Reply #26 November 27, 2004 1:24 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't think such matters should ever be a subject that causes more division and disunity.

I agree with you, Christ demanded ONE Church ONE people, now I would argue that ALL Christians are a part of Christ's Church but as it is said " a house divided must fall"

As for the Image of Christ suffering upone the Cross. The Image is used by the Catholic Church as a reminder of the suffering Christ endured on our behalf and that we, as Christians should expect to suffer for His sake as well. As Christ said " you are no greater than the Master" He made many statements on that issue. "Take up your cross and follow me" is a theme well known.
The Cruxific is a sad symbol of what humanity did to Our Lord BUT it is also a happy symbol for what the Lord went through for us and that at the end or horrable suffering there is joy, there is light in Christ Jesus.
The image of a Risen Christ is good too as well as a plain Cross, no problem. The RCC chooses not to use those other symbols of Christianity simply because the Cruxific is the oldest and most approprate symbol of our Redemption by Christ.

I think the image of Christ Risen is great, it is a symbol of hope, but Im afraid that it may, to some, incline people to forget that Christ had to suffer in order to rise, as we must suffer in order to rise with Him in the end.

On a side topic, it is useful to remember that in dealing with Protestants that you do not intentionally judge them nor give the apperance of judging them you know? We must love our Christian brothers and sisters of ALL Denominations, as we most love all people.
As Christ said, "if they are not agaisnt us they are for us."
All we can hope for is unity in the global Christian Church and in the end, I feel and know, we all answer to Jesus and if someone, and for the sake of this post, a Protestant, is at ease with meeting the Lord and confident that He will be pleased then thats good. Again, in the end the Lord will judge us as He sees fit.

For that reason I have studied many, and all of the major American Denominations, Christian groups, so that I may learn how and why they think the way they do. I then cross-referenced it with Catholic Teaching so I can better explain the RCC's position on issues and just as importantly, I can understand where they are coming from. The same goes for Atheists and even "anti-Catholics"
Many have real and valid points that were never sufficintly explained or, God forbid, had bad experiences with the RCC.
Christains, Catholics included, tend to be judgemntal when defending their faith to others and that is a "turn off" for people, who may be a bit abrasive in what they say, but really want to understand. Not nessecarily believe, but at least understand.

At the end of the day all one can hope for is that they have explained thier beliefs as calmly and as well as they could. And if they dont want to believe thats ok too. "Shake the dust from your feet" and move on. It our duty to proclaim the Gospel, its NOT our duty to force people to believe.

Thanks for your question

Reply #27 December 4, 2004 11:56 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

I hope this answer helps in some way.

Reply #28 December 29, 2004 5:23 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Common Catholic Prayers

Although Jesus is God, He is God made man. Because He is God made man, a human completly like ourselfs, He prayed and taught us how to pray, to God the Father. I will do my best to break down this prayer in a simple fashion and will address any comments or questions.

Lord's Prayer

Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Led us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, amen.

Our Father who art in heaven Jesus re-afferms that the Father is indeed in heaven and that we all should address him as such. He also reminds us that God is the father of us all and not just of Jesus Himself, by calling him "Our Father" and not "My Father" Also Jesus puts to rest the question of; Does God prefer the qualites and aspects of a man or a woman?. The truth is that God is a spiritual being and so has NO gender. In fact there are many passages in the Bible that give feminine aspects to God. However, since Jesus calls him "Our Father" He is saying that for all intents and purposes that God acts more in the manner of a "father" than that of a "mother".
He made Adam, a man and chose to lower Himself to the human state as Jesus, also a man and considered by theologians "the new Adam."

hallowed be thy name And that we should revere God.

thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Jesus asks and prays that His Father's kingdom will finally come to earth and that His will, will be done here as it is done in heaven. To make earth a pure, loving, and peacful place.

Give us this day our daily bread Here Jesus shows us that God can and will provide for our temporal needs so we should not think that God is worried only about our eternal souls, (although it IS His main priority.)

and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us
Many people view the above passage to mean that God will forgive us IF we forgive others and that is absolutly true, however there is also a potentially more important meaning to that phrase. That God will forgive us AS, litteraly, we forgive others meaning that God will forgive us in the same measure that we forgive others. Personally I feel that the phrase means both. That he will forgive us if we forgive in return but that we should be sure to completly and honestly forgive others.

