Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread

Options
1…457910…17

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    PDN wrote: »
    Unfortunately we find ourselves in a dilemma.

    If we answer their questions we are accused of being 'anti-Catholic' because we don't agree with everything they believe.

    If we don't answer their questions then they claim to have stumped us.

    For what it's worth - I am just as much anti-Protestant as I am anti-Catholic. I think both the Catholic churches and Protestant churches make mistakes, have faults and need to be a bit more humble.

    anti-catholic has not yet been used by a catholic on this thread except in defence of the charge of labelling.


  • Options
    #183
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    smurfhousing wrote: »
    Papal Bulls dealt with all sorts of issues, not just issues pertaining to official Church teachings on faith and morals.

    And they contradict each other on matters of faith. I already referred in another thread to different papal bulls that declared the teaching of Christ's poverty as heretical, and others that taught it was OK.

    Boniface VIII stated in Unam Sanctam: “Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”

    This is contradicted by the present Cathechism which states: “[Protestants] who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic church…Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 838

    Again, on abortion, Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory IX (1200) considered abortion to be homicide only when the fetus is "formed."
    Pope Sixtus V (1588), declared contraception and abortion at any stage of pregnancy, whether the fetus was "animated or not animated, formed or unformed," to be homicide and a mortal sin.
    Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull and reinstated the "quickening" test (the perception by a mother that the fetus moves/is animated) which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy.
    Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" saying that the soul enters the embryo at conception.


  • Options
    #184
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    lmaopml wrote: »
    One week when a few RC people with some gusto actually log on here...

    There are plenty of people with 'gusto' on the forum..and they all stand down when approached, but don't get a thread donated to them after one week...

    Please consider this your very last inthread warning. Any more backseat modding and you will be infracted.

    And kindly stop spreading this untruth. No set of individuals had a thread 'donated' to them. This thread is equally for Catholics who want to argue against Protestantism, and Protestants who want to argue against Roman Catholicism.


  • Options
    #185
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    smurfhousing Post#174 wrote:
    That is a falsehood. The Church teachings on faith and morals are guaranteed to be without error by the Holy Spirit. You are unable to backup your accusations.

    The Church has not taught truth and errors on matters of faith and morals over the last 2000 years.

    I should add that the tone on this thread has become quite anti-Catholic. It is the spirit of the world at work.
    StealthRolex wrote: »
    anti-catholic has not yet been used by a catholic on this thread except in defence of the charge of labelling.

    Hmmmm


  • Options
    #186
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    PDN wrote: »
    And they contradict each other on matters of faith. I already referred in another thread to different papal bulls that declared the teaching of Christ's poverty as heretical, and others that taught it was OK.

    Boniface VIII stated in Unam Sanctam: “Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”

    This is contradicted by the present Cathechism which states: “[Protestants] who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic church…Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 838

    Again, on abortion, Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory IX (1200) considered abortion to be homicide only when the fetus is "formed."
    Pope Sixtus V (1588), declared contraception and abortion at any stage of pregnancy, whether the fetus was "animated or not animated, formed or unformed," to be homicide and a mortal sin.
    Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull and reinstated the "quickening" test (the perception by a mother that the fetus moves/is animated) which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy.
    Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" saying that the soul enters the embryo at conception.

    Where is the contradiction? Unam Sanctam is not contradicted, it is just not mentioned in the CCC extract presented.

    wrt abortion I see you referencing discussions as to when ensoulment occurred, not whether abortion is or was ever lawful. If you have the names of the bulls it would assist greatly


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    smurfhousing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭smurfhousing


    PDN wrote: »
    And they contradict each other on matters of faith. I already referred in another thread to different papal bulls that declared the teaching of Christ's poverty as heretical, and others that taught it was OK.

    [That is a matter of discipline.]

    Boniface VIII stated in Unam Sanctam: “Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”

    [If you want to understand why there is no issue here, see: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate9.htm ]

    This is contradicted by the present Cathechism which states: “[Protestants] who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic church…Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” -Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 838

    Again, on abortion, Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory IX (1200) considered abortion to be homicide only when the fetus is "formed." [...Because it was OK otherwise? I think not. The Church has taught constantly that the killing of the unborn is gravely sinful. What kind of sin it was, there was some discussion, but it was always a grave sin.]
    Pope Sixtus V (1588), declared contraception and abortion at any stage of pregnancy, whether the fetus was "animated or not animated, formed or unformed," to be homicide and a mortal sin. [and this is problematic because?]
    Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull [Did he? Can you link me to proof of this so I can examine whether or not your claim has any merit whatsoever (which I strongly doubt) or has just been pulled out of a hat?] and reinstated the "quickening" test (the perception by a mother that the fetus moves/is animated) which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy.
    Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" saying that the soul enters the embryo at conception. [You'll find that the Church refined Her teaching as science informed Her of the processes of conception and gestation]
    I fisked the post to save myself all that formatting.


