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

Many Catholics 'do not believe' church teachings

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    I wasn't trying to draw attention to the evils of some murderous muslims (there are murderous "catholics" in the IRA).

    I was really trying to put the spotlight on the chap getting his head cut off. He was a convert to christianity and his choice was recant or get the chop.

    He opted for the chop.


  • Options
    #63
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    Again with the Jews, huh? Shameless.

    I didnt mention the jews though; why do you believe I was referring to them? Do you know something that most of us dont?


  • Options
    #64
    Conor30
    Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭Conor30


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I have had a argument with my mother about this. We are from NI (I lived in Dublin for 8 years) and currently living near London. She is divorced, does not go to mass very often, supports contraception, has no issue with sex before marriage, does not believe in transubstantiation, sees no issue with homosexuals and thinks the current pope is a tosser. Still calls herself a catholic. :confused:

    We had a bit of a debate for the recent census, as I said I was not going to but her down a catholic, she freaked out! As it happens, it did not matter as there was no breakdown of christian faiths in the UK census. If I want to wind her up a bit I suggest she should try CoE.

    Anyway, all this raises an interesting point, the old 84% catholic figure. Clearly, by the definition of the rcc, the 84% figure is complete garbage. Is there, or can there, be anything that can be done about that? Does it actually matter?

    MrP

    I think your mum sounds really cool! And it's up to her whether she considers herself a Catholic for census purposes or whatever. It wouldn't be your place to define what Catholicism is and what one should and shouldn't be. It's great the way your mum is a questioning person, an accepting person and is someone who's able to think for herself.


  • Options
    #65
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    I didnt mention the jews though; why do you believe I was referring to them?

    Your posting history here would lend itself to that impression. By all means though, feel free to say who you were referring to.


  • Options
    #66
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Conor30 wrote: »
    Fair enough, and that's your view, but you seem to be talking more about 'shoulds' than what is actually the current reality for many Irish Catholics. I thought this thread was about an article in the Irish Times, where it was found that many Catholics, rightly or wrongly, don't believe in all of the dogmas and doctrines of the RC Church. For me, the thread is just about a look at how ordinary people consider themselves 'Catholic' and in what way.

    Rather than focusing on an 'ideal', which is a very Catholic pursuit I might add, I think it's interesting to explore how everyday Catholics deal with being Catholic and what that means to them.
    I have had a argument with my mother about this. We are from NI (I lived in Dublin for 8 years) and currently living near London. She is divorced, does not go to mass very often, supports contraception, has no issue with sex before marriage, does not believe in transubstantiation, sees no issue with homosexuals and thinks the current pope is a tosser. Still calls herself a catholic. :confused:

    We had a bit of a debate for the recent census, as I said I was not going to but her down a catholic, she freaked out! As it happens, it did not matter as there was no breakdown of christian faiths in the UK census. If I want to wind her up a bit I suggest she should try CoE.

    Anyway, all this raises an interesting point, the old 84% catholic figure. Clearly, by the definition of the rcc, the 84% figure is complete garbage. Is there, or can there, be anything that can be done about that? Does it actually matter?

    MrP

    If your mother wanted to put you down as a Catholic in the census, you'd be rightly outraged. Why should she feel any different? Who are you or anyone else to define what she should consider herself to be?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

    Let us also remember that the oldest enemy of the Church is doing all it can at the moment to incite Christians to hatred Muslims by spreading all sorts of lies and distortions so that Christians will do their dirty work for them. Let us also remember the literally millions of this enemy's victims in Russia at the start of the last century- murdered because of the Christian faith.

    I'm curious as to which enemy you're referring to.


  • Options
    #68
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    I'm curious as to which enemy you're referring to.

    The New Testament is very clear on this issue.


  • Options
    #69
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    The New Testament is very clear on this issue.

    I'm asking you though.

    Which enemy -exactly- are you talking about?
    You're going on about people tricking Christians and Muslims to hating each other, when let's face it, historically speaking, they've never exactly been BFF's.


  • Options
    #70
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    You're going on about people tricking Christians and Muslims to hating each other, when let's face it, historically speaking, they've never exactly been BFF's.

    No they havent, but they have been able to get on well enough together at the same time for long enough periods, and both influenced each other for the good of both, Muslim-Christian relationships are more complex than they might seem at first sight through ages.

    Muslims dont believe that Jesus Christ is being boiled alive in excrement in hell and that His most pure Mother was a prostitute do they? Infact unlike some people who post in this section of this forum they dont consider that an acceptable opinion at all.