Led us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, amen.
The phrase "led us not into temptation" implies that He would and that we are asking Him not to. I feel that it is more of a humble request combined with "but deliver us from evil". We ask God to protect us from temptation and that if we succumb to it to deliver us from it's chains. And of course "amen" simply means "So be it."

Well that is my quick assesment of what the prayer might mean and what it basicly means to me.
Thank you.

Reply #29 December 30, 2004 1:24 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Catholics do not need embryology to convince them of life at conception since they believe it is the marriage of spirit and matter.

Reply #30 December 30, 2004 1:34 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Would you explain your comment please? For myself and others. Thank you for your response.

Reply #31 January 5, 2005 1:48 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Without the benifit of a response at this time I will move on to something else.

First let me say.......WOW I have recently purchased a video on the "Easter Tridium" by Father John Coripi. Of all the many homilies and religious speakers I have ever heard, Fr. Coripi is, with question, the most eloquent and powerful speaker I have ever heard.
For anyone who may be interested the video is available at the EWTN website or you can download and hear his words for free from the same site.
I cannnot explain how higly I reccomend this to anyone who may be interested. He covers topics from Good Friday to Abortion.
Please check it out if you are intersted.
Thank you for your time.

Reply #32 January 30, 2005 1:27 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

"Catholics worship Mary"

I am so sick of hearing that already. Even a child reasearching the RCC would find that to be utterly and completly false. Yet there are some out there who continue to spew this spoon-feed view upon the world.

Catholics DO NOT worship Mary or anyother saint for that matter. We, just like any other Christian, worship God and God alone.
We HONOR Mary and the saints of course but worship, no.

Take the "Hail Mary" for example:
Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

If we worshiped Mary why in the world would we say "pray for us...." pray FOR us. In Our Lord's prayer you don't ask Jesus to pray for us, you ask him to help you directly not through intercession.

Lemme break it down simply;
Hail Mary full of grace..... ( The BIBLICAL greeting the Angle saluted mary with.)
The Lord is with thee (goes with Blessed is the fruit of thy womb-[Jesus])
Blessed are you among women ( Obviously she would be blessed if she was to be the mother of Christ AND concieved without sin.)
Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus ( Again, obviously the fruit of her womb [Jesus] is blessed.)
Holy Mary, Mother of God ( Being the Mother of Jesus [God] she would be holy)
Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. ( We are ASKING her to pray FOR us[obviously to God])

I feel that it is plainly obvious, through this prayer (the most common prayer for a Catholic aside from Our Lord's Prayer) that we don't worship Mary.
The same goes for any other saint. Notice I said "any other saint" Meaning that Mary, although absolutly the most influential saint of them all, is when you get right down to it, a saint like any other soul in heaven.
True we hold Mary in very high esteem, she deserves to be, but we can never believe that she alone can do anything for us if it is not the will of God or from his approval and power. The same goes for your "average joe saint"

Reply #33 January 30, 2005 11:43 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Good reply Dysmas. I think you mean, the Catholic Church doesn't teach people to worship Mary. To that I agree. However, in my opinion, the line has been and is crossed by some Catholics. BTW: I'm Catholic.

Reply #34 January 30, 2005 3:17 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Sabbatismus:
Yes you are absolutly correct. Some people may put Mary equal with God and they are wrong and will answer for it when its thier turn before the Lord. On a different note, some others seem to "worship" the Bible even though they scream IDOLITRY at Catholics when we pray to a Saint for help.

Reply #35 January 30, 2005 5:51 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Addressing the Catholic issue, while some of the priests and bishops have made progress in setting the role of Mary in context, I'm afraid that too many have not properly addessed the issue. There is no doubt that most of Protestantism does not grasp the concept of the communion of the saints and this does leave the members of the church open for attack on something they are for the most part innocent.

Reply #36 January 30, 2005 10:29 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't think it is the duty of Priests or Biships to "settle" the role of Mary in any way. Her role in the Catholic Church is fully explained already and one has but to simply look to know. It's not a deep or hard concept to grasp.

