt 8:14, Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38 And 1 Cor 9:5. Catholic tradition holds that Mary never had children with Joseph making her a perpetual virgin, the bible proves this false in Matt 13:55-56 and in Mark 6:3. The pope is often referred to as the Holy Father, this is a name for GOD the father see John 17:11, people bow down to and kiss the ring of the Pope where Peter himself would not allow this kind of treatment see Acts 10:25-26, If Peter recognizes that bowing to him is a form of worship why dont the Higher officials of your church? Exodus 20:4-5 clearly prohibits making any object for the purpose of worship it is idolatry. Catholic tradition also teaches that Peter is the foundation of the church where the bible says in 1 Cor 3:11 and in Matt 21:42 that Jesus is the SOLE foundation. Many pray to the Virgin Mary and to the saints for intercession, first off a church doesnt decide who is a saint the bible clearly teaches that ALL born again believers are Saints there are 67 references to the saints in the bible for just an example see Acts 26:10 and Acts 9:32 And secondly you may ask the saints you know to pray for you but there is NO scriptural foundation for asking for the prayers of dead saints even the Catholic church admits that it has only 2 veres of scripture which support this and the fact is they do not support asking for the prayers of dead saints at all! See http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9007chap.asp at the bottom of the page. The Catholic church has a long history of taking partial scripture or scriptures out of context and using them to their own needs and desires. And in fact in the Writings of St bernard he acknowledges that the CAtholic Faith fashioned a more approachable figure in Mary as Jesus Christ or God the father is just to scary to pray directly to see http://www.justforcatholics.org/prayer.htm midway down the page.
And what about the fact that the bible tells us that no man can forgive sins? The argument is that the priest is acting in the place of God, but who and furthermore what in Scripture gives them this authority? And what about 10 our fathers and 6 hail marys or whatever? Matt 6;7 says to not pray using vain repetition, I know the first argument is going to be ITS NOT VAIN. But it was created by MAN and doesnt always reflect heartfelt prayer. I could go on all day literally with the bible showing many errors but this should be sufficient as a start. And to say that God didnt provide us all we need to lead a correct spiritual life is to say that first that the Bible and therefore God is incomplete or imperfect. And how does anyone muslim, mormon, Catholic or Jehovas witness just as a few examples know who has really been blessed and approved of by God? How can we know that the pronounciations of our priests are Just and accurate? If what they say is supportable by the Bible thats how.

DtroitPunk
06-12-2007, 04:43 PM
Well my husband gives you bible quotes and I give you web sites but you still condemn the Catholic Church. I am not the one condemning a whole church for the actions of a few. I won't condemn anyone or anything. That is up to God and if you studied like you say you did you would know this.

Actually, I have started reading the links that you post and I have looked at he verses your husband showed. The point is there are NUMEROUS points where the Catholic Church differs from or gives counsel on things that is not in the bible, when a Church as a whole has beliefs that are taught as fundamental fact to its believers that is against the bible I WILL condemn them. As anyone should. This non judgemental atittude is from an incomplete understanding of the bible. We as Christians are actually told to judge numerous times in the bible in john 7:24, 1 Cor 5:12-13, 1 Cor 6:2-5 are just a few examples, We are exhorted to be pure and righteous and use the mind of Christ when we Judge for how can you see to remove the speck from your brothers eye when you have a plank in your own Matt 7:1-5 you see Matthew is instructing us against hypocrisy. So as you see we are to judge things and sins and even people and in fact on the day of judgement WE WILL JUDGE ALL even the angels! So tell me who hasnt studied the word. So I guess you wont condemn pedophiles either?

LI Mama
06-12-2007, 05:01 PM
STOP trying to put words in peoples mouths I said defend catholics, never said defend the priests that molested children, oh my gosh get real!

Janelle knew that is not what I was saying!

LETS TRY READING WHAT IS ACTUALLY SAID???? Now there is an idea..


Newsflash, priests are Catholics.

DtroitPunk
06-12-2007, 05:02 PM
Thanks Kate for the carification, but you do sort of prove my points with this quote from the cathechism
1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord," they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.

I understand the position, but I have to take issue with it it is not based on scripture. People keep saying to me that all the traditions and teachings of the Church are based on scripture and that is clearly not the case. In any court of law where people with no religious faith were presented this forum as evidence and the Bible and the Cathechism to review the undeniable verdict would be that the Catholic church teaches as doctrines the commandments of men. Matt 15:9. The bible absolutely Holds all that we need for correct spiritual life. And to argue that the Bible doesnt explicitly say this or that is a completely specious argument. Do you really believe that God would leave such things up to man? What arrogance. The bible taken as a whole does support some things and condemn others, whether the bible talks about a statue of the virgin mary for example doesnt matter the bible has spoken clearly numerous times about bowing and worshipping any objects or persons. I have given more than adequate support to warrant a reasonable doubt if some of you will not listen, that is no matter to me. I will no longer participate on this forum unless specifically asked to do so as it seems a waste of all our time. I now leave you with the words of Paul to the Church at Corinth from 1 Cor 14:37-38. Please everyone look it up. I use only the KJV but it is much the same in other translations.

LI Mama
06-12-2007, 05:03 PM
WOW janelle be for real, I really dont think someone that abused children accepted Jesus as thier savior. or if they did they obviously didnt mean it.... oh my gosh how pathetic this conversation has become.....GOD knows the hearts and minds of men..... when you repent you have to mean it and if you continue with the same sin over and over, the person obviously didnt mean it...