  • Options
    #188
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    PDN wrote: »
    Hmmmm

    Hmmm yourself, he said the tone. He didn't call anyone or accuse anyone of that :mad:


  • Options
    #189
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    I don't know whether to laugh or scream reading this thread. One things for sure though, Its great its confined to one thread!


  • Options
    #190
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    And couples who use condoms are less likely to get HIV. :rolleyes:

    Which as far as I know the Roman church accept. They don't condemn the use of condoms to prevent a husband or wife getting HIV.

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20031201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html#ChurchPromotesLife

    Paragraph 20: One has to seriously distinguish between the proper use of the condom and the failures of the same due to different causes.

    How could they refer to "proper use" if it didn't exist.

    In other words the kernel of the Vatican position is: [same source]
    What is being proposed is to live one’s sexuality in a way that is consistent with one’s human nature and the nature of the family.

    So they do not oppose using condoms to reduce an infection in a married couple. the main issue is one of using condoms to facilitate casual sex or extramarital sex. It is a valid argument because it is casual sex which is the factor in the spread of disease and not condom use. That is why it is called an STD.


  • Options
    #191
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" saying that the soul enters the embryo at conception.

    Really? O don't think so. IIRC the position is that the soul could not have entered before conception so ensoulment takes place some time after conception but the only way to be 100 per cent sure is to assume at conception and then you can never be wrong.

    I think you might also keep in mind that this, by the way, isn't to say a fertilised egg, even if not a human being with a soul,should not have some form of superiour or different rights when compared to other legal persons (including non living ones like corporations) even if it [the embryo] is not a person [i.e. human not "legal entity" ].


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    The earliest Christians held a wide variety of opinions on many subjects. So do you accept Tertullian's endorsement of Montanism?

    The earliest Christians were, like all of us, people who got some things right and also got some stuff wrong.

    The Met in Church councils and decided what was right. And when they decided that was that.

    The Nicaean and Constantinople councils would have regarded Montantism as heretical.

    You picked a very "protestant looking" group in the montanists. Mind you maybe they weren't strict enough for Tertullian and he eventually left them. Tertullian was a defender of the necessity of Apostolicity so they would not have suited that idea either.


  • Options
    #193
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    ISAW wrote: »
    Which as far as I know the Roman church accept. They don't condemn the use of condoms to prevent a husband or wife getting HIV.

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20031201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html#ChurchPromotesLife

    Paragraph 20: One has to seriously distinguish between the proper use of the condom and the failures of the same due to different causes.

    How could they refer to "proper use" if it didn't exist.

    In other words the kernel of the Vatican position is: [same source]
    What is being proposed is to live one’s sexuality in a way that is consistent with one’s human nature and the nature of the family.

    So they do not oppose using condoms to reduce an infection in a married couple. the main issue is one of using condoms to facilitate casual sex or extramarital sex. It is a valid argument because it is casual sex which is the factor in the spread of disease and not condom use. That is why it is called an STD.

    So you are saying that the RCC position is that contraception is fine in the context of marriage?


  • Options
    #194
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ISAW - What do you make of StealthRolex's and smurfhousing's opinion on contraception?


  • Options
    #195
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    So, let's get this straight. Your position is that the Roman Catholic Church taught stuff that wan't true in the past - but now it's got its act together and everything is true now?

    How fortunate of you to live in an age when there are no mistakes, rather than in previous centuries.

    AS opposed to "Science"? How is the change in teaching in the light of knowledge different? How is it okay for science to develop a position and not okay for the Church to do so?


  • Options
    #196
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ISAW - What do you make of StealthRolex's and smurfhousing's opinion on contraception?

    I would have to read them. Whether they represent Rome's position I have no idea. As far as I know and have debated here the Roman position is that casual sex is a problem and Rome does not approve of it. This in turn has implications on conception and contraception. i think a lot of people would accept the "causal sex for fun" is a worship of material things just like recreational drug and alcohol use. But the idea that one can't enjoy a drink or that one should not get pleasure from sex I think is also a problem. The idea of "sex is only for having children if you enjoy it put that experience aside and remember it is only for children" is a bit mad but I also respect such people are wrongly attacked by the "free love" brigade as if their antithethesis is a better position to hold.