Protestants, in general, don't grasp the the communion of saints and the role of Mary in the Church because they don't WANT to know. Those issues are very clearly stated in the CCC. It is really not all that hard to understand, indeed even my five year old son understands it rationaly. So I don't think anyone who attacks the RCC on it's teachings, without KNOWING the teaching, is innocent at all.
Nor do I think that the Catholic layity, who have decided not to actually KNOW what they believe and WHY they belive it, are innocent either.
The Church commads us to 'continue to grow in knowladge and understanding' .....if a person dosent study at all then they cant and as I said, this issue isnt something one would have to reasearch, it is a BASIC teaching, right on par with the Sacraments.
I would not argue the position of OSAS ( once saved always saved) if I did not : A- Know where they got that idea from and B- if I did not know how to properly refute it.

Ignorance may be bliss but its not an good excuse.
As you know our Church tells its people to study and reflect upon her teachings. And it says, as the apostles said, to be ready to defend her........espeically on such a basic issue.

Reply #37 January 30, 2005 11:06 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Dysas, there are large numbers of people in the Catholic Church incapable of studying and learning the truths taught by the church. I disagree with you regarding the responsiblity of Priests to educate and settle the errors of the flock. Sure, there are some Protestants who don't want to know what the Catholic Church teaches or believes, but I think the main problem is that there is still so much misinformation floating around, people are automatically turned off by the subject, especially Mary. On the other hand, I don't believe that every person is born to study the scriptures throughout his life and try to sort through thousands upon thousands of doctrinal controversy, either. If the Church would do its obligation to inform and command that the flock properly use prayer and worship, it would be very helpful. Also, that requires that the clergy deal honestly with the scriptures, instead of a over bearing father "do as I say, because I said so" approach that has been taken in the past. In some cases, on the local level at least, they have not been honest. Likewise, Protestantism needs to learn to allow the for the Church's belief (Catholic) and at least understand that there is a scriptural basis for most of the Catholic Church's belief and if so be it, agree to disagree with the final analysis.
I
Although, in recent years, there has been a good deal of progress in understanding both Protestant and Catholic beliefs through the internet and other endeavors by both groups. I disagree with you that the beliefs of the Catholic Church are easy to understand. Actually, they are quite complex. Mary is likely one of the more complex subjects of all. So, I have a bit of empathy for my Protestant brethren when it comes to trying to understand Catholic Beliefs. I can certainly understand why any Protestant might at first recoil from the idea of Co-mediatrix. It's perfectly natural. It takes considerable study to even get close to getting a grip on that doctrine. Nonetheless, once they have studied the Catholic reasoning, they may find it palatable.

Reply #38 January 30, 2005 11:41 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Your comment is very true, by an large. And of course I have no problem with a disagreement, even amongst Catholics.
I would like to make a few things clear. Please dont feel that i am attacking you personaly, nor am I attacking the Catholic layity or our Protestant cousins. And thank you very much for this conversation, it always helps to get a second point of view on the same side. that being said let me address some of your responses.

there are large numbers of people in the Catholic Church incapable of studying and learning the truths taught by the church.

How could there be "large numbers" of Catholics incapable of studying and learning? One needs to be simply be able to read and think to be capable. I don't quite understand what you mean by that response.

I disagree with you regarding the responsiblity of Priests to educate and settle the errors of the flock.

I thought about this and i've decided that, upon further reflection, you are right and I stand corrected. Indeed it IS the responsability of Priests to educate, however it is also the responsability of the layity. Its a dual issue.

but I think the main problem is that there is still so much misinformation floating around, people are automatically turned off by the subject, especially Mary. On the other hand, I don't believe that every person is born to study the scriptures throughout his life and try to sort through thousands upon thousands of doctrinal controversy, either.

The misinformation about the Catholic Church comes from anti-Catholics and from ill-informed Catholics. on the second part I agree that not every person is meant to study the "deeper meanings" so to speak, on Scripture but on the basic issue of if we worship Mary or not, it is, as I said, a BASIC, COMMON teaching. One that children learn in CCD.

If the Church would do its obligation to inform and command that the flock properly use prayer and worship, it would be very helpful. Also, that requires that the clergy deal honestly with the scriptures, instead

Yes. But I don't see how the Clergy does not deal "honestly" with Scripture? Can you give me an example. (not withstanding an individual schismatic or heretical Priest's teaching)

Protestantism needs to learn to allow the for the Church's belief (Catholic) and at least understand that there is a scriptural basis for most of the Catholic Church's belief and if so be it, agree to disagree with the final analysis.