Obviously, but how would YOU know if they really repented or not? You don't. Only God knows that. Therefore, you DON'T know who is going to heaven.

kate
06-12-2007, 05:15 PM
I'll take this on, but could you consider maybe using paragraphs next time my eyes are doing the bugging out thing ;)


.
Gods word provides what we need. When a group of bishops get together or whatever and say that contraception is evil I just cant take that seriously.

But it comes down to your understanding of the Word. It is obvious, to me, when reading the scriptures that they aren't meant to be taken literally. And, as I pointed out in my previous post, the verses you gave to support Sola Scriptura don't necessarily support it. Do you want to try that with other verses as well. I have arguments for those verses as well.



How dare anyone of any Christian religion think that they speak as God on subjects on which he has not spoken. Even the Pope is still just a man and as such he also is guilty of original sin at the very least.

No Catholic will stipulate any differently. The Catholic Church doesn't speak for God they help to interpret what God has already given us through the Deposit of Faith.

And the Pope, is no more than a Bishop to us and yet is just a simple man and no one will claim that he is any more important or any better of a person.



Matt 23:9 call no man on earth thy father. The bible shows that most of the Apostles were married as well see,

When I read the entirety of the verses surrounding this it isn't that Jesus is railing against certain titles but rather the superiority that comes with their use. One could argue against that with the Catholic Church but when one actually understands the Church and it's communication with the laity the priest/father isn't in a position of superiority. Therefore it doesn't go against this command by Jesus.

And you have never referred to your father as a father? Because if you have you are no less guilty then Catholics.


Matt 8:14, Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38 And 1 Cor 9:5
I have no issues saying the apostles were married. You're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm for a married priesthood but at this time I understand the Catholic doctrine for why it is not allowed at this time. Understanding it doesn't equal thinking it's perfect.


Catholic tradition holds that Mary never had children with Joseph making her a perpetual virgin, the bible proves this false in Matt 13:55-56 and in Mark 6:3.

Here is one argument against this, provided through newadvent.org

The expression, "brethren of the Lord," is no argument whatever that Mary had other children besides Jesus. For the Jews used that expression of any near relatives, without intending necessarily the first degree of blood relationship. It was enough for people to be descendants of the same tribe to be called brethren. James was called the brother of Jesus. Yet we know that he was the son of Alphaeus, and Mary was certainly never the wife of Alphaeus. This James, also, was the blood brother of Jude. And Jude begins his epistle with the words, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and the brother of James." Here he is using the word brother in the strict sense, and knows that he cannot in that sense call himself the brother of Jesus Christ. Yet in the broad sense of the word, he is ranked amongst the kinsmen of Christ, as we know from Matthew 13:55, where the Gospel speaks of "His brethren James and Joseph, and Simon and Jude."

In addition one other argument can be made when using the event that happens at the crucifixtion when Jesus says to John in John 20:26-27 "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." Then he said to the disciple, "Behold your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his home."

According to Jewish Tradition this would not have been necessary had Mary other children because the other children would have cared for Mary after the passing of Jesus. The fact that he had to give his mother to another actually points to her perpetual virginity.



The pope is often referred to as the Holy Father, this is a name for GOD the father see John 17:11, people bow down to and kiss the ring of the Pope where Peter himself would not allow this kind of treatment see Acts 10:25-26, If Peter recognizes that bowing to him is a form of worship why dont the Higher officials of your church?
The Holy Father title is a misnomer in a way. It refers specifically to his position within the Catholic Church and not in relation to his position with God nor does it put him in a position to be worshipped.

When one looks at the quote from Acts it says that Cornelius fell at his feet and worshipped him. Kissing the Pope's ring and bowing does not indicate worship, only respect for the office.



Exodus 20:4-5 clearly prohibits making any object for the purpose of worship it is idolatry. ]
None of our statues or other ornate items are meant or used for worship. We worship only one and that is God. What some mistake for worship isn't worship and the only person that can decide if it is worship is the person doing it because it is the intent and not the act that is essential.


Catholic tradition also teaches that Peter is the foundation of the church where the bible says in 1 Cor 3:11 and in Matt 21:42 that Jesus is the SOLE foundation.

No Peter is the rock on which Jesus built his church and established apostolic succession. That is not to say that Peter is the rock of the church only that he was the first stone laid by Jesus.


Many pray to the Virgin Mary and to the saints for intercession, first off a church doesnt decide who is a saint the bible clearly teaches that ALL born again believers are Saints there are 67 references to the saints in the bible for just an example see Acts 26:10 and Acts 9:32

We distinguish between Saints, those who meet the criteria and the "Communion of Saints" which is the total sum of believers.


and secondly you may ask the saints you know to pray for you but there is NO scriptural foundation for asking for the prayers of dead saints even the Catholic church admits that it has only 2 veres of scripture which support this and the fact is they do not support asking for the prayers of dead saints at all! See http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9007chap.asp at the bottom of the page. The Catholic church has a long history of taking partial scripture or scriptures out of context and using them to their own needs and desires. And in fact in the Writings of St bernard he acknowledges that the CAtholic Faith fashioned a more approachable figure in Mary as Jesus Christ or God the father is just to scary to pray directly to see http://www.justforcatholics.org/prayer.htm midway down the page.
I cannot argue this point with you only because I see those who criticize the Catholic Church as doing the exact same thing when they pull verses out they think refute what the Church's doctrine is. If it's wrong for one it's wrong for both. It's not smart to go down that path.



