spidey Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Maybe so. Although I suspect you're derisive in your suggestion, maybe they have a better handle on what it means to be a Christian. It's too bad that people like you would rather force out elements of change in your Church rather than considering what they have to say. Like I said the vote for the most conservative of Cardinals indicates to me that the Church is obstinate in its refusal to consider reform. I simply don't want to be a part of that anymore. 309278[/snapback] No one is forcing you to stay its a personal decision one makes. Whatever you decide is your decision. I would suggest you wait a while and see what happens since some hardliners were best reformers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Maybe so. Although I suspect you're derisive in your suggestion, maybe they have a better handle on what it means to be a Christian. It's too bad that people like you would rather force out elements of change in your Church rather than considering what they have to say. Like I said the vote for the most conservative of Cardinals indicates to me that the Church is obstinate in its refusal to consider reform. I simply don't want to be a part of that anymore. 309278[/snapback] No one is forcing you out, you're just being juvenile and throwing a temper tantrum and looking for the door yourself. I'm sure it feels 'noble' to try and force change upon an institution that has been around for thousands of years but the wonderful thing about 'free will' is if you don't like it, you can leave, but try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back about how 'enlightened' you are, mmmkay? BTW, this is coming from an agnostic. I would like to have faith, but at this time I really don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 No one is forcing you out, you're just being juvenile and throwing a temper tantrum and looking for the door yourself. I'm sure it feels 'noble' to try and force change upon an institution that has been around for thousands of years but the wonderful thing about 'free will' is if you don't like it, you can leave, but try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back about how 'enlightened' you are, mmmkay? BTW, this is coming from an agnostic. I would like to have faith, but at this time I really don't. 309291[/snapback] I wasn't holding myself up as an example of the elements being forced out of the Church. I'm just one person and it doesn't matter one way or the other. What I was pointing out is that the Church has for years been resisting the forces of change. Some find this endearing, I find this reprehensible. I don't know why you have to make it personal by telling me "not to break your arm patting yourself on the back about how 'enlightened' you are" I don't think I ever did any such thing. I'm just having a dialog with people about what the naming of the new Pope means for Catholics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzer32 Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 No need to get in a huff, francis. Just liked the thong, that's all. 309254[/snapback] Just tryin to help a brother out. No huff here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiew Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Maybe so. Although I suspect you're derisive in your suggestion, maybe they have a better handle on what it means to be a Christian. It seems like all denominations feel they have the better handle on what it means to be a Christian. I sometimes wonder if the man upstairs is laughing at all these rightous know-it-alls who feel that their intepretation is the "right" one. Of course, none of us will know until the end. I've gone to many different churches because I prefer to worship in a group. But the only denomination I've seen so far that seems to welcome everyone to worship, and that leaves the "judging" up to God (and not the parish), is the Episcopal faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 make themselves a more inclusive Church including reassessing their stance on a celibate priesthood, allowing women to become priests, allowing contraception, and being more inclusive to gay Catholics. 309228[/snapback] I have recently been having a hard time with this gay thing, and am starting to rethink my stance, and somewhat can see the churches stance on this. Now this is going a little off topic, but what the hay. Is the argument that the Church should include gay parishoners based on the belief that homesexual men and women do not choose to gay, but are born "wired' that way? I have always heard the argument that no one would choose to be gay, therefore it is not a choice. Could this same doctrine than be applied to any "non-standard" sexual practice? For instance, I highly doubt anyone would choose to be a pedaphile. Should the church accept and welcome them as well, as is, and just say that is how they are wired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I have recently been having a hard time with this gay thing, and am starting to rethink my stance, and somewhat can see the churches stance on this. Now this is going a little off topic, but what the hay. Is the argument that the Church should include gay parishoners based on the belief that homesexual men and women do not choose to gay, but are born "wired' that way? I have always heard the argument that no one would choose to be gay, therefore it is not a choice. Could this same doctrine than be applied to any "non-standard" sexual practice? For instance, I highly doubt anyone would choose to be a pedaphile. Should the church accept and welcome them as well, as is, and just say that is how they are wired? 