Yes but not "most" but ALL. there is not one issue of Catholic belief that is not Scripturaly founded.
Read 95 CCC "........are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others...."
Begins with Article 81 CCC

I disagree with you that the beliefs of the Catholic Church are easy to understand. Actually, they are quite complex. Mary is likely one of the more complex subjects of all.

SOME are, the more in-depth ones perhaps. But for the issue at hand i.e the worship of Mary, it is not complex in any way.

I can certainly understand why any Protestant might at first recoil from the idea of Co-mediatrix. It's perfectly natural. It takes considerable study to even get close to getting a grip on that doctrine.

To tell you the truth, even I recoil from the idea of "Co-mediatrix". and worse "Co-Redemptrix".....to my knowladge they are of the more esoteric theorys and explanations of Marian Doctrine. Indeed Mary and her role withing the Church IS quite complex and I am still trying to figure many of the things out. But again, the basics are as easy to grasp as the fact of gravity and the basics are taught to children.

Reply #39 January 31, 2005 9:41 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Dysas, there are nearly a billion Catholics in the world. Millions of them are not able to read or comprehend or capable of deep meditative thought. On the subject of dealing with the scripture honestly, I will give you an example like that on the sin of Onan. His sin wasn't merely that he allowed his seed to fall upon the ground. The sin was that he refused to have children with his wife. The context of that scripture is now readily admitted by most Catholic clery that it has nothing to do with contraception, as we know it, today. Yet, for centuries it was misused, I rather think intentionally because it appears it is so haphazard proof-texting from the context, that it would lead one to mistrust the abliity to accurately look at any other scripture.It is something that underminds the integrity of the church. That kind of thing is something you expect from some independent church but not one that has the clerisy to know the difference. Got to go for now. I'll write more later.

Reply #40 January 31, 2005 10:27 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Catholics do not need embryology to convince them of life at conception since they believe it is the marriage of spirit and matter.

I'm going to respond to this comment--which wasn't elaborated on earlier. Catholic doctrine does not talk about the marriage of spirit and matter at conception. In fact, St. Augustine said it was impossible to know when the spirit entered the body--so therefore, this statement is not correct.

This is an interesting thread.

Reply #41 January 31, 2005 11:45 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Millions of them are not able to read or comprehend or capable of deep meditative thought.

I can conced that perhaps millions are not able to read but for them not to be able to "comprehend or capable of deep meditative thought" I disagree. Just becuase one is unable to read why would that make them unable to comprehend? Furthermore why would it be an impediment for deep meditative thought.
Remember the issue at hand was the supposed worship of Mary. ( lAnd we have settled that thankfully.)
However I am glad our conversation has evolved into a more general topic of Catholic teaching vs. Catholic comprehension.
In regions where the population is unable to read, they are normally converted due to the efforts of missionarys. Those same missionarys, knowing they cannot read english or whichever language they chose to use, would have to convert them through speach. And through that same speach they would teach the converts, as did the Apostles, the truths of Catholic Faith.
Missionarys also set up schools, among other things, in order to teach the people how to read.
And my main point is not the "complex" aspect of some Catholic teaching, it is the "basics".
To profess oneself as Catholic requires nothing more than knowing the simple truths of our faith. The rest may come later.

The context of that scripture is now readily admitted by most Catholic clery that it has nothing to do with contraception, as we know it, today. Yet, for centuries it was misused, I rather think intentionally

I also agree that for centuries it was misued but Im not sure it was completly intentionaly. Our understanding of Scripture has always and contiunes to grow and develop. I would imagine the point of its "misuse" was to drive home the issue of birth control. In that ultimatly there are NO valid means of birth control just for birth control's sake. ( which includes "pulling out" and even NFP)
So when the Clergy would say that it was a sin, I think the message was that any form of birth control is a sin.

[*Note*: ANY artificial birth control is sinful and the only approved natural method of birth control is the NFP method.
On NFP it is ONLY to be used to "space out" the birth of children when a couple has too many already. It is NOT to be used to have "sex without consequences".]

Catholic doctrine does not talk about the marriage of spirit and matter at conception. In fact, St. Augustine said it was impossible to know when the spirit entered the bodyThis is an interesting thread.