    This is quite an interesting book on the subject of Muslim/Christian relations.

    http://www.amazon.com/What-Religions-about-each-other/dp/1597310891


  • Options
    #71
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Such a shame that doesn't actually answer my question.

    I'm very much aware of the history between Christianity and Islam. And I'm sure that's a topic we can discuss some other time.

    But right now, I'm asking you to answer my question.
    Who -exactly- is this enemy you are speaking of?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    Your posting history here would lend itself to that impression. By all means though, feel free to say who you were referring to.
    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    If your mother wanted to put you down as a Catholic in the census, you'd be rightly outraged. Why should she feel any different? Who are you or anyone else to define what she should consider herself to be?
    Guys, seriously, there has to be some point when one simply cannot call themselves a catholic. Seriously, this is beyond ridiculous.

    Can I simply decide to call myself a freemason, or start calling myself MrPudding QC or MrPudding MD? No, of course I can't. The resaon is, to be consider a member of certain organisations, or to be able to call myself a certain thing there can be certain requirements that need to be fulfilled.

    The rcc is, when it suits them, such an organisation. They have a set of rules and a set of beliefs that one must follow and believe in order to be considered, by those in charge of the rcc, to be a proper catholic. If a person ignores many of the rules and doesn't believe the things they are supposed to, they how can they be a member?

    The thing that irritates me is the church hierarchy, and some of the more... ardent followers, would say these a la carte catholics are not real catholics. These same people, however, are quite happy to point at the census and say, quite hypocritically, that 84% of the population is catholic. You can't have it both ways.

    And yes, my mum is pretty cool.

    MrP


  • Options
    #73
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Guys, seriously, there has to be some point when one simply cannot call themselves a catholic. Seriously, this is beyond ridiculous.

    Can I simply decide to call myself a freemason, or start calling myself MrPudding QC or MrPudding MD? No, of course I can't. The resaon is, to be consider a member of certain organisations, or to be able to call myself a certain thing there can be certain requirements that need to be fulfilled.

    No, but you can call yourself a freemason if you undergo the rites to join that organisation.
    The rcc is, when it suits them, such an organisation. They have a set of rules and a set of beliefs that one must follow and believe in order to be considered, by those in charge of the rcc, to be a proper catholic. If a person ignores many of the rules and doesn't believe the things they are supposed to, they how can they be a member?
    Because, like most organisations in the world, the RCC does not follow a policy of booting out anyone who fails to follow their rules 100%.

    Atheists often fail to grasp this simple concept, as demonstrated by the many threads on boards.ie that ask how one can leave the RCC and then proceed to discuss excommunication. Excommunication is not being booted out of the Church, it simply denotes a disobedient Catholic who is still a Cathyolic but is under discipline.
    The thing that irritates me is the church hierarchy, and some of the more... ardent followers, would say these a la carte catholics are not real catholics. These same people, however, are quite happy to point at the census and say, quite hypocritically, that 84% of the population is catholic. You can't have it both ways.
    Human nature.

    Like atheists who define 'atheist' one way when it suits them, then, when we are discussing Norway's population, suddenly start counting deists, pagans and others as atheists?


  • Options
    #74
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    [QUOTE=MrPudding;79094465
    The rcc is, when it suits them, such an organisation. They have a set of rules and a set of beliefs that one must follow and believe in order to be considered, by those in charge of the rcc, to be a proper catholic. If a person ignores many of the rules and doesn't believe the things they are supposed to, they how can they be a member?
    [/QUOTE]

    Good question.

    "If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."

    Canon LXV of the Holy Apostles

    4th+Sunday.jpg

    So legally Pope Benedict should be deposed and excommunicated.

    Where does that leave his authority?


  • Options
    #75
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    MrPudding wrote: »
    The thing that irritates me is the church hierarchy, and some of the more... ardent followers, would say these a la carte catholics are not real catholics. These same people, however, are quite happy to point at the census and say, quite hypocritically, that 84% of the population is catholic. You can't have it both ways.

    And yes, my mum is pretty cool.

    MrP

    It irritates me too, but those people are just plain wrong. An "a la carte Catholic" (and I hate that phrase) is still a Catholic. The guardians of orthodoxy might not consider them to be particularly good Catholics, but they are Catholics nonetheless. It isn't dissimilar to a card carrying member of a political party who disagree's with certain policies of the leadership, they are still a party member unless they leave or are booted out.


  • Options
    #76
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    Good question.

    "If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."

    Canon LXV of the Holy Apostles

    So legally Pope Benedict should be deposed and excommunicated.