And what about the fact that the bible tells us that no man can forgive sins? The argument is that the priest is acting in the place of God, but who and furthermore what in Scripture gives them this authority?
John 20:23"(A)If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."



And what about 10 our fathers and 6 hail marys or whatever? Matt 6;7 says to not pray using vain repetition, I know the first argument is going to be ITS NOT VAIN. But it was created by MAN and doesnt always reflect heartfelt prayer.


No one can determine that but God and insinuating that you can is doing no less than what you are accusing the Church of doing.

Bubblescc
06-12-2007, 05:25 PM
Obviously, but how would YOU know if they really repented or not? You don't. Only God knows that. Therefore, you DON'T know who is going to heaven.

What is your problem??? This was concerning whether we as believers can know if we were going to heaven, and yes we can.....


You get into a conversation and you have no idea what is even going on....out of everything that has been said, this is what you qoute? thats laughable, how about READ THE WHOLE THREAD....maybe then you will have a clue.

I know young children will go to heaven, because until you know that something is wrong (sin) and choose to do the wrong you are not guilty of sin.
How can you see anyone abusing a child and say they could be going to heaven, maybe they repented b4 BUT if they continue in the same sin its like slapping Jesus in the face. NO I dont know if they are going to heaven, but I judge the tree by its fruit.....

Bubblescc
06-12-2007, 05:31 PM
Newsflash, priests are Catholics.

WOW why are you so rude, someone get your panties in a bunch??

NEWS FLASH!!! PLEASE TRY READING B4 Opening mouth, it really helps alot...what a childish person...omgosh....

all the important info here and you keep getting into my and Janelles conversation.....hahahahaha......that tells me alot.


got anymore pointless remarks? lmbo

LI Mama
06-12-2007, 05:32 PM
What is your problem??? This was concerning whether we as believers can know if we were going to heaven, and yes we can.....

I don't have a problem. You do seem to have some anger issues though. I've heard deep breathing helps, you might want to try that.



You get into a conversation and you have no idea what is even going on....out of everything that has been said, this is what you qoute? thats laughable, how about READ THE WHOLE THREAD....maybe then you will have a clue.

I did read the whole thread, but thanks for the tip. Yes, that's what I decided to quote. Is there some rule that says I have to have approval on what I decide to debate?


I know young children will go to heaven, because until you know that something is wrong (sin) and choose to do the wrong you are not guilty of sin.

No, you believe young children are going to heaven. I believe that as well, but neither one of us knows for a fact, only God knows.


How can you see anyone abusing a child and say they could be going to heaven, maybe they repented b4 BUT if they continue in the same sin its like slapping Jesus in the face. NO I dont know if they are going to heaven, but I judge the tree by its fruit.....

We have no way of knowing if they've truly repented or not, that's my point. Just because someone seems to have repented doesn't mean they have, and someone who may be struggling may have repented but not appear to have done so.

Only God knows what's in our hearts, so I prefer to leave condemning people to hell to him.

LI Mama
06-12-2007, 05:34 PM
WOW why are you so rude, someone get your panties in a bunch??

NEWS FLASH!!! PLEASE TRY READING B4 Opening mouth, it really helps alot...what a childish person...omgosh....

all the important info here and you keep getting into my and Janelles conversation.....hahahahaha......that tells me alot.

I'm rude? You've be yelling at me since I came into this thread. It's a debate, on a public board. Others may pop in from time to time with their opinions. If want to have a private conversation, perhaps PM's would be a better idea.

I've read the entire thread dear, you don't need to keep giving me the same advice over and over. I do appreciate your helpful little hints though. :)

Bubblescc
06-12-2007, 05:36 PM
I don't have a problem. You do seem to have some anger issues though. I've heard deep breathing helps, you might want to try that.




I did read the whole thread, but thanks for the tip. Yes, that's what I decided to quote. Is there some rule that says I have to have approval on what I decide to debate?



No, you believe young children are going to heaven. I believe that as well, but neither one of us knows for a fact, only God knows.



We have no way of knowing if they've truly repented or not, that's my point. Just because someone seems to have repented doesn't mean they have, and someone who may be struggling may have repented but not appear to have done so.

Only God knows what's in our hearts, so I prefer to leave condemning people to hell to him.


I am not angry, actually I am laughing, I find this amusing to say the least..
Never said I knew if someone else was going to heaven, but I know if I am..
who did I condemn exactly..pedophiles...

Bubblescc
06-12-2007, 05:37 PM
I'm rude? You've be yelling at me since I came into this thread. It's a debate, on a public board. Others may pop in from time to time with their opinions. If want to have a private conversation, perhaps PM's would be a better idea.

I've read the entire thread dear, you don't need to keep giving me the same advice over and over. I do appreciate your helpful little hints though. :)


wow you can tell if someone is yelling on a computer, your talented. I only respond usually when someone quotes me, let me take a quick look brb

Bubblescc
06-12-2007, 05:39 PM
Um, could you point me to the post where Janelle defended the priests who victimized children, or the people who covered it up? I must've missed that.