According to the CCC on conception and abortion I would venture:
CCC 2270 " Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception...."
CCC 2270 "... Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. (72)"
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.(73)"

Based on the above quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I would venture that, although we do not know the exact moment of "marriage of spirit and matter" it would be safe to assume it is, in fact, partially done before conception ( Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. )and then comes to its completion at the moment of conception. ( Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. )

* CCC 2270
Item '72'- From Jer 1:5; cf. Job 10:8-12; Ps 22:10-11
Item '73'- From Ps 139:15

I agree this is an interesting thread. There is much to learn, especially for me. Thank you.

Reply #42 January 31, 2005 8:49 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Dymas, thank you for your reply. I hate to demur but deep thought is something that comes from education, where the person is able to collect many ideas and organize them into a logical pattern and apply them in a profound manner. There are very rare cases where the uneducated is able to do this, but generally, it is not so. That is why I said, the unlearned and iliterate are not able to do deep mediative thinking. It's not intended to insult anyone but it is a matter of the way the brain is composed. I would never say that being iliterate does not mean you can't be a Christian or Catholic, for those who make a distinction.

I only brought up the subject of contraception as an example of a place where bibical scripture is misused to support a doctrinal stance. I wasn't really trying to open a topic on contraception. Frankly, the bible doesn't have a great deal to say about contraception one way or the other. In actuality, the bible doesn't give any spoken advice on natural or un-natural birth control. The lines between natural and un-natural were set up by the Church, where scripture gives no guidelines for it at all. And that which is given the title "NFP" or "natural" is an attempt at contraception as much as the un-natural because they both are measures to prevent the conception. One is just better than the other. Abstinence itself, may and does take a form of contraception. "Pulling out" as you say, is scaresly a form of contraception. Thats a misconception about contraception . Many a woman and man can tell you of the failure rate of that along with the statics, its far more likely to produce than what is commonly title "natural method" of contraception.

Augustine, who went much farther than the Apostles or scripture on the subject, fell into a form of a far more radical anti-sexuality which vastly affected the church. In some ways it was a form of gnosticism where sexuality was considered evil. This was egged on by the monastics and some others who "appeared" to be outdoing the Church on being religious. Consequently, the church took on the beliefs to one degree or another and enforced his beliefs and practices upon the family. His austerity on the matter has caused many a heartache and bitterness for the family of Christians who lived long after him. Only recently has the church began to acknowledge that it was unbalanced. On this subject and on some others the church has moved too far to the right. For many centuries, a man and wife were told that once childbearing years were over, or for physical reason even in their youth, they were no longer allowed to conjugate. And that idea comes directly from the thought that matial relations are strictly for the purpose of pro-creation. "Sex without consequences" was forbidden . However, that is contrary to the scripture that the marriage bed is undefiled and that the purpose in marriage besides procreation, which is implicit, was so that man was not to "burn" with unfulfilled desire outside of the proper means of finding relief within the marriage. (1Cor.7:9 ) That is explicit. The fact is there are and have always been case where martial relations should have been afforded to those who for whatever reason could not have children, yet they weren't . Thus, breaking the rule of the bond of marriage between husband and wife by not giving consent and allowing as Paul put it to "defraud one another" . Only fasting was to keep them apart and that only for short period of time. Notice 1Cor.5:7 "..come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." Paul's concern is not for childbearing or conception, it is that Satan does not tempt them for their incontinency" . Yet, the Church's advice was for husband and wife to live together and not to conjugate again for the rest of their lives. That is what I mean by the church moved too far to the right.

I know I may sound like what you think is a "liberal" but I'm not . I'm very much a firm Catholic but I don't live in a rose garden, either. I'm very concerned for both the Church and the fabric of the church, the stablity of the family, as well as, how Catholicism relates itself to the real world.

CCC 2270 and the items 72 and 73 do apply to abortion, which there is every good reason to abhor. That is the taking of life.

Reply #43 February 1, 2005 1:12 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

I hate to demur but deep thought is something that comes from education

Im not exactly sure what you mean by education. Are you refering to "higher education" - Collage and the like?

I would never say that being iliterate does not mean you can't be a Christian or Catholic, for those who make a distinction.

Of course not, If I did imply that I apologize. And there is no rational distinction. We who became to be known as "Catholics" are the first Christians. On an off topic- I really detest when some refer to the RCC as a "denomination" because we are not a denomination of anything. Denomination means roughly "detraction from" the Protestants are denominational precisely because their belifes are "detracted" from ours. I often chuckle when I see signs saying "non-denominational" I always say to my self. "Catholics are the only Christians that are truely non-denominational. anyway lol

I only brought up the subject of contraception as an example of a place where bibical scripture is misused to support a doctrinal stance.