309331[/snapback] Hmm..even if it is a sin, then that doesn't mean they should be excluded from coming to church (I don't know if that is the case). I would say all of the people in the pews have sinned a bit, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Could this same doctrine than be applied to any "non-standard" sexual practice? For instance, I highly doubt anyone would choose to be a pedaphile. Should the church accept and welcome them as well, as is, and just say that is how they are wired? 309331[/snapback] I don't think so. A Pedophile is a sexual deviant. Pedophilia is listed in DSM IV as a mental illness. A homosexual is not a deviant. What they do may seem unsavory to those of us who are straight, but being gay isn't only about the sexual side of things, it's who the person decides to have a relationship with and spend their life with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 It seems like all denominations feel they have the better handle on what it means to be a Christian. I sometimes wonder if the man upstairs is laughing at all these rightous know-it-alls who feel that their intepretation is the "right" one. Of course, none of us will know until the end. I've gone to many different churches because I prefer to worship in a group. But the only denomination I've seen so far that seems to welcome everyone to worship, and that leaves the "judging" up to God (and not the parish), is the Episcopal faith. 309327[/snapback] "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isiah 5:20 Don't you have to be able to judge to differentiate between good and evil? Another inconsistency in the Bible I suppose... FWIW, I've always thought that all roads (Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc) lead to the same destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Hmm..even if it is a sin, then that doesn't mean they should be excluded from coming to church (I don't know if that is the case). I would say all of the people in the pews have sinned a bit, right? 309337[/snapback] Actually, homosexuals and the divorced are forbidden from participating in eucharist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Hmm..even if it is a sin, then that doesn't mean they should be excluded from coming to church (I don't know if that is the case). I would say all of the people in the pews have sinned a bit, right? 309337[/snapback] Agreed, but we are debating if they should be embraced and allowed to participate in the sacraments. I left the catholic church because I could not personally follow all of the tenats of the faith, However, I am starting to rethink that position. Earlier post mentioned the Episcopalian Church/ Anglican, and that is what I had been attending in DC. Assistant pastor is a gay man, parishoners fighting all the time about direction of that particlar church, as well as a pretty big divide splitting the religion in two between conservatives and liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I don't think so. A Pedophile is a sexual deviant. Pedophilia is listed in DSM IV as a mental illness. A homosexual is not a deviant. What they do may seem unsavory to those of us who are straight, but being gay isn't only about the sexual side of things, it's who the person decides to have a relationship with and spend their life with. 309341[/snapback] Why is this any differant than a pedophile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Actually, homosexuals and the divorced are forbidden from participating in eucharist. 309343[/snapback] The difference is that the divorced can buy an annulment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Some spiritual leader. Even Hitler wasn't in the Hitler Youth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Could this same doctrine than be applied to any "non-standard" sexual practice? For instance, I highly doubt anyone would choose to be a pedaphile. Should the church accept and welcome them as well, as is, and just say that is how they are wired? 309331[/snapback] Getting rid of everything else about how gay people become gay here is the difference. With gay people there is a relationship between two adults. In the case of a pedophile it is an adult trying to impose his sexual will on a minor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Looks like you gots a decision to make. 309025[/snapback] If your basis for going to church is who the Pope is or isn't, maybe you shouldn't go. You go to church to pray to God not to his leaders on Earth. They are just as human as us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 If your basis for going to church is who the Pope is or isn't, maybe you shouldn't go. You go to church to pray to God not to his leaders on Earth. They are just as human as us. 309370[/snapback] I thought the pope was infallible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Hopefully,when the political process will not be tainted to the point where there is any question of the need of a recount.... 309098[/snapback] Don't count on it. The precedent was set in the State of Washington Gubernatorial race last year. Election: Republican is ahead. Disenfranchisement! Count every vote! Wahh wahh! Democrat judges demand recount in Democrat-heavy counties. Recount 1: Republican is ahead. Disenfranchisement! Count every vote! Wahh wahh! Democrat judges demand further recount in Democrat-heavy counties. Recount 2: Republican is ahead. Disenfranchisement! Count every vote! Wahh wahh! Democrat judges demand further recount in Democrat-heavy counties. Recount 3: Democrat is ahead. No more recounts! Democrat judges laugh at Republican demands for further recounts in Republican-heavy counties and calls for investigation. Make no mistake, this is why the Democrats are filibustering all these judges. They are the party of the lawyers, and know that they can enact their agenda more effectively through judicial fiat from Democrats on the bench, than by actually standing for election. It's a given that the judicial branch has