Catholicism

LOL, some of you people crack me up. Just because I criticize the Catholic church I get bashed. Heaven forbid someone should have a negative opinion of something!

 

There you go, getting personal. You can lash out and we can't. Now who is destroying credibility?

I don't see any pronouns in this statement: "That doesn't justify ignorance. A few people are coming across as tremendously ignorant in this thread, and are destroying their credibility. I'm sure this isn't the intent, but it is how it's coming across."

I didn't name anyone personally. Take it as you will.

 

Like i have stated before, i don't disagree with the theoretical belief of the catholic church, i know it is well intended, but the real practice of the church is what bothers me so much, i have lived it, and history teaches us about it. Also i have personally heard a testimony by a former Jesuit who has corraborated (sp? sorry, mesa Mexican) all of what i have said, and MANY more things about the church that would offend you. Now get this clear, like we (many of us) have stated before, it is not against the people, it is against the ORGANIZATION.

 

"I didn't name anyone personally. Take it as you will. "

The word people makes it personal, i mean we might look stupid to you but it doesnt actually make us stupid.

 

but the real practice of the church is what bothers me so much, i have lived it, and history teaches us about it.

Perhaps you could share some of those experiences? Some of us have had good experiences with the Church, and those experiences have helped cement our beliefs.

History may teach something to one person, and another person may have a different interpretation.

Also i have personally heard a testimony by a former Jesuit who has corraborated (sp? sorry, mesa Mexican) all of what i have said, and MANY more things about the church that would offend you.

A former Jesuit? There's no name provided here, and no way to check up on their credibility or general makeup as a person or former priest. Indeed, there are doubtlessly hundreds or thousands of priests who would corraborate Catholic teaching as it is now.

Now get this clear, like we (many of us) have stated before, it is not against the people, it is against the ORGANIZATION.

While we are not always thrilled or happy with the organization called the Catholic Church, I believe those of us here who are Catholic believe it is the right place for us, and a place where we can and do receive spiritual guidance in the way of the Lord.

 

Hey PENA, whats next? Are you going to bring up something your friends, uncles cousin said? Once again, you are painting the ENTIRE Catholic organization with a giant brush. Not only that, but the information you give trying to demonize the church is full of holes. It doesn't add up.

The Senate Floor isn't a place where you lash out at an organization. Its a place where you DISCUSS. There are plenty of things I could lash out at, but this forum is not the place. Whenever you lash out at something, you are going to be insulting someone, so don't do.

If you want to disucss Catholicism, fine, I'd be more than happy to. Although I don't agree with some things the church does, I still feel it is the religion for me.

 

My best friend grew up in the Catholic church, but I never discussed doctrine with him. As such, I am very interested in the nuts and bolts of Catholicism, but the last two pages are just arguments and justifications of posts. I have my own little views based on what I have seen, but I don't intend to air them for fear of being ripped apart for being ignorant (which I admittedly am and that is why I'm interested in the truth).

Can we please, please get to covering the topic of Catholicism and leave the bickering behind? If someone posts something that seems to be a misconception, then just correct it. Perhaps if someone uses an incorrect tone...ignore him and move on.

I want to learn. Thanks.

 

I'd answer questions if anyone had any.....

 

Pena, TFU,

Just try to have the same respect for members of the Catholic faith that you would want from others regarding your beliefs. Drop the sarcasm, and ask questions instead of assuming you know everything there is to know.

Let me put it this way - if the same tone of voice were taken when discussing Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists, this thread would have been closed already. Admins, back me up here.

Darth Phelps, ask away.

 

Why does anyone feel the need to criticize? There's nothing wrong with disagreement and discussion, but criticism invariably leads to hard feelings, especially when it comes to a topic as personal as one's religion. It has the same effect on me as it would if you criticized my mother.

DarthPhelps, someone posted a link earlier to a page that has a nice concise summation of Catholic beliefs. I think that when it is stripped to its core, Catholic belief is probably not all that different from Protestant (based on my admittedly limited knowledge of most Protestant denominations).

Here is the site.

If you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to try and answer them.