Im note sure if I would use the word "misused". Perhaps "misconstrued" but it is a matter of personal preference I think.

Augustine, who went much farther than the Apostles or scripture on the subject, fell into a form of a far more radical anti-sexuality which vastly affected the church. In some ways it was a form of gnosticism where sexuality was considered evil. This was egged on by the monastics and some others who "appeared" to be outdoing the Church on being religious. Consequently, the church took on the beliefs to one degree or another and enforced his beliefs and practices upon the family. His austerity on the matter has caused many a heartache and bitterness for the family of Christians who lived long after him.

In your opinion.
The fact of the matter is that St. Augustine IS a Doctor of the Church and the Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has accepted many of his teachings. Im not sure on your "facts" about being egged on by the "monastics" but I am going to look further into it. I thank you for some food for thought.

The fact is there are and have always been case where martial relations should have been afforded to those who for whatever reason could not have children, yet they weren't . Thus, breaking the rule of the bond of marriage between husband and wife by not giving consent and allowing as Paul put it to "defraud one another" . Only fasting was to keep them apart and that only for short period of time. Notice 1Cor.5:7 "..come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

Absolutly correct and im glad that the Church re-examined it's position on that issue.

Yet, the Church's advice was for husband and wife to live together and not to conjugate again for the rest of their lives. That is what I mean by the church moved too far to the right.

"WAS" being the operative word. That is no longer the case.
One of the things I really love about our faith is that it is ever growing and maturing as more and more is understood in the proper context. It is nice to live in and be a part of a "living" faith.

I would not label you as a liberal Catholic based upon what you have stated so far. Leaning to the left....perhaps. But unless you are a heretical liberal or a heretical conservative you are a Catholic just as I. And for our conversation I am gratefull.

Reply #44 February 1, 2005 4:55 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

the cross with the image of the suffering Christ on it?

isnt this--or more accurately, the use of a cross without the corpus--the result of some long-ago controversy about icons?    i could be wrong but i seem to recall that being one of the issues that ultimately led to some schism.

Reply #45 February 1, 2005 8:22 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Yes Kingbee, around 600 AD there was a large debate over the use of icons. It become known as the iconoclastic heresy. While there was and still is some truth, that people misuse at times icons, it doesn't mean it use of icons should be totally banned. Like many other social issues, abuse of some, should not result in the banning of the propper use. The Protestants after Luther and Calvin picked up many of the early heresies and renewed them. You've probably noticed I have written several articles refuting the first great heresy of the New Testament against the Judaizers of Christianity. The Judaizers were the first to cause a schism in the church, they have been revived and are still around today. There's not much new under the sun. The same old heresies keep circulating.

Reply #46 February 1, 2005 2:30 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Indeed Sabbatismus, but the proponents of the same heresies keep claiming that they are "new" or "lost truths" it is a sad thing to be sure.
On the topic of "marriage of spirit and matter" I e-mailed an other apologist and got this response:

"That Augustine did not know the Catholic answer to a particular question is no objection to the Catholic faith, because the Catholic faith does not teach that any representative, even Doctors of the Church, even its best popes know every single doctrine. To say that a doctrine cannot be Catholic or Christian on the grounds that this or that saint, or even a number of learned saints, didn't know it doesn't discredit the Catholic position in the slightest. Of course Christ knew every doctrine; he knew everything; but none of his human representatives in this world were ever believed to know it all.It would help if I had a full reference to the quote from Augustine contained in your e-mail. I have not done a proper study of this; I have relied on secondary sources which I trust as sources of data. Augustine, like thinkers before and long after him, accepted Aristotle's assertions that man's semen imparts the form (that is, blueprint) of an animal, that the mother supplies only the matter which receives the form, and that the form is imparted from the former to the latter not immediately but gradually. He accepted it on the grounds of a passage in Exodus as conveyed in the Septuagint, because it seemed to him to confirm Aristotle's science on this point. Aristotle added that human males are fully formed 40 days after conception, and females 90 days after. Once the matter is formed according to the blueprint, there is a body that can begin its own life, i.e., only then does it have its own soul. If Augustine said that it is impossible to know when this "marriage of spirit and matter" occurs, then he would seem to have questioned Aristotle's numbers, yet not the basic concept. This goes not only for Augustine, but also for St. Thomas Aquinas.There is another quote of Augustine that I believe he would like us to apply to discussions such as these, and I will give you the reference. "A reply has come from the Apostolic Chair. The case is closed." (Sermon 131:10) Augustine respected the Church's decision, even on what had not been so publically, formally and explicitly declared before. Surely, if he had lived to hear the Church's declaration that a new life begins at conception, he would gladly have consented."