    Where does that leave his authority?
    Not to mention the symbolic element if this gesture which I am sure would be contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

    2564ozc.jpg


  • Options
    #77
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    Good question.

    "If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."

    Canon LXV of the Holy Apostles



    So legally Pope Benedict should be deposed and excommunicated.

    Where does that leave his authority?

    If Plilologos were to respond to this he might say "that's not in the bible" :), but joking aside, let us remember the great schism between the roman catholics and the eastern orthodox.
    The orthodox folks are not terribly attached to the pope and are critical of the latter's attempts at spreading the Gospel throughout the whole world.(Blessed be the peacemaker?)
    I suppose it would be easier to just sit back and condemn them all to hell?


  • Options
    #78
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    georgieporgy wrote: »
    If Plilologos were to respond to this he might say "that's not in the bible" :), but joking aside, let us remember the great schism between the roman catholics and the eastern orthodox.
    The orthodox folks are not terribly attached to the pope and are critical of the latter's attempts at spreading the Gospel throughout the whole world.(Blessed be the peacemaker?)
    I suppose it would be easier to just sit back and condemn them all to hell?

    Interesting that you bring the Orthodox up.

    The more I look into them, at least the more traditionalist ones, the stronger their position is.

    Do you have evidence of them being critical of the Pope spreading the Gospel throughout the whole world? Which Pope are you referring to or do you mean the Papacy in general?

    Why on earth did you bring them up?


  • Options
    #79
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    georgieporgy wrote: »
    If Plilologos were to respond to this he might say "that's not in the bible" :), but joking aside

    Philologos also believes that child rape is essentially the same as being cranky in the morning to your wife because are both "sin". He also doesnt think that women covering their head in Church is not important though such is commanded in the Bible, that people are free to believe in evolution if they want despite what both the New and Old Testaments teach; Philologos is only interested in the Bible in so far as he can kind quotes that make him feel all warm and fuzzy.

    The Canons of the Holy Apostles though not on the same level as Sacred Scripture go back to the very beginning of the Church; are you saying that people should have the same attitude to Holy Tradition as Philologos has to the Bible? If you accept the principle of Holy Tradition you also have to accept that the present Pope should be defrocked and ex-communicated, if you dont than you should just become a Protestant.


  • Options
    #80
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    Maybe Mr Pudding will help me out here :eek:

    Honestly, I wasn't trying to start world war 3. However you'll never find me criticising the pope (any pope). And I'd say that makes me catholic, nice and firmly attached to the true vine. icon14.gif


  • Options
    #81
    gimmebroadband
    Registered Users Posts: 1,267 ✭✭✭gimmebroadband


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Not to mention the symbolic element if this gesture which I am sure would be contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

    2564ozc.jpg

    Come off it.....you don't think that by kissing a 'gift' as a mark of respect means that the Pope agrees with it's content???


    The Koran was a gift to him from the delegation. Islamic peoples are not casual in the giving of gifts. It represents the giver. They knew perfectly well that the Pope was a Catholic Christian, but they gave to him that which was regarded as most important in their life, their own holy book. Thus, at the end of the audience, the Pope showed his deep appreciation to this intimate self-donation, by bowing and kissing the Koran as a sign of respect. Such a gesture ran totally against the grain of crusades and condemnations. It did not mean that the Pope accepted all that was in the book, only that his love for the Muslim people, and the Iraqis in particular, was genuine. He makes the first move, not in the capitulation of our faith, but in the recognition that the followers of Jesus and those who cherish Mohammed should not be engaged in name-calling, or worse, killing each other. The Pope appreciated the suffering of the Iraqi people, particularly the women and children. It showed he did not look down upon them but had a genuine respect for them within the brotherhood of man.

    http://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/instructions/debates/anti-catholicism/pope-john-paul-ii-kisses-the-koran/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    The Canons of the Holy Apostles though not on the same level as Sacred Scripture go back to the very beginning of the Church; are you saying that people should have the same attitude to Holy Tradition as Philologos has to the Bible? If you accept the principle of Holy Tradition you also have to accept that the present Pope should be defrocked and ex-communicated, if you dont than you should just become a Protestant.

    So the Pope is not a Catholic? And this is because he entered a synagogue? Does this apply to entering the religious buildings of other churches or faiths as well?


  • Options
    #83
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wow, I didn't realise that my Christian faith would be under such tight scrutiny :)

    I'm mainly interested in discussing what's Biblical when it comes to Christianity, because we can be the most confident that that is indeed what has been revealed to us from God rather than from man.