  • Options
    #197
    Slav
    Registered Users Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Slav


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I don't know whether to laugh or scream reading this thread.

    Try to enjoy it! ;)

    Protestantism/Catholicism debate is a 500 year old sport and deserves some respect. While it might look bizarre for a strange (like baseball for a European) for those who participate I believe it's a great fun. :)


  • Options
    #198
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    ISAW wrote: »
    AS opposed to "Science"? How is the change in teaching in the light of knowledge different? How is it okay for science to develop a position and not okay for the Church to do so?

    Because SR etc are saying that the Church don't err and are always right, because they are led by the holy spirit. If this is truly the case, then its not about in light of new knowledge. It becomes, 'well you obviously aren't inerrant, as you've had to revise your position. This means that you were wrong at a certain point.' Nobody has any issue with this revising of positions in light of new knowledge etc. Its only a problem, if someone is claiming that their authority is THE truth.


  • Options
    #199
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    ISAW wrote: »
    I would have to read them. Whether they represent Rome's position I have no idea. As far as I know and have debated here the Roman position is that casual sex is a problem and Rome does not approve of it. This in turn has implications on conception and contraception. i think a lot of people would accept the "causal sex for fun" is a worship of material things just like recreational drug and alcohol use. But the idea that one can't enjoy a drink or that one should not get pleasure from sex I think is also a problem. The idea of "sex is only for having children if you enjoy it put that experience aside and remember it is only for children" is a bit mad but I also respect such people are wrongly attacked by the "free love" brigade as if their antithethesis is a better position to hold.

    That is NOT what this is about though. Nobody here is part of the 'free love' brigade. AFAIK, contraception, even within a marriage, is viewed as wrong by the RCC, or at least by the RC posters here.


  • Options
    #200
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Slav wrote: »
    Try to enjoy it! ;)

    Protestantism/Catholicism debate is a 500 year old sport and deserves some respect. While it might look bizarre for a strange (like baseball for a European) for those who participate I believe it's a great fun. :)

    TBH, I have no issue with a good, open, healthy discussion. Be it calm or heated. In fact, I like a bit of passion, and not the sterile 'Who can be the calmest' contests that are often encouraged.

    I think its a bit like silly season here though with certain posters. I'd love to discuss things with a knowledgable RC who can reason their beliefs etc, but I've never come across one in this forum, and there are few lay catholics I know who have any knowledge or desire to discuss their faith in the real world. In fact, they look to me as the knowledgable one, and that says alot!


  • Options
    #201
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Ok PND I'll take my axe about the thread, and put it back in it's box.......and get inline with the decision from now on, I promise.

    :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    JimiTime wrote: »
    TBH, I have no issue with a good, open, healthy discussion. Be it calm or heated. In fact, I like a bit of passion, and not the sterile 'Who can be the calmest' contests that are often encouraged.

    I think its a bit like silly season here though with certain posters. I'd love to discuss things with a knowledgable RC who can reason their beliefs etc, but I've never come across one in this forum, and there are few lay catholics I know who have any knowledge or desire to discuss their faith in the real world. In fact, they look to me as the knowledgable one, and that says alot!

    Bah ha haaa! Hilarious, I love you Jimi..lol...

    In fairness, I like a bit of passion in discussion too, just not when it get's confusing and goes all over the place, only to end with....

    ...more confusion:eek:


  • Options
    #203
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    JimiTime wrote: »
    That is NOT what this is about though. Nobody here is part of the 'free love' brigade. AFAIK, contraception, even within a marriage, is viewed as wrong by the RCC, or at least by the RC posters here.

    But with respect that IS what this is about! You asked me what was my opinion on two other posters.

    And the thread isn't about contraception though another thread might have mentioned that subject and have merged with this one. I don't know and I didn't read what they wrote so I am ignorant of what they stated on that subject.

    As regards jurisprudence and the RCC might I draw a parallel with the Sanhedrin and Pharisees and Sadducees? One bunch were interested in rule by the letter of the law and in mixing with the rich and powerful another were closer to the people and more "bottom up" and believed more in less literal things and oral tradition. There is similar in the Church today. Authoritarians and Pastoralists you might call them.


  • Options
    #204
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ISAW wrote: »
    But with respect that IS what this is about! You asked me what was my opinion on two other posters.

    I asked you, not JimiTime.

    I asked you because there seems to be two entirely different views being put across by people who claim to advocate the same point of view.