Reply #47 February 1, 2005 8:49 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Come on. Augustine didn't know the earth wasn't flat and the earth traveled around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth. Neither did the church until Copernicus around 1400 AD. Why would we expect Augustine or the Church to understand microbiology in 300's AD?

Reply #48 February 1, 2005 10:16 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

We wouldn't. Im not sure what exaclty you mean by your response.
The point being made was: "...because the Catholic faith does not teach that any representative, even Doctors of the Church, even its best popes know every single doctrine. To say that a doctrine cannot be Catholic or Christian on the grounds that this or that saint, or even a number of learned saints, didn't know it doesn't discredit the Catholic position in the slightest"

So just because a Doctor of the Church said this or that dosent make it correct. Only the Holy See and the Bishiops in union with it can clarify doctrine. Theologians merely speculate.
Based upon your attitude I wonder what your stance is on these "issues".
1. Women Priests
2. Gay marriage
3. Contraception

Where in the RCC spectrum do you live?

Reply #49 February 2, 2005 12:07 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

I assume you are asking me? What is my stance on

1. Women Priests is an ordination rite of the church, which is the authority . It doesn't make any difference what I think. But, since you asked, my thinking is that just a few very short years ago, the congregations would have never even suggested that females could serve at the altar, as they do today in many churches. I don't personally like the idea of women Priests but I dare say, you wouldn't find anyone who would have agreed to such a thing for 2,000 years, as a female serving at the altar. Let's face it, the church adapted to change. The church has made enormous changes in the past few decades in that area, and that would have likely been scorned and condemned by earlier devout Catholics, likely "doctors" ESPECIALLY AUGUSTINE! Could you possibly imagine the Levitical Priesthood under Moses or the Priests in Christ's day, with females serving at the altar as the do today?

2. Gay Marriage: I don't agree with Gay Marriage because, the word "marriage" infers a sexual union which is opposed to the natural union of a man and wife. I'm okay with civil unions because they don't consist of a sexual union by inference or sanction a sexual union, as does the word "marriage" . I do realize that two people of the same sex may love one another and sitll be pure. I said, "love" not make love. I also realize that two people of the same sex may live together without sexual union, too. In cases of adoption, I would rather two people of the same sex , with no sexual contanct, rear an orphan than leave the child in an orphanage with no parenting. Two people of the opposite sex may live together without sexual union even though they are married. Not because that is the way it is supposed to be, but that is the way it sometimes IS. They still rear children and are capable of giving them good moral and Christian guidance. That is the reality of it.

3. Contraception As you admit, the church is constantly growing in "understanding" and doctrine continues to "develop". Where it once stood, is no guarantee that it will continue to stand. Contraception isn't practiced in the church whether the church consents or not, among most. It isn't practiced because the people believe the Clergy is out of touch with reality. The church discredited itself by misusing the scripture. Consequently, the doctrine has little affect among the general flock. Contraception, as in "pulling out" or other means of actually preventing conception will likely die on the vine. Some of the the so-called contraceptives that are actually abortion pills will and should be addressed as sinful. Contraception, other than that, is scaresly spoken of any more by the Priests in the United States because they know it's not popular. The Clergy made serious errors stating that the sexual union was only for the purpose of pro-creation. In doing so, it undermined the marriage bond and the union between husband and wife. The doctrine of contraception which should have been taught in a more balanced fashion. I totally agree that any pills and morning after means are not the will of God in the matter.

Frankly, the changes of the church in the past decades, since Vatican 2, haven't necessarily reinforced the doctrines. The flock is left to feel that anything may change at anytime. Things that were a mortal sin years ago, like eating meat on Fridays are now only venial sins or less. The once sacred holy days are being moved to Sunday to make it convenient and because people just didn't or couldn't attend on the sanctioned day. I'm not opposed to that but it does leave the flock in a flux. Not that I disagree with the decision, but the decision are not without the affects.