FTR, I'm a cradle Catholic also. :)

HERE you go you started with me! see what I mean about not reading... You started jumping on me immediately when I was having a conversation with Janelle....

If this isnt sarcasm I guess i dont know what it is then....

PAGE 6, you quoting me first...

kate
06-12-2007, 05:39 PM
I am not angry, actually I am laughing, I find this amusing to say the least..
Never said I knew if someone else was going to heaven, but I know if I am..
who did I condemn exactly..pedophiles...

A good Christian will condemn no one. Because they cannot know who is going to heaven or not.

What pedophiles have done is disgusting and sick but even then we cannot judge their hearts at their judgement, only God can and will do that. I try not to judge others because my smallest sins could condemn me. Just because someone else may have larger sins doesn't make me qualified to judge them.

LI Mama
06-12-2007, 05:39 PM
HERE you go you started with me! see what I mean about not reading... You started jumping on me immediately when I was having a conversation with Janelle....

I was debating you. You started taking everything I said as a personal attack.

LI Mama
06-12-2007, 05:40 PM
I am not angry, actually I am laughing, I find this amusing to say the least..
Never said I knew if someone else was going to heaven, but I know if I am..
who did I condemn exactly..pedophiles...

You just said you knew small children were going to heaven. Do you or don't you?

Bubblescc
06-12-2007, 05:45 PM
You just said you knew small children were going to heaven. Do you or don't you?


children yes

everyone else no.....

these are unrelated because children (below a certain age are without sin)
adults are not, I though you understood who I was talking about...

Bubblescc
06-12-2007, 05:46 PM
A good Christian will condemn no one. Because they cannot know who is going to heaven or not.

What pedophiles have done is disgusting and sick but even then we cannot judge their hearts at their judgement, only God can and will do that. I try not to judge others because my smallest sins could condemn me. Just because someone else may have larger sins doesn't make me qualified to judge them.

darn I must be a terrible christian, forgive? all make judgements about people everyday...

The Bible is full of wonderful info on this subject, but since you dont take the bible literally that ends that right.

I am through for the night, sorry to disappoint, but I will definately be back tomorrow so please go ahead and leave me somemore comments! not sure what time guys, I have school work to do.....

r u not judging my comments?

Bubblescc
06-12-2007, 05:53 PM
I was debating you. You started taking everything I said as a personal attack.

wrong you dont debate with sarcasm.....

LI Mama
06-12-2007, 05:57 PM
wrong you dont debate with sarcasm.....

I wasn't sarcastic.

LI Mama
06-12-2007, 05:59 PM
I know young children will go to heaven, because until you know that something is wrong (sin) and choose to do the wrong you are not guilty of sin.



Never said I knew if someone else was going to heaven, but I know if I am..
who did I condemn exactly..pedophiles...

So, do you know if anyone else is going to heaven? First you said you did, young children, then you said you didn't. Which is it?

Bubblescc
06-12-2007, 06:00 PM
I wasn't sarcastic.

then I am sorry, seemed sarcastic to me...which lead me to believe you were personally attacking me. I am the only one you seem to like quoting except for detroitpunk one time.. thats why I thought it was personal, I am open to a debate anytime...

again sorry for the misunderstanding.....

kate
06-12-2007, 06:01 PM
darn I must be a terrible christian, forgive? all make judgements about people everyday...

The Bible is full of wonderful info on this subject, but since you dont take the bible literally that ends that right.

I am through for the night, sorry to disappoint, but I will definately be back tomorrow so please go ahead and leave me somemore comments! not sure what time guys, I have school work to do.....

r u not judging my comments?

I see a difference in making judgements about people, which is still wrong, and judging where they are going to spend eternity. There's a vast difference between the two.

and as for judging your comments, no we're simply debating what you are saying. Debating does not equal judgement.

Bubblescc
06-12-2007, 06:02 PM
So, do you know if anyone else is going to heaven? First you said you did, young children, then you said you didn't. Which is it?

I thought it was obvious that a child without sin was going to heaven...but maybe not if you donot believe this..

now when I said I dont know if someone is going to heaven (we were talking about pedophiles) I was talking about an adult that knew right from wrong..didnt I already say this? that is why its important to read each post.

Your acting as though I contradicted myself, I didnt....the whole thing started because someone said that we cant know if we are going to heaven. I guess what I wasnt thinking about was the fact that not everyone feels children are without sin...that is where the confusioncame in..

So no I dont know for sure that an adult that knows right from wrong will or will not go to heaven. But I do know that children will...Is that a better way to put it....easy to understand?
sorry for the assuption on my part.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2255

kate
06-12-2007, 06:07 PM
I thought it was obvious that a child without sin was going to heaven...but maybe not if you donot believe this..

now when I said I dont know if someone is going to heaven (we were talking about pedophiles) I was talking about an adult that knew right from wrong..didnt I already say this?

I think what LI is saying is that even though we can believe deeply that children are going to go to heaven there is no complete assurance of that. Only God knows for certain because we aren't privy to his decision making.

It would make no sense, given what we know about God to assume that children wouldn't get to heaven but we still can't be 100% certain of that fact.

LI Mama
06-12-2007, 06:07 PM
darn I must be a terrible christian, forgive? all make judgements about people everyday...



Judge not, that you may not be judged, 2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? 4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye

Matthew 7:1-5

36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. 37 Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven.