  • Options
    #205
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Bah ha haaa! Hilarious, I love you Jimi..lol...

    Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm married;):D
    In fairness, I like a bit of passion in discussion too, just not when it get's confusing and goes all over the place, only to end with....

    ...more confusion:eek:

    I see where you're coming from in relation to this thread, but I think the content of this thread evidences why its needed tbh. You can see that arguements like 'The Magisterium says you're wrong' would be useless to someone who does not recognise the magisterium as any for of authority? So if someone wishes to go down that road, they end up here. Catholics or anyone else are more than welcome, and I would go so far as to say encouraged to post in aany/all threads, so long as its discussion and not soap boxing they are indulging in. There was a very nice nun that used to post here, who I think may have been a bit misunderstood, as well being misunderstanding at times herself. However, IMO, she had Christianity licked! I disagreed with some of her views, agreed with others etc, but she recognised that all this yabbering is vanity. Its not about rites, masses, OSAS, Works versus faith etc. She, as an RC Nun saw Christianity for what it truly is I.E. Living your life in the ways of Christ. In fact, this Nun was most vehemently opposed by some Catholic posters. You really do have to ask yourself, whatever your denomination, what is it to be Christian? Is it about Mass, sacraments, rituals, festivals etc? Or is it about Love God, your neighbour and walk in the ways of Christ? I can gurantee you, that a man without the former but full of the latter will certainly enter the Kingdom. Reverse that however, and they will certainly not.


  • Options
    #206
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I see where you're coming from in relation to this thread, but I think the content of this thread evidences why its needed tbh.

    Don't deny it Jimi, we are the content! :pac:


  • Options
    #207
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Don't deny it Jimi, we are the content! :pac:

    I am but the salt on the meal:)


  • Options
    #208
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Actually, I'd like to call a spade a spade here. I think its awful that this place now looks like its 'catholics versus non-catholics'. I am against StealthRolex and those who display a similar attitude. I know that that is personal, but I think it needs to be clarified so that I for one am not accused of being 'anti-catholic'. I disagree with much of the churches doctrines, but also agree with alot, and recognise that there are many many true christians in the RCC.

    I welcome discussion, disagreements, arguements etc from those of all denomination and none. However, it is of no benefit whatsoever, if someone comes in and soapboxes and THAT is what I am 'anti'. This is a multi denominational fora, and as such, we should all respect that the reason we are here is that we have a common denominator. I.E. Jesus Christ. Like it or not, Luther, Calvin or the magisterium have no authority here. So accept that our common denominator is Jesus, and reason with HIM in mind. That way you are appealing to ALL contributors.


  • Options
    #209
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ISAW wrote: »
    AS opposed to "Science"? How is the change in teaching in the light of knowledge different? How is it okay for science to develop a position and not okay for the Church to do so?

    Because science does not claim never to make mistakes.

    My point is that all denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, evolve. They get some things right and they get some things wrong - and hopefully they eradicate, rather than compound, the errors over a period of time. Such a pragmatic view, obviously, is incompatible with the views of those who argue that the Church is without error.

    Therefore it is logical to ask whether such infallibility only applies to the Church today, or whether it applied in the past. If it can be demonstrated that the Church contradicted itself in the past, then few of us will have any confidence that it is perfect now.


  • Options
    #210
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Because SR etc are saying that the Church don't err and are always right, because they are led by the holy spirit.

    And science says "there are laws to the universe which don't change"
    If this is truly the case, then its not about in light of new knowledge. It becomes, 'well you obviously aren't inerrant, as you've had to revise your position. This means that you were wrong at a certain point.'

    So science was "wrong"? Or was it just that people were ignorant of the underlying law of nature and their interpretation was in error?
    Nobody has any issue with this revising of positions in light of new knowledge etc. Its only a problem, if someone is claiming that their authority is THE truth.

    A bit like the Big Bang or or Standard Model of particle physics? :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I asked you, not JimiTime.

    I assume you don't mean you didn't ask him but in spite of the double negatives the latter happens to be true in any case. :)

    Anyway, I believe i answered the question.
    I asked you because there seems to be two entirely different views being put across by people who claim to advocate the same point of view.

    You mean two other posters say "The Catholic Church position is X" and I say "the catholic point of view is Y and Y precludes X" . The thing is if you want to know the Church position and whether X and Y are mutually exclusive then I suggest you write to your local Bishop because what people claim is just their opinion but some other posters here accept that those in authority with "ordinary power" have the authority to issue a nihil obsat or imprimatur on such opinions. At least then you will know an official position.


Advertisement