    I'm more than happy to defend my personal beliefs via PM. I think for now, I think it might be better if the thread was left on-topic :)


  • Options
    #84
    Cato Maior
    Registered Users Posts: 135 ✭✭Cato Maior


    philologos wrote: »
    The shoulds are what matter I think. The ideal, is important, particularly if the ideal has to do with who this God is.

    You seem to be implying that Irish Catholicism is atheism in religious trappings more than about a living faith in Jesus. That's quite a sad reflection isn't it?

    The problem with the POV you're describing is that it rejects the view that we can know anything true about Jesus, or about God. If we can come to know what is true about God, then it stops being about "what gets people through life" and more about a living relationship with Him.

    The former is me-centred, in a sense a me-centred religion. The latter is a God-centered religion.

    Do you see what I mean?

    I rejected Catholicism specifically and religion generally some years ago, but I have to say that I would have more respect for those who have their faith, are knowledgable of it and attempt to live it rather than those who do not reflect on it at all and for whom their religion is merely a habit or cultural echo.


  • Options
    #85
    Brer Fox
    Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭Brer Fox


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    Philologos also believes that child rape is essentially the same as being cranky in the morning to your wife because are both "sin". He also doesnt think that women covering their head in Church is not important though such is commanded in the Bible, that people are free to believe in evolution if they want despite what both the New and Old Testaments teach; Philologos is only interested in the Bible in so far as he can kind quotes that make him feel all warm and fuzzy.

    The Canons of the Holy Apostles though not on the same level as Sacred Scripture go back to the very beginning of the Church; are you saying that people should have the same attitude to Holy Tradition as Philologos has to the Bible? If you accept the principle of Holy Tradition you also have to accept that the present Pope should be defrocked and ex-communicated, if you dont than you should just become a Protestant.

    That's rich coming from you Hamlet. You seem quite happy to present your own interpretation of Tradition as definitive. From your own posts, I can't quite figure out who/what you are, but you sound quite sede vacantist.


  • Options
    #86
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    Brer Fox wrote: »
    That's rich coming from you Hamlet. You seem quite happy to present your own interpretation of Tradition as definitive. From your own posts, I can't quite figure out who/what you are, but you sound quite sede vacantist.

    Tradition is- its open interpretation up to a point, but only up to a point. You cant fly in its face and still claim what you say is an interpretation of it. The Apostolic Canons, which go back to the very first years of the Church are definitive on this- no getting around that. Pope Honorius was monothelite heretic and there is no getting around that, and was condemned as such after his death; no one, not even the Pope of Rome is above the law. There is no getting around the fact that Pope Benedict should be defrocked and ex-communicated; whether he is a material Pope or not, the question of Sedevacantism, is immaterial to that fact.

    "Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation."

    Psalm 146:3.


  • Options
    #87
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    georgieporgy wrote: »
    Maybe Mr Pudding will help me out here :eek:

    Honestly, I wasn't trying to start world war 3. However you'll never find me criticising the pope (any pope). And I'd say that makes me catholic, nice and firmly attached to the true vine. icon14.gif

    Yet St Paul criticized rather harshly St Peter, St Athanasius the Apostolic also did the Pope of his day, possibly even broke communion with him, and we know that Pope Honorius was an open heretic aswell as other Popes (the Borgia Popes for instance) were occult heretics. So no it doesnt make you necessarily a Catholic at all.


  • Options
    #88
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    gimmebroadband wrote: »
    Come off it.....you don't think that by kissing a 'gift' as a mark of respect means that the Pope agrees with it's content???

    http://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/instructions/debates/anti-catholicism/pope-john-paul-ii-kisses-the-koran/

    The Pastor of My Church certainly would not kiss the Qumran never mine even accepting it as a gift. :eek:

    t would be interesting to know what the Catholic Church is doing with this book at the moment.


  • Options
    #89
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    The Pastor of My Church certainly would not kiss the Qumran never mine even accepting it as a gift. :eek:

    t would be interesting to know what the Catholic Church is doing with this book at the moment.

    It was a stupid thing for him to do, and it certainly gave scandal. Did he mean it as an act of veneration or not? Its hard to know.

    However the reception of the "Mark of Shiva" by the same Pope was an act of apostasy.


  • Options
    #90
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    So the Pope is not a Catholic?

    Do you accept that might be a possibility or do you believe that it is the Pope who defines what Catholicism is?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    I was really hoping you'd answer my last question HamletOrHecuba.


Advertisement