In the RCC spectrum, I'm a participant and spectator. Though, I'm not one who is eating popcorn and drinking beer, not taking notice of what is occurring before me. In many ways the church has held to the teachings of the Apostles, for that I'm very grateful. In some ways, it has gone (IMHO) too far to the right. Example: The Eucharist which was made to be blessed, offered and eaten, in scripture has recently become next to an object of worship if not directly. I'm opposed to the left which desires to make wholesale changes in Contraception, the Priesthood and Gay Marriage and Abortion. I'm also opposed to the right, that goes to far in protecting a doctrine or belief.

Reply #50 February 3, 2005 12:27 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Could you possibly imagine the Levitical Priesthood under Moses or the Priests in Christ's day, with females serving at the altar as the do today?

Lol, no I couldn't imagine it. It would have caused a MUCH greater problem than it is today. But I feel that as long as the truth remains,(that women cannot be ordained) there is not a big deal with female altar servers..

Women Priests is an ordination rite of the church, which is the authority

Im not sure what you mean. Holy Orders is a Sacrament conducted by the Church but it is not a man-made decision such as the Married Clergy issue.

Gay Marriage

In general I agree with your position upon Gay "marriage"

The church discredited itself by misusing the scripture

The Church does not "misuse" Scripture. If you believe so I would like for you to give me an example of actual "misuse" not misunderstanding.

Things that were a mortal sin years ago, like eating meat on Fridays are now only venial sins or less

As for no meat of fridays, it isnt a sin at all and there is no sin less than venial. ( "only venial sins or less")
American Catholics are only obliged to abstain from meat and fast on specific days altough it is encouraged to maintain a "meatless Friday" devotion.

The Eucharist which was made to be blessed, offered and eaten, in scripture has recently become next to an object of worship if not directly

True, but it is helpful to note that as Catholics we belive that the Euchorist IS LITTERALY the Body and Blood of Christ. So He really is present. But I agree there is much to be explained on proper Euchoristic Adoration.

I'm also opposed to the right, that goes to far in protecting a doctrine or belief.

The only way someone can go "to far" in protecting the dogmas or doctrines of the Faith is by commiting a mortal sin in defending them. Other than that everything should be done to protect "everything Mother Church Proposesfor our belief."-[ quote from the CCC defination of Faith.]


All in all I am very sad at the apparent erosion of Catholic Identity. Many of the things that distinguished us from other Christian Faiths are, or have, fallen away or into disuse. Thankfully there is a massive call for return to some "classic" Catholic pratices.

Some believe this and others that. And that is our choice, to feel how we wish. All I know is that at the end of the day each one of us has to answer to the Lord. I honestly belive that if you truely feel you have done His will to the best of your ability that things will work out just fine. Christ wants his Church to be one. I pray for the unity He desieres. I am happy at the recent Ecumenical moves the RCC has made ( in response, by and large, to the example set by the Holy Father.).

No one is perfect and everyone Catholic should have things he or she is unsure of or even disapproves of. The important thing is to obey. (granted that one obeys only a legitimate Church law).

For the record:Things I have a problem with ( But I still obey and respect the Church's position and authority on these issues.)
1) Married Clergy.[ I am in favor of a Roman Rite change back to having married clergy(again I respect and must obey the Church's authority on this). The Easter Rite has married clergy AND converted Epsicopalian and Lutheran Priests, who were married at the time of their conversion, were granted a Papal Indult allowing them to remain married AND be ordained a Catholic Priest.
2) Contraception- Im not really sure where I draw the line. I know that the Church, thank God, has retracted its long standing position that marriage and sex is for procreation only. However, I think that some of the more "extenuating circumstances" regarding birth controll should be addressed. ( obviously not any abortificant product.) Examples- Young couple with with children and if they had more it could put them into poverty thus preventing the parents from supporting their children properly...just things like that. But as I said im not really sure where I stand on this. If i HAD to chose I would say that I abstain from the use of condoms ONLY because current Church Law forbids it, not because I agree or like it. ( my wife and I have 3 children and at our age that is PLENTY lol)

Just some of my thoughts.
Also I would ask everyone who reads this article(regardless of their faith) to pray for Pope John Paul II.
Thank you in advance.