Luke 6:36-37




The Bible is full of wonderful info on this subject, but since you dont take the bible literally that ends that right.

I am through for the night, sorry to disappoint, but I will definately be back tomorrow so please go ahead and leave me somemore comments! not sure what time guys, I have school work to do.....

r u not judging my comments?

As do we all. We should try not to though.

Judge not, that you may not be judged, 2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? 4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye

Matthew 7:1-5

36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. 37 Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven.

Luke 6:36-37


Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth: but that which is good, to the edification of faith: that it may administer grace to the hearers.

And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Let all bitterness and anger and indignation and clamour and blasphemy be put away from you, with all malice.

And be ye kind one to another: merciful, forgiving one another, even as God hath forgiven you in Christ.

Ephesians 4:29- 32


Bolding mine.

LI Mama
06-12-2007, 06:09 PM
I think what LI is saying is that even though we can believe deeply that children are going to go to heaven there is no complete assurance of that. Only God knows for certain because we aren't privy to his decision making.

It would make no sense, given what we know about God to assume that children wouldn't get to heaven but we still can't be 100% certain of that fact.

Yup.

janelle
06-12-2007, 10:37 PM
DtroitPunk, it is very sad that you have such little knowledge of the Catholic faith and yet so willing to condemn it so quickly. You claim to have read extensively on the matter but each example you give is fraught with misinformation. We provide you with scriptures to show you where you have strayed but you refuse to acknowledge them. Instead, you ridicule them with trite statements about their being evidence of a lack of understanding of the scriptures. Do you not know that salvation history begins with Adam and Eve, through Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, and all the prophets and then finally we are given the most glorious revelation in Jesus Christ? One can only gain a small inkling of the revelation of Jesus Christ if one has not read and immersed oneself in the salvation history in the Old Testament. With such small knowledge of the Catholic faith, with which you claim to have studied extensively, I have a serious problem giving credibility to anything you claim to have studied. Sadly, you do not know what you think you know.

You see (my wife alluded to this earlier) I was much like you when I was young. While I am a cradle Catholic, in my late teens I strayed from the Church and got involved with some fundamentalists. I learned a lot from these Christians and worshiped with them for some 20 years. But I had a hunger that could not be filled with the way they believed and worshiped. In fact, the more I studied, the more I realized that the Catholic church has so much more depth in faith and understanding then I could find in any Protestant group. We do NOT condemn the Protestants. But I can tell you, in my faith journey, the Catholic Church is hands down more faithful and true to the scriptures than I have found in any Protestant faith.

You criticized the practice of celibacy, yet Paul said that it was preferred. I find it astounding and scandalous that you would criticize such a personal vow to God, regardless as to the avenue by which ones comes to make such a vow to God. YOUR CRITISIM OF THIS VOW IS THE SAME AS CRITIZING A PERSON FOR BEING FAITHFUL TO THEIR MARRIAGE VOW. The Catholic church has married priest, lots of them. But in the Roman Rite it is rare compared to the number of single priest who have taken a vow of celibacy.

You criticized the prayers of Our Father and Hail Mary. Surely, your faith believes in praying the scriptures? These are words given to us in the Gospels. Why would you criticize the words in the Gospels? You say it is wrong to pray repetitiously. Surely, you pray for you wife and children everyday. That's repetition. So what is it about repetition that you have a problem? Is it the frequency? Or are you just judging the sincerity? Only God knows the sincerity.

This is not to brag but I spend probably more than an hour everyday in prayer. Sometimes I am more involved in the prayer than other times. Sometimes, though I make this claim with much hesitation because I am not one who knows that I am always faithful with this, it is the Holy Spirit praying through me. Think about the human heart. There are times in life, especially when one is depressed due to a significant loss, where conscientious prayer is too difficult. Do you think that God doesn't take that person's prayer seriously? As for me, I would be EXTREMELY cautious about condemning a person's prayer. We are not the Pharasise or Sadducees. We don't pray to gain praise from others but to speak quietly with our Father in Heaven and to ask our brothers and sisters to prayer to the Lord our God for us as we prayer to God for them.

Lots of words have been said in several posts but you have a very closed mind. You listen to what you want and leave out what you don't like. You make scurrilous claims about the Catholic church. We have refuted many of those claims but in your closed mind you refuse to listen. Rather, you make silly counter arguments that we just choose to not want to listen to the allegations you make. Get real man.

So here is my challenge for you, young man (I understand you are about the age of my children). Find one teaching of the Catholic church. Take the time to FULLY research the teaching and UNDERSTAND the teaching. It would be best if you used the Catholic Catechism as a major research tool. You can know in advance that we will use it to respond to what you say. Then come back to this board and tell us what you learned and how it is against the scriptures.

Our obligation to you will be to either agree with you or to show you where you went wrong in your research. Then we can have a real debate. Then we can help each other better learn how Christ would have us believe.

Please do not attempt to do this lightly or in the same scurrilious manner in which you have made previous allegations against the Catholic church. You know and we know that you have not well research those allegations. We know this because they are so misleading and misunderstood in your posts.

As always, I continue to prayer for you as you work to learn more about Christ's church.

May the Lord bless you as you take on this assignment.