 

Okay, I have a serious question now.

Why are the Catholic's ten commandments different from mine?

 

Sorry, I'm honestly not trying to be difficult, but can you be more specific? I don't think they are different. I think different people would interpret them differently (for example, I was in the office this Sunday), but that's not a Catholic thing. If you're referring to the graven images reference in #1, as stated before, the images in Catholic churches are not being worshipped at all (which is the issue, I take it?) Elaborate, if you can.

 

Okay, seriously now.

I have a few questions myself although i partly know the answer to these but i want to know why you think it happens.

1.- Why do you baptize children?

2.- Why are the commandments different than the ones in the Bible?

3.- Why is the pope the ultimate authority of the church?

4.- Why do you canonize people?

5.- Why is your bible composed of books, which are not considered holy, considered i mean by the council that studied the original texts and composed what is now known as the bible, since those books are contradictory to the rest of the Bible.

6.- Why does the church allow the usage of "virgins" on different nations as to call them the "mothers" of those nations, i.e. the virgin of guadalupe, virgin of fatima, etc. etc.?

I seek biblical proof of a few of the questions plus logical proof of others, by logical i mean reasonable or credible, im sorry but its kinda hard to put that into words, me being foreigner to english, i hope my point gets across.

 

Pope Pius (forgot the number) said that despite his 'unworthiness' it was his office which had been entrusted with salvation and that he (Pius and the office of pope) was 'the way the truth and the life'. This was an official position of the church. While this little declaration does not reflect directly upon the average Catholic, it disturbs me that ANYONE in a Christian faith could claim such a thing and it be accepted.

 

Why does the pope refer to himself as well as catholics in general the highest bridge (sumo pontifice) saying that he is the only bridge to God, when Jesus clearly is the only Way, Truth, and Life, and no one comes to the father but through Him.?

 

You're not always going to get the biblical proof you seek. We have Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture. They are on an equal level.

1: We baptize children so they can enter into the body of Christ. Entire families were shown to be baptized in Scripture, and it's only reasonable to believe that this included children as well.

2: I do not know. I do know that nitpicking them is, to me, like being a pharasee and missing the point.

3: We believe the pontiff takes his authority from Peter, who we believe was the person that Christ chose to shephered His flock on earth.

4: Canonization is simply the recognition that a person has entered heavenly life with God (and the things that person did to merit such). That is all.

5: The books you refer to were judged to be canonical by the same authority that judged the rest of Scripture to be canonical. If you reject one, you may as well reject it all.

6: It is a tradition. It does not put her above Christ, and if you read more about it, you'll notice that Mary always points to Christ.

 

I have no knowledge of any such statement by a pontiff. If you read John Paul II's writings, you'll see how much he points to Christ as being salvation. No pope has genuinely believed that they are any type of god or salvation.

 

here are biblical responses to some of those:

You're not always going to get the biblical proof you seek. We have Sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture. They are on an equal level.

Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash [their] hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

I've seen all those in response to these questions before. You're free to believe what you wish. I'm well aware I'm not going to convince anyone of anything.

 

"We believe the pontiff takes his authority from Peter, who we believe was the person that Christ chose to shephered His flock on earth."

If this were true, then why has it been historically shown that it was actually James, the half brother of Jesus, who led most of the early church?

 

Shown by whom, I would ask.

 

By the Bible and other sources.

 

"We believe the pontiff takes his authority from Peter, who we believe was the person that Christ chose to shephered His flock on earth."

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Never is it stated that Peter will be the first pope, and never is it referring to him as the one who will be the head of the church. read this part thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, THOU are peter (first person) and upon this rock (third person) i will build my church. Clearly Jesus was talking to him but never did He state that he (peter) would be the leader of the church.

 

Jesus was speaking of Himself when He said "this rock." I imagine He gestured towards Himself to indicate so when He said this.

 

Pena, that passage can be and has been interpreted in numerous ways by people with doctorates in a variety of fields.


By the Bible and other sources.

Forgive me if I don't buy that.

Jesus was speaking of Himself when He said "this rock."

So say some people. Not so say others.