for some time been usurping authority from the legislative branch - now they've turned their sights on the executive as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 If your basis for going to church is who the Pope is or isn't, maybe you shouldn't go. You go to church to pray to God not to his leaders on Earth. They are just as human as us. 309370[/snapback] Couldnt agree more. The Pople is human the Pope isnt God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 If your basis for going to church is who the Pope is or isn't, maybe you shouldn't go. You go to church to pray to God not to his leaders on Earth. They are just as human as us. 309370[/snapback] You are completely incorrect. It amazes me how many Catholics don't really understand the teachings of the church they belong to. Papal Infallibility. Look it up. Here - I'll help: Learn about it. Wikipedia on it ... Another thing many Catholics don't understand is that you MUST believe that the wine you drink on Sunday at mass is actually turned into blood. You aren't drinking wine that represents the blood of Jesus. You ARE drinking the blood of Jesus. It's not wine. It's blood. If you don't truly believe that in your heart, you shouldn't be partaking in the sacrament of eucharist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Getting rid of everything else about how gay people become gay here is the difference. With gay people there is a relationship between two adults. In the case of a pedophile it is an adult trying to impose his sexual will on a minor. 309364[/snapback] Good point Fong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 You are completely incorrect. It amazes me how many Catholics don't really understand the teachings of the church they belong to. P Another thing many Catholics don't understand is that you MUST believe that the wine you drink on Sunday at mass is actually turned into blood. You aren't drinking wine that represents the blood of Jesus. You ARE drinking the blood of Jesus. It's not wine. It's blood. If you don't truly believe that in your heart, you shouldn't be partaking in the sacrament of eucharist. 309385[/snapback] One of the major differnces between the Anglican church and the Catholic church, believe the word is "transfiguration" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I'm really not sure what some of you are looking for in a Pope. Do some of you actually believe the Catholic Church will ever make changes like allowing gays into Catholicism? That's like the USA adopting communism as a form of government. It goes against everything its foundations were set upon. Religion shouldn't have to change for its people. The notion that the Church isn't changing for the new times is bull sh--. Why should it? Because we are more greedy and more materialist? How hard is it to be Catholic today. Just be a good person and go to church once a week! If you sin, you ask for forgiveness. If you commit one of 10 major sins, you go to confession. What is so hard about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 If your basis for going to church is who the Pope is or isn't, maybe you shouldn't go. You go to church to pray to God not to his leaders on Earth. They are just as human as us. 309370[/snapback] You also dont have to go to Church to pray to God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 One of the major differnces between the Anglican church and the Catholic church, believe the word is "transfiguration" 309395[/snapback] No - that's when jesus went up on a mountain and met moses & stuff. Completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 You are completely incorrect. It amazes me how many Catholics don't really understand the teachings of the church they belong to. Papal Infallibility. Look it up. Here - I'll help: Learn about it. Wikipedia on it ... Another thing many Catholics don't understand is that you MUST believe that the wine you drink on Sunday at mass is actually turned into blood. You aren't drinking wine that represents the blood of Jesus. You ARE drinking the blood of Jesus. It's not wine. It's blood. If you don't truly believe that in your heart, you shouldn't be partaking in the sacrament of eucharist. 309385[/snapback] You are a literal jackass. How am I incorrect? You go to church to pray to God not to the Pope. And I know what Papal Infallibility is and what it was. Popes don't go around making ridiculous statements and then using the P.I. card to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanForever19 Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I like the guy. I mean do disrespect, but I like that this guy seemed awake. I understand John Paul II was getting up there in age and was ill. But I just don't agree with the whole, Pope until you die or relinquish the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I like the guy. I mean do disrespect, but I like that this guy seemed awake. I understand John Paul II was getting up there in age and was ill. But I just don't agree with the whole, Pope until you die or relinquish the title. 309418[/snapback] Funny, I kind of think the same thing about Chief Justices... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Getting rid of everything else about how gay people become gay here is the difference. With gay people there is a relationship between two adults. In the case of a pedophile it is an adult trying to impose his sexual will on a minor. 