Posted by Janelle's husband

DtroitPunk
06-14-2007, 07:29 PM
To Janelles Husband, who said "So here is my challenge for you, young man (I understand you are about the age of my children). Find one teaching of the Catholic church. Take the time to FULLY research the teaching and UNDERSTAND the teaching. It would be best if you used the Catholic Catechism as a major research tool. You can know in advance that we will use it to respond to what you say. Then come back to this board and tell us what you learned and how it is against the scriptures."

While in theory I am sure most would agree that this seems like a reasonable approach, it is flawed from the start because the Catechism is a creation of the Catholic church, not Holy scripture. We could go round n round all day, as you insist as many others do on twisting my words and using straw men and ad hominem attacks. Just like because I am only 35 years old I cant possibly know the scriptures as well as you or have a full understanding of them? The simple truth is this when the bible says for example pray not in vain repetition, it is the very word of God that condemns that practice not I. I dont think any rational person would say that my condemning forced celibacy is the same as condemning marriage vows. If you know that you cannot be faithful to one person, you can choose not to be married, but if you want to be a nun or priest you MUST take a vow of celibacy and the Bible says that to Forbid to marry is a doctrine of devils. 1 Timothy 4:1-2. I have no problem with a vow of celibacy as a matter of choice, but when imposed as a condition of service. My challenge to you sir, since we are both Christians is that you show ME from the Bible where I have erred. If the bible does says for example that I should bow to the high officials of the church out of respect for the office or that Ministers of the faith in ANY capacity MUST remain celibate I will apologize whole heartedly for my earlier erroneous statements.

Katt
06-14-2007, 08:41 PM
Posted by Janelle's husband

You really need to get your own account. I read a while back, where it wasn't necessary because you were just "jumping in" or something like that. But, it's obvious you plan on being active, therefore, an account would be appropriate.

janelle
06-14-2007, 08:56 PM
The Catechism is teachings based on scripture. Of course, you will never know this since you will never look at it. When you say twisting words I think you should re-read what you have posted and see about twisting words.

Vain repetition? My husband has already addressed this. How do you know it is vain repetition? Are we to judge others prayers? I think God will accept any and all prayers. Vain? Who is to say what people feel when they pray. So you won't pray if you repeat any prayer? How can we pray then?

It is NOT forced celibacy. Any man who becomes a priest knows that is part of the job. They do not HAVE to take the job, just like a Marine does not Have to take the job of a soldier. Come on anyone knows this. Show me where in the bible it says “that to Forbid to marry is a doctrine of devils.” Christ was not married, show me He was and don't give me any theories like the De Vinci Code. So priests stay unmarried and celibate since sex outside of marriage is a sin. This goes with their vocation. It is more than a job; it is a vocation so the requirement is even taken to heart stronger than a Marine’s job.

We do not bow to high officials. We respect them just like we respect our president and other authority figures we respect, THAT IS ALL .

I don't know where you study about the church. Please send me the web sites you learn this stuff. I would like to see them. If you are studying by yourself then you are misunderstanding a lot of the material. The bible can be interpreted many ways that is why we must have a foundation in Jewish law, etc. We need greater scholars than we are to study such a deep subject if we are to understand what the prophets meant and what Jewish customs, etc mean.

All we can do is learn what Jesus wants US to do, not what others are to do when we study the bible by ourselves. You are trying to learn what others should not do. This is dangerous and leads to making false judgments about others. The church has had over 2,000 years to come to their teachings about the bible. They have had neumerous councils that brought together the greatest minds who have ever lived. Now you say you have studied on you own and they are wrong in their teachings. OKAAYYYYY.

janelle
06-14-2007, 08:57 PM
You really need to get your own account. I read a while back, where it wasn't necessary because you were just "jumping in" or something like that. But, it's obvious you plan on being active, therefore, an account would be appropriate.

OK, he will. He wasn't going to post this much but you know how that goes. I think I have him hooked on this place. LOL:dancing:

janelle
06-14-2007, 09:40 PM
DtroitPunk, in the words of Ronald Reagan "there you go again". You make false allegations about the teachings of the Catholic Church and then make arguments against a teaching that you have misunderstood. You apply scriptures to counter positions you claim are held by the Catholic Church. But those positions are NOT held by the Church the way you have presented them. Therefore the scriptures you apply make no sense. You do NOT understand the issue of Celibacy as evidenced by what you have said. You do NOT understand the value of prayer as evidenced by what you have said. That is why it was suggested that you find only ONE teaching of the Catholic Church and take the time to understand that teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is major reference material for understanding the teachings of the Catholic Church. Of course, the primary reference is the Bible. The Catechism is based upon the scriptures. If you are going to make a claim about a teaching you must first understand the teaching. Only in this way will you stop making these false and uninformed allegations against the Catholic Church. Once you understand ONE teaching then come back and state your case. Unless you understand the teaching of which you are debating against, no one can have a intelligent debate with you.

Please keep in mind the words of 2 Peter 1:20-21 " Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoken under the influence of God". We need resources outside of ourselves to understand the scriptures. That is why books like the Catechism are so beneficial. There are many other books also that are very valuable. Many protestant ministers use Commentaries, books written by theologians, to help them in understanding the scriptures. The Catechism is just the best resource to understand Catholic teaching.

Because the moderators are saying I need my own account, of which I have no desire to secure, this will be my last post. However, if you decide that you want to have a intelligent discussion then I will be happy to oblige the moderators and get an account.

Regardless of your decision about doing some real research I will continue to pray for you as you seek to learn more about Christ's Church.