309364[/snapback] The Catholic doctrine is that the act of sex is directly connected to procreation. Any attempt to undermine that duality is deviant to the will of God. Hence, abortion, contraception, gay and lesbian relationships, etc, all fall under the banner of deviant practice. Since God sanctifies sex/procreation only within the bond of marriage, adultery and bigamy are out too. This has been a formula for most winning religions/cultures through the millenia, since this also corresponds strongly with the evolutionary purpose of our DNA. Taking it up the pooper doesn't produce the next generation of the species. Running from bed to bed does not provide a proper environment for offspring. The Church might say it's the Word Of God that tells us this, but there also is much common sense which ties these doctrines to speci-societal survival. You'll notice that, besides traditional Catholics (I'm sure Pope Benny would consider the so called liberal Catholics who support abortion/contraception/free-love/deviant sex to be in apostasy), the culture which most promotes values which tend to increase the "size of the herd" if you will, is Islam. Is it any wonder they're the fastest growing religion? They're popping out the most little suicide bombers. Don't worry, we'll make more, they say... and they do. In the numbers game, Europe and Russia just aren't procreating fast enough to avoid being overtaken sometime in this century, and when the numbers finally tip you'll see the green flag flying over Paris, and Berlin, and Stockholm and Oslo too. A pope upholding the traditional doctrines, and the traditional 'self-evident truths' about the nature of the relationship between man and God, should not really be such a surprise. Those taking the long view can conjecture that this is what Armageddon and the survival of the Church and Christianity as we know it is all about. As Europe secularizes and welfarizes, it diminishes it's own culture while at the same time introducing the strain that will ultimately replace it. That is, if you believe the theories of one Charles Darwin to be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 1) the pope is the chosen person to converse with god. i have a problem with that. 2) if the pope choses to change somethign or "reinterpret" something all chatholics are REQUIRED to believe what he tells you to believe in... 3) why should i worship this guy when he is simply "elected" from a bunch of religious fanatics. i dont believe a religion can be "organized" and to be honest i dont give 2 ***** about a leader of an "organized" religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 You also dont have to go to Church to pray to God. 309402[/snapback] I agree and disagree. I agree in the sense that God won't turn away good souls that believe in Him but didn't believe in the organization of the church. However, Church and mass are there to provide us a direct communication with God and to celebrate Jesus's ultimate sacrifice for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I don't care. he was a youth nazi and he had to have taken some of those teachings with him in life. At least he is old and won't last long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 You are completely incorrect. It amazes me how many Catholics don't really understand the teachings of the church they belong to. Papal Infallibility. Look it up. Here - I'll help: Learn about it. Wikipedia on it ... Another thing many Catholics don't understand is that you MUST believe that the wine you drink on Sunday at mass is actually turned into blood. You aren't drinking wine that represents the blood of Jesus. You ARE drinking the blood of Jesus. It's not wine. It's blood. If you don't truly believe that in your heart, you shouldn't be partaking in the sacrament of eucharist. 309385[/snapback] You should have clicked on a link at the bottom, which tried to put the 'infallibility' issue into plain english.. http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Papal-I...allibility.html Papal infallibility is a stumbling block for many Christians, even many Catholics. But it is actually a very limited doctrine. It means that when, and only when, the successor of Peter makes a solemn pronouncement about faith or morals, he is guarded by the Holy Spirit against teaching error. Unlike scripture, such pronouncements are not "inspired." They are simply free from error. The other way the extraordinary Magisterium can be exercised is through an ecumenical council of bishops when they define a doctrine under the guidance of the pope and subject to his confirmation. Two of the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council are "dogmatic" in this manner: Lumen gentium, or the Constitution of the Church, and Dei verbum, on revelation. Solemn pronouncements are not, however, the way the Church usually goes about teaching the faith. There is also the doctrine of the ordinary Magisterium. It was succinctly defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870: "Moreover, by divine and Catholic faith everything must be believed that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, and that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of belief either in solemn decree or in her ordinary universal teaching." In other words, there is a body of infallible teaching that has not been made known by solemn declarations. What this refers to is the deposit of faith handed down through the centuries. The pope is its chief guardian, and he may use whatever means he chooses to preserve and teach it. As one writer puts it, the pope does not invent the truth, he locates it. The infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium was clearly and explicitly taught by Pius XII and by the Second Vatican Council. Here is what Pius XII wrote in his 1950 encyclical Humanae generis: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in encyclical letters does not itself command consent, on the pretext that in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say, ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’ … But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that the matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." In Lumen gentium #25, a key Vatican II text about which dissenters