Posted by Janelle's husband

DtroitPunk
06-14-2007, 10:46 PM
From Janelle "It is NOT forced celibacy. Any man who becomes a priest knows that is part of the job. They do not HAVE to take the job, just like a Marine does not Have to take the job of a soldier. Come on anyone knows this. Show me where in the bible it says “that to Forbid to marry is a doctrine of devils.” Christ was not married, show me He was and don't give me any theories like the De Vinci Code. So priests stay unmarried and celibate since sex outside of marriage is a sin" Okay, I understand your first point, however If a man wants to be a priest but also wants a family, he MUST make a choice and if he desires the priesthood he MUST stay single and celibate. So therefore he is forced to choose Celibacy if he wants to be a priest. Sure he has the choice not to be a priest, but why should he have to choose? Based on the teachings of some organization "interpreting the bible" ? And then you say "The bible can be interpreted many ways that is why we must have a foundation in Jewish law, etc. We need greater scholars than we are to study such a deep subject if we are to understand what the prophets meant and what Jewish customs, etc mean."
This has long been a tool used by religions to control the masses. The lay person is not educated or spiritual enough to understand the entirety of the bible so therefore you need to trust the priest or the minister or the reverand to lead you in instruction, does anyone remember Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite or Charles Manson? I am not saying that the Catholic church is like these people. I am saying that it is very dangerous to allo wothers to tell you what the bible says or what it "would say".

And then you said "All we can do is learn what Jesus wants US to do, not what others are to do when we study the bible by ourselves. You are trying to learn what others should not do." This is actually a principal of faith for most pagan religions including wicca and other forms of witchcraft roughly translated What is right or true for me may not be right or true for you. Gods word is the truth it tells us how we are and so therefore how ALL believers are to live and it also does give us plenty of info on how not to live as well. The Roman empire was the most powerful and one of the longest lasting civilizations in the history of the world certainly you dont mean to imply that theyre practices, customs, traditions and government are correct simply by virtue of how long they lasted? I make no claims about my own spirituality other than this, I TRY in all that I do to follow the guidelines and standards set down for me directly from the bible. And yes I have studied the bible well enough to know for example that Jehovas Witnesses will not see the kingdom of heaven, unless they repent and convert because they deny the diety of Christ. So yes even though there are hundreds of thousands of them they are wrong and I know it because the bible condemns them. And by the way no JESUS never was married but he was GOD. And I wouldnt wipe my butt with the Davinci Code, I have no idea why you brought it up. ANd I have posted it at least 3 times but here we go 1 Timothy 4:1-3 " Now The spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils: Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron: FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from meats, which god hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." King James Bible. Again I am not trying to anger anyone here, my goal is to cause debate and hopefully lead people to opening and reading the bible so they can interpret it for themselves instead of believing what others, of ANY religion tell them. Also there may be those who are exploring the mysteries of faith who are undecided about any religious affiliation, I have an obligation as an ambassador and evangelist for Christ to proselytize. I have also used nothing but your own words here. I have never twisted yours or anyone elses words here that I am aware of and if you show me I have, I will apologize. Good night to you, and God Bless.

DtroitPunk
06-14-2007, 11:04 PM
However, if you decide that you want to have a intelligent discussion then I will be happy to oblige the moderators and get an account.

Wow, so unless I will wage intellectual war the way you think is fit we are not having an intelligent discussion. Nice way to deflect attention away from the fact that you have yet to refute a single point I have made CLEARLY and unecuivocally from the Bible. I do not deny that there are numerous writings that can help one in their spiritual growth and learning. My point is this, they shouldnt be the FOCUS of our faith, for example with Mormons they have the book of mormon, the Catholics have the Catechism etc etc I do not deny that church bodies do sometimes write guidelines etc that are beneficial, but when they contradict the Bible in ANY point they are wrong. You can argue all day that the Catechism and the other writings that have come out of rome are BASED on the scriptures similar to how some hollywood movies are BASED on a true story. By the time man gets done tinkering with the scriptures and taking one sentence out of context or out of its surrounding text etc we dont even recognize it any longer. I have asked you as a Catholic to explain to me, many things of your faith USING the bible and you have been unable or unwillingto do this. If a person asks me a question about my faith, I either have an answer from god using his word or I admit that I dont know and make arrangements to find out and get back to the person. This is how you win converts to your faith. II Timothy 4:2-4 "Preach the word, be instant in season, out of season: reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." God bless and keep you.

janelle
06-15-2007, 01:05 AM
I think my husband has quoted the bible enough for you to see scripture evidence. I guess you are determined not to see or to accept. "I have asked you as a Catholic to explain to me, many things of your faith USING the bible and you have been unable or unwilling to do this."
My husband has used the bible to explain things over and over.

[FONT="Arial Black"]does anyone remember Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite or Charles Manson?

Yes, I remember them very well. Those are the guys who thought they could understand what the bible was saying to them and wouldn't take any help from others to understand it. They went of on their own lunatic fringe path and convinced others to do the same. To follow them to horrid ends to satisfy their egomaniac perception they were an entity onto themselves and they did not need a community of fellow believers to keep them from going off the deep end with their crazy delusions.

I brought up the Di Vinci code because I feel like I am trapped in it's pages talking to you. It had it's agenda and the author will not budge from it even given tons of evidence it is wrong.

I think the FOBIDDING TO MARRY is about forcing people to live together without the sacrament of marriage. Yes, that would be very wrong. I don't see how that has anything to do with single people who are not living with a partner. They are doing nothing wrong.

DtroitPunk
06-15-2007, 02:03 PM
I am done talking to you as you speak in circles and insist on speaking YOUR ideas, your thoughts, your beliefs. Yes your husband gave a few scriptures but every time they are used incorrectly or with a liberal interpretation.

Num 5:6 “Tell the Israelites: If a man commits a fault against his fellow man and wrongs him, thus breaking faith with the Lord, he shall confess the wrong he has done, restore his ill-gotten goods in full, and in addition give one fifth of the value to the one he has wronged.” Remember the Israelites had priests (the Levites) so to whom do you think such confession was made?

Matt 3:6 “and were being baptized by him (John the Baptist) in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins.” Confession is a process of acknowledging one’s sins.

Act 19:18 “Many of those who had become believers came forward and openly acknowledged their former practices (sins).”

James 5:16 “Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed.”

Matt 18:18 “Amen, I say to you (the apostles), whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Other than confession and the forgiveness of sins, what other conclusion can we make about such a proclamation by Jesus?

John 20:22-23 “And when he had said this, he breathed on them (the disciples) and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit”. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” I don’t think this could be stated any clearer.

All of these he gave as supposed support for comfession. NONE of these verses bear ANY relation to confession as practiced by the Catholic Church, and in fact when read in context have much more to do with converted believers witnessing to others about the sins that were in their lives, or being faithfull in confessing the wrongs they commit to the wronged. In accordance with other biblical teaching such as Matt 6:14-15 where we are told to forgive others so God will forgive us.

And where you talk about all these nuts needing someone to tell them what the bible says, I totally disagree. The point is look how many people followed these madmen. When we submit ourselves to the authority and teaching of anyone uncritically, we are opening ourselves up to deceipt. The nature of man is this if we aretrusted completely there is a mighty temptation to do wrong. When a person knows that everyone believes in them and noone is checking up on them...This is where most of the evil in the world occurs in church or out.

And I presented the whole unaltered verse about forbidding to marry and you choose to insert what YOU think it is saying. There is no need for the bible to say that to make unmarried people live together is wrong, there are countless other guidelines about sexual immorality and sex out of marriage. This is saying quite clearly that for anyone to Forbid someone to marry or to command to abstain from meats is a doctrine of devils. We should read Gods word and accept it as is where possible without trying to add to it or twist it to mean what we want. In the context of thesurrounding verses it is clear that the comments are addressed to religions.

Then you said "I brought up the Di Vinci code because I feel like I am trapped in it's pages talking to you. It had it's agenda and the author will not budge from it even given tons of evidence it is wrong."

Wow, how deluded are you? You or your husband have not shown clearly even ONCE that I am wrong using the BIBLE. Anyone who goes back over these posts will see this clearly. It HAS however been made clear that I do not have anywhere near a complete knowledge of the Catholic Church. AND I ACKNOWLEDGE this. But my understanding of the Catechism, or some council writings isnt really the point. I have shown over and over again that there are definitely some points where the practices of the Catholic church SEEM to be at odds with biblical teaching. You can say that in some instances this may be tradition, but not the order or belief of the Actual Church authority, but for example bowing to objects and high officials of the church.

In Exodus 20:3-5 we read "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness OF ANY THING that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: THOU SHALT NOT BOW DOWN THYSELF TO THEM, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God..." If this can be any clearer I sure dont see how. Bowing is a form of worship which is to be reserved for God alone. If it is not by decree that the followers of a church practice this, then a priest has a responsibility to instruct his flock on proper worship and propriety and not allow it in his site or chrch.

You also have an agenda, to DEFEND the CHURCH against all threats or questions. It is enough for you that you believe, but if you dont know WHY you believe what you do or how to defend it or explain it to others; your faith is worse than useless as it will not be able to lead others to faith.

Please think of all the Non Catholics reading these posts, some might be interested in the Catholic Faith. But if they see as I do that the people on this thread have no answers to the questions, doubts and concerns they have they will certainly look elsewhere. You cannot in all fairness expect a non catholic to read and study the Catechism. The basic tenets of the Christian faith should arise naturally from the Bible.

DtroitPunk
06-15-2007, 02:06 PM
I will no longer be answering people on this thread for debate. It is MORE than clear that it is pointless.

I will however monitor this thread and bigbig and if anyone has a specific question about the Christian faith or wants to know from the Bible that they can have assurance of where they will spend eternity, Please ask. Or start a seperate thread addressed to me and I will certainly do all I can to help.

Val1
06-15-2007, 07:32 PM
Dpunk, I know you are not responding, but just to clarify, Catholics do not view the Catechism as SCRIPTURE the way that Mormons view the Book of Mormon as part of scripture, ie. an inherent part of the Divine Word. Not a good comparison.

janelle
06-15-2007, 07:47 PM
I give up. For those non-Catholics who want to learn more about the church please go to.

www.ewtn.com or http://www.catholic-pages.com/forum/default.asp or read Scott Hahn's book "Rome Sweet Rome. He was also against the Caholic Church and tried to discredit it only to convert to it.

http://www.amazon.com/Rome-Sweet-Home-Journey-Catholicism/dp/0898704782