don’t like to be reminded, the Council Fathers teach that "loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated." These words constitute a "hard saying" for dissenting Catholics. They are one reason why enthusiasts of the "spirit of Vatican II" are seldom eager to discuss what the Council Fathers actually wrote about papal authority. One liberal theologian has gone so far as to deride what he calls "Vatican II fundamentalists." These are people who refer to the Council’s specific texts about the role of the pope. But faithful Catholics can be grateful that Christ left a teaching office which need not solemnly define as dogma every doctrine in order for it to be held as objectively true. Translation: Papal infallibility doesn't mean to the Pope should be viewed as a living God, but merely the last word on a subject so as to limit all the bloody bickering. Isn't a CEO the last word at his company? Couldn't be said that at corporations there is a doctrin of 'CEO infallibility'? And yet people get their knickers in a twist when something similary is applied to the leader of the Catholic Church... And the wine point is silly...it's always been known to be SYMBOLIC. Jesus didn't actually cut his wrists and drain his blood into a goblet. He said drink this wine, it's my blood and I don't see how anyone else could take any other way than symbolically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I don't care. he was a youth nazi and he had to have taken some of those teachings with him in life. 309434[/snapback] Sort of like Senator Robert Byrd, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I don't care. he was a youth nazi and he had to have taken some of those teachings with him in life. At least he is old and won't last long. 309434[/snapback] Both my parents grew up in Communist Poland. My mom's parents grew up under Nazi rule. My Dad's parent's under Stalin's rule. Do you know how much of those teachings they took with them and eventually passed on to me? ZERO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 However, Church and mass are there to provide us a direct communication with God ... 309431[/snapback] So, praying at home is not a direct connection to God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 You are a literal jackass. How am I incorrect? You go to church to pray to God not to the Pope. And I know what Papal Infallibility is and what it was. Popes don't go around making ridiculous statements and then using the P.I. card to back it up. 309417[/snapback] Welcome to my ignore list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 You go to church to pray to God not to his leaders on Earth. They are just as human as us. 309370[/snapback] You Catholic? Priests transform the bread wafer and the wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. They can absolve sins. The Pope is infallible. There are intermediaries between God and people in the Cathlic Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 The Catholic doctrine is that the act of sex is directly connected to procreation. Any attempt to undermine that duality is deviant to the will of God. Hence, abortion, contraception, gay and lesbian relationships, etc, all fall under the banner of deviant practice. Since God sanctifies sex/procreation only within the bond of marriage, adultery and bigamy are out too. This has been a formula for most winning religions/cultures through the millenia, since this also corresponds strongly with the evolutionary purpose of our DNA. Taking it up the pooper doesn't produce the next generation of the species. Running from bed to bed does not provide a proper environment for offspring. The Church might say it's the Word Of God that tells us this, but there also is much common sense which ties these doctrines to speci-societal survival. You'll notice that, besides traditional Catholics (I'm sure Pope Benny would consider the so called liberal Catholics who support abortion/contraception/free-love/deviant sex to be in apostasy), the culture which most promotes values which tend to increase the "size of the herd" if you will, is Islam. Is it any wonder they're the fastest growing religion? They're popping out the most little suicide bombers. Don't worry, we'll make more, they say... and they do. In the numbers game, Europe and Russia just aren't procreating fast enough to avoid being overtaken sometime in this century, and when the numbers finally tip you'll see the green flag flying over Paris, and Berlin, and Stockholm and Oslo too. A pope upholding the traditional doctrines, and the traditional 'self-evident truths' about the nature of the relationship between man and God, should not really be such a surprise. Those taking the long view can conjecture that this is what Armageddon and the survival of the Church and Christianity as we know it is all about. As Europe secularizes and welfarizes, it diminishes it's own culture while at the same time introducing the strain that will ultimately replace it. That is, if you believe the theories of one Charles Darwin to be correct. 309424[/snapback] Wow, really well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 You Catholic? Priests transform the bread wafer and the wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. They can absolve sins. The Pope is infallible. There are intermediaries between God and people in the Cathlic Church. 309447[/snapback] Ladies and Gentlemen, we have soooooo many literal jackasses with us today. You go to Church to pray to God, you practice Catholicism because you believe in God. Period, end of story. Popes, Priests, Deacons and even alter boys all work for God. They are and shouldn't be the reason you are Catholic. So let me ask you John Adams, do you not consider yourself American because you don